https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120752
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm,
there seems to be no big differences in IPA decisions between the runs, so
further investigation is necessary :(
The patch attempts to preserve more of profile and here profile is bit
counter-productive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120798
Bug ID: 120798
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have
'exceptional' (error_mark) in check_bit_cast_type, at
cp/constexpr.cc:5035
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108585
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
commit r16-1643-gd073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 18 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119596
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
commit r16-1643-gd073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 18 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 92080, which changed state.
Bug 92080 Summary: Missed CSE of _mm512_set1_epi8(c) with _mm256_set1_epi8(c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120799
Bug ID: 120799
Summary: Incorrect UBSan alignment requirements for
_mm_storeh_pd() and _mm_storel_pd()
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aba3b9d3a48a0703fd565f7c5f0caf604f59970b
commit r16-1644-gaba3b9d3a48a0703fd565f7c5f0caf604f59970b
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri May 9 07:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120741
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lili Cui :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b739c020a90dfe2569a292c44b2293a94d4bff5
commit r16-1640-g4b739c020a90dfe2569a292c44b2293a94d4bff5
Author: Lili Cui
Date: Tue Jun 24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119704
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
commit r16-1643-gd073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 18 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118276
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
commit r16-1643-gd073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 18 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70308
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
commit r16-1643-gd073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 18 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
--- Comment #35 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
commit r16-1643-gd073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 18 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101366
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
commit r16-1643-gd073bb6cfc219d4b6c283a0b527ee88b42e640e0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 18 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120797
Bug ID: 120797
Summary: ICE: in iterative_hash_template_arg, at cp/pt.cc:1775
under '-std=c++2a'
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120733
--- Comment #6 from Dimitar Dimitrov ---
A naive filter to skip debug insns before calling move_plus_up does fix the
issue. But I'm not sure if it is a proper fix:
diff --git a/gcc/lra-eliminations.cc b/gcc/lra-eliminations.cc
@@ -440,5 +440,5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #4)
> I'm also having difficulty reproducing. The SPEC 2006 I have access to
> doesn't seem to want to work with a modern perl.
>
> I also don't have zen4 or zen5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
I'm also having difficulty reproducing. The SPEC 2006 I have access to doesn't
seem to want to work with a modern perl.
I also don't have zen4 or zen5, I was going to see if it reproduced on vanilla
x86-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118241
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf7162b321128ba93521a824e5a7a00d1cc3d1f8
commit r16-1639-gbf7162b321128ba93521a824e5a7a00d1cc3d1f8
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Mon Jun 23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120720
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
std::max has been constexpr since c++14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120720
--- Comment #4 from Simon H. ---
Indeed, not JUST constexpr.
But I tried substituting in std::max() and had the same problem with the
constexpr side of things -- that I cannot implement a constexpr function which
relies on it. I'm sure folding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23094
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(I'll submit the testcase once reduction is done, but that'll probably be
tomorrow now.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cdd678544fefc313cb1c9da0327158d3ed355f62
commit r16-1637-gcdd678544fefc313cb1c9da0327158d3ed355f62
Author: Sam James
Date: Mon Jun 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116163
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0142e147486e6f319704d35930720f6dec648fb
commit r16-1636-gd0142e147486e6f319704d35930720f6dec648fb
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116792
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0142e147486e6f319704d35930720f6dec648fb
commit r16-1636-gd0142e147486e6f319704d35930720f6dec648fb
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120792
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0142e147486e6f319704d35930720f6dec648fb
commit r16-1636-gd0142e147486e6f319704d35930720f6dec648fb
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120779
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120780
--- Comment #8 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
Thanks, looking into this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Thanks. Consider it pre-approved if it regtests. Or if you'd prefer I can do
the submission steps...
Thanks again for bisecting & testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It'd be a surprised if it's the ext-dce change, unless it's that second
parameter to the remove_reg_equal_equiv_notes call.
Looking at it again, I may have inverted the desired value. If bisection lands
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52930
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
libquadmath is legacy code, using the actual C23 interfaces in current glibc is
preferred (although if someone does want to add more functions to libquadmath
anyway for use on non-glibc and older-glibc syst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120744
--- Comment #4 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Such a warning is justified independent of any further changes to the standard
in this area (I'm dubious of making further changes to that mess), simply
because of the existing undefined behavior in C23, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120786
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jklowden at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120750
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-23
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120745
--- Comment #2 from Richard Sandiford ---
Created attachment 61697
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61697&action=edit
Candidate patch
Hmm, yeah. Could you try the attached patch? It seems to work for this
testcase and pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120796
Bug ID: 120796
Summary: FR support non-standard REDEFINES position
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119337
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jklowden at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> >
> > Here is a smaller reproducer.
> >
> ...
> >
> > Delete the if statement inside the do while and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6dd1659cf10a7ad51576f902ef3bc007db30c990
commit r16-1633-g6dd1659cf10a7ad51576f902ef3bc007db30c990
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120777
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61695
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61695&action=edit
gcc16-pr120777-wip.patch
Some further progress, the testcase now passes.
