https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116945
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> In C++ (and C) reading uninitialized data is Undefined Behaviour. Which
> means you are in the Twilight Zone with nasal demons and all that. The
> compiler would be perfectly justified in optimizing away
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117086
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
vect__ifc__9.3372_199 = VEC_COND_EXPR ;
_327 = .REDUC_IOR (vect__ifc__9.3372_199);
if (_327 == 0)
->
_513 = VEC_COND_EXPR ;
if (_513 != 0)
proper best simplification would be to _513 = mask__34
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117086
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117086
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 59317
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59317&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117086
Bug ID: 117086
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected
vector_type, have boolean_type in
TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS, at tree.h:4255
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117062
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, manuel.lauss at googlemail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117062
>
> --- Comment #5 from Manuel Lauss ---
> Another one:
>
> g++ -c -O2 -mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #50 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Please note that RIP-relative addresses are one byte shorter than absolute
> addresses and are interchangeable on x86_64 Linux. If this is also true on
> Windows (UNSPEC_PCREL was introduced for PE linkers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117062
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The attached testcase runs into PR117050 indeed. I'll do a partial revert
instead of the fix as the fix takes some time due to dependence on a larger
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70989
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-11
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117083
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
--- Comment #3 from Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117064
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #396 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #392)
> Created attachment 59309 [details]
> a patch to fix pr55212-c384.C on devel/sh-lra
I can confirm that this patch fixes the bootstrap issue with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116945
Paul Floyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pjfloyd at wanadoo dot fr
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117043
--- Comment #2 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
When the size of the array is 20:
https://godbolt.org/z/EKfrWYTGb
int data[20];
void f()
{
int a[20];
for(int i = 0; i < 20; i++){
a[i] = 0;
}
for(int i =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117085
Bug ID: 117085
Summary: chrono formatting: %c does not honor locale after
expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117084
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108112
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iamanonymous.cs at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116932
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-11
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117083
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
void foo (unsigned *);
void __GIMPLE (ssa)
bar1 ()
{
v unsigned int vect__35;
unsigned int buf[4];
foo (&buf);
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116932
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 59316
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59316&action=edit
an experimental patch
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/sh/sync.md
(atomic_fetch__soft_tcb+1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116932
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117084
Bug ID: 117084
Summary: ICE: in coerce_delete_type, at cp/decl2.cc:2122
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #395 from Oleg Endo ---
There was a recent commit in PR 116650, which looks related.
I've updated (rebased) https://github.com/olegendo/gcc/tree/devel/sh-lra
Maybe these commits can be somehow modified/reduced
"SH: Try to workaround
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70790
--- Comment #5 from Eric Niebler ---
it looks like this one is fixed in gcc-14. i think this bug can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117083
Bug ID: 117083
Summary: ICE: in get_expr_operands, at tree-ssa-operands.cc:939
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #49 from LIU Hao ---
On Windows x64 almost all symbols in the flat address space are to be
referenced by RIP-relative addressing. I don't know whether things would work
otherwise.
This correspond to GCC's `-mcmodel=medium` and Clang'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887
--- Comment #26 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #23)
> Anyway I'd like to know more info about PR47610 and PR52999. In the old
> days people didn't write rationales in ChangeLog so it's hard to understand
> the rationales
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117068
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
in the case of GCC, the attribute is lost early on for many accesses.
Especially a target specific one. In RTL mem has attributes but nothing like
preserve_static_offset . CE (ifcvt) could turn in theory tur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887
--- Comment #25 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #22)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #18)
> > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #17)
> > > I don't think it can be completely avoided. But I don't understand why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117068
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can't think of a good way of solving this really. Having a specific pass
after register allocation might work but I am not 100% sure if it will work
always.