Except uncommenting the last two line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120772
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120651
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61696
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61696&action=edit
CPUThreadPoolExecutor.cpp.ii.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120795
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|-
ost-pie --enable-host-bind-now
--enable-default-ssp --disable-fixincludes
--with-gxx-libcxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/v1
--with-build-config='bootstrap-O3 bootstrap-lto bootstrap-cet'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119944
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rzinsly at ventanamicro dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104102
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111299
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anthony.hayward@ast-science
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117366
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Matt Parks from comment #4)
> gcc-patches e-mail:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/686685.html
See https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches for the right format to use and
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117366
--- Comment #4 from Matt Parks ---
gcc-patches e-mail:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/686685.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102530
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC does provide a warning for:
```
struct A {
~A();
int t;
};
struct B
{
A a;
A& get_a() { return a; }
};
int main()
{
A& ar = B().get_a();
// ar now refers to a destroyed object
return ar.t;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117366
--- Comment #3 from Matt Parks ---
I submitted an e-mail to gcc-patches with the patch file for this bug and
related bug 117468. It's been a couple weeks and nobody ever responded. Not
sure how else to try to get attention to these issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111299
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 120785, which changed state.
Bug 120785 Summary: No compiler warning when wrapping a packed C-style array in
a std::span, array memcpy instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120785
What|Remov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-23
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120739
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-23
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120754
--- Comment #2 from Alfred Agrell ---
Per the linked Clang bug, this isn't ice-on-invalid - it's ice-on-valid (though
implausible, of course). And if the variable is named, it's a rejects-valid.
https://eel.is/c++draft/except#handle-2
> A hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120769
--- Comment #3 from Simon Sobisch ---
The issue at hand is that the command line is constructed from "defaults",
which may include a fixed form request; and then later on the user overrides
and want to use auto-detection. To your good outlined r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120794
Bug ID: 120794
Summary: extra separator periods lead to syntax error
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120793
Bug ID: 120793
Summary: FR gcobc: handle -fnot-reserved
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120789
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120788
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119944
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118595
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120792
Bug ID: 120792
Summary: sarif-replay's sarif output doesn't faithfully
round-trip all the data
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: SARI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120739
--- Comment #3 from Bruce McCulloch ---
There is no spec for this behavior. After speaking with BPF maintainers at the
BPF office hours, it was decided that emitting as an array type is appropriate
for BTF as well as the upcoming CTFv4, with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120791
Bug ID: 120791
Summary: FR: support for MOVEing pointer to pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120788
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120790
Bug ID: 120790
Summary: parser bug: ORGANIZATION IS RECORD SEQUENTIAL
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120789
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
Same goes for ranges::remove_if:
std::ranges::subrange r;
auto [begin, end] = std::ranges::remove_if(r, [](auto&&) { return true; });
https://godbolt.org/z/Trb13x8fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120788
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120789
Bug ID: 120789
Summary: ranges::unique should use ranges::iter_move
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109933
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|120763 |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120788
Bug ID: 120788
Summary: gfortran problem with integer overflow comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120787
Bug ID: 120787
Summary: FR: EXHIBIT + EXHIBIT named support
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120786
Bug ID: 120786
Summary: strange message for NOT=
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 61694
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61694&action=edit
Untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120769
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120785
Bug ID: 120785
Summary: No compiler warning when wrapping a packed C-style
array in a std::span, array memcpy instead
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120761
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 61692
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61692&action=edit
Proposed fix which removes GM2_FOR_BUILD
This patch removes GM2_FOR_BUILD from Makefile.tpl and the debugging
e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120761
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110423
--- Comment #5 from Vineet Gupta ---
FWIW the core of the issue (const remat) remains, its just masked after
r13-4459-g6508d5e5a1a8c0 which rewrites the crc logic to not use constants.
2022-12-02 6508d5e5a1a8 match.pd: rewrite select to bran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120782
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
No strong opinion. I'll ponder pros/cons through the day and make a decision.
You'll be able to either start your day tomorrow with it fixed or with the
tuning knob patch installed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120773
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
--- Comment #1 from Matt Thompson ---
Nuts. Just realized I did gfortran-14 but reported under 15. It fails there
too:
❯ gfortran-15 -v -save-temps -c test.F90
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran-15
Target: aarch64-apple-darwin24
Configu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
Bug ID: 120784
Summary: fortran: issue with use-association renames and
interface
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120782
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #2)
> Yea, this bug may have been filed while we were discussing it in a team
> meeting.
>
> I think the question is whether or not to include the new guards in the
> c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120782
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120782
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-6-23
--- Comment #1 from Robin Dapp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120783
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120775
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120783
Bug ID: 120783
Summary: [C++26] P3491R3 - define_static_{string,object,array}
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116792
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2334d30cd8feac28831ffef857cd09753a3ca3d3
commit r16-1631-g2334d30cd8feac28831ffef857cd09753a3ca3d3
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116792
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a64c96cfe7a4d5783319c2fb8472bc75d702e9a
commit r16-1630-g5a64c96cfe7a4d5783319c2fb8472bc75d702e9a
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