The other way of solving this is having special
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117068
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> I mentioned it in PR115673 which may help with bisection range.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655721.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117080
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117079
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659911.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117079
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cmuellner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117078
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115028
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117078
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117080
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117079
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117078
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
Bug ID: 117082
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/stack-check-17.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
Bug ID: 117081
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91384.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117080
Bug ID: 117080
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-2b.c and
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-2c.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117079
Bug ID: 117079
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr105493.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117078
Bug ID: 117078
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr101950-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #394 from Oleg Endo ---
The patch https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/665033.html
for PR 116550 might be relevant here, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117077
Bug ID: 117077
Summary: ICE due to allocatable component in hidden type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117076
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #393 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #392)
> Created attachment 59309 [details]
> a patch to fix pr55212-c384.C on devel/sh-lra
Thanks so much for looking into it.
Yes, insn matching order is important,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662257.html which
mentions this failure explicitly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117076
Bug ID: 117076
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr101716.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 117075 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662257.html which
mentions this failure explicitly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117075
Bug ID: 117075
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/part-vect-complexhf.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655721.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117073
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 117073 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117074
Bug ID: 117074
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/force-indirect-call-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662523.html
d34cda720988674bcf8a24267c9e1ec61335d6de is the first bad commit
commit d34cda720988674bcf8a24267c9e1ec61335d6de
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117073
Bug ID: 117073
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_double-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117072
Bug ID: 117072
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/cond_op_fma_float-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117071
Bug ID: 117071
Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/avx512fp16-vector-complex-float.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117070
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Pribec ---
This is supposed to work already with the F2008 standard:
> nagfor -f2008 dispatch_test.f90
NAG Fortran Compiler Release 7.2(Shin-Urayasu) Build 7203
Evaluation trial version of NAG Fortran Compiler Release
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Antoni from comment #5)
> I believe so, but there might always be cases that we need to fix.
> Why do you ask? Did you get any issue?
I was just wondering if I could close it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117070
Bug ID: 117070
Summary: Procedure target error with parameter structure
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112418
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So looking into what LLVM does here (GVN-sink), The order inside the bb matter.
Example:
```
int g(int);
int f(int a, int b, int c, int l, int j)
{
int d, e;
if (c)
{
e = b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113798
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108953
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
LLVM has a full pass that does this:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33987
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #48 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Comment on attachment 59315
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59315
Candidate patch
>+static rtx
>+ix86_tls_index (void)
>+{
>+ if (!ix86_tls_index_symbol)
>+ix86_tls_index_symbol = ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] |[15 Regression]
|gcc.target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
Bug ID: 117069
Summary: [14/15 Regression] gcc.target/i386/apx-ndd-tls-1b.c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116689
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SSA%20Pressure%20Reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101826
--- Comment #3 from Abdul Basit Ijaz ---
Using gfortran 14.1.0 result in debug info similar to @rguenth comment. This
debug information still result in in gdb. Can someone please
confirm about missing DWARF here as this is causing the incomplet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396
--- Comment #5 from Antoni ---
I believe so, but there might always be cases that we need to fix.
Why do you ask? Did you get any issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #3)
> The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8415bceea9d3ca86adc00ae8ad92deaec0457dd1
>
> commit r14-7117-g8415bceea9d3ca86adc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59307|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #46 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Note that there is no indirection on the offset for TARGET_WIN32_TLS so it's
> similar to TLS_MODEL_LOCAL_EXEC rather than to TLS_MODEL_INITIAL_EXEC.
It's more of a TLS_MODEL_LOCAL_DYNAMIC model in the en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116887
--- Comment #24 from Xi Ruoyao ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/665034.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116550
--- Comment #14 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I sent a patch "[PATCH][LRA][PR116550] Reuse scratch registers generated by
LRA"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116258
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Ball
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44dc46415ce8fafc1f6a46bac123b430ae5aba4d
commit r14-10763-g44dc46415ce8fafc1f6a46bac123b430ae5aba4d
Author: Richard Ball
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117053
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116258
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Ball :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a17a9bdcb3f749b895abf1fbf4f62859df9e8184
commit r15-4243-ga17a9bdcb3f749b895abf1fbf4f62859df9e8184
Author: Richard Ball
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117067
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59313
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59313&action=edit
Slightly reduced
So the issue is GCC needs to re-load the pointer to member function from memory
because of th
1 - 100 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
