https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70449
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
In print_instantiation_full_context:
3315 pp_verbatim (context->printer,
3316TREE_CODE (p->decl) == TREE_LIST
3317? _("%s: In substitution of %qS:\n")
3318
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70428
--- Comment #2 from hongxu jia ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #1)
> I don't think -fdebug-prefix-map is meant to cover this case; you're meant
> to use it with paths in the form in which they appear in debug info, which
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12392
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 30 07:47:40 2016
New Revision: 234546
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234546&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-30 Michael Matz
Richard Biener
PR ipa/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70449
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70448
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70447
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70446
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.9.2
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
--- Comment #31 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does anyone have handy logs for:
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/profile1.C -std=gnu++11 execution test
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/profile1.C -std=gnu++14 execution test
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70444
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70438
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70443
--- Comment #2 from Hein-Pieter van Braam ---
As an aside, I think it would actually be perfectly acceptable to simple bomb
during ./configure if a user tries to build gccjit.so with in-tree
dependencies. Given the usecase of gccjit.so I doubt an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70443
--- Comment #3 from Hein-Pieter van Braam ---
(In reply to Hein-Pieter van Braam from comment #2)
> As an aside, I think it would actually be perfectly acceptable to simple
> bomb during ./configure if a user tries to build gccjit.so with in-tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70404
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
Configured with --with-arch=zEC12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70449
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe just
--- a/gcc/cp/error.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/error.c
@@ -3312,12 +3312,19 @@ print_instantiation_full_context (diagnostic_context
*context)
if (p)
{
- pp_verbatim (context->printer,
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70449
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
But, eh, why are we complaining about "no return statement in function
returning non-void" when there is a return statement?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70444
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
This code is likely broken, it looks like the last example in
https://gmplib.org/manual/C_002b_002b-Interface-Limitations.html
The temporary expression for v1+v2 dies before the next line, and you have a
dangl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
It's actually generating correct code. So what is missing is propagating
the load into the weird SSA indexing. Or making RTL expansion do the same.
The difference is that for the bad case v is assigned a r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70444
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 38128
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38128&action=edit
patch
I am testing the attached. Note that we still miss folding the array ref
to a bit-field-ref in case the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70366
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41523
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70451
Bug ID: 70451
Summary: x86 over align struct
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38128|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
I think the point of the bug is that we generate different code - expecting
"efficient" code from variable indexing is not really expected.
So not sure how a testcase would best look like.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60244
Vladimír Čunát changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vcunat at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||70333
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #27 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Vlad, do you intend to backpor this patch to 4.9/5?
I believe the original testcase doesn't reproduce the failure on those
branches, but the lra bug is still latent there?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70451
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 70451 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70451
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70450
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so
signop sign = TYPE_SIGN (ctype);
unsigned prec = TYPE_PRECISION (ctype);
wide_int mul = wi::mul (wide_int::from (op1, prec, sign),
wide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
Bug ID: 70452
Summary: regression in C++ parsing performance between 4.9.3
and 5.3.1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70449
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
I think the problem is that when we see
enum E { a = f<0> () };
we try to instantiate_decl "f", but at that time the "return 0;" wasn't seen
yet, so check_return_expr wasn't yet called thus current_function_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453
Bug ID: 70453
Summary: gcc generates invalid instruction vextractu64x4
(should be: vextracti64x4)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: assemb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70449
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
The same ICE, but with a different path can be triggered with -std=c++11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70454
Bug ID: 70454
Summary: --with-arch=native isn't applied to 32-bit x86 target
library
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70454
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> "if test -z "$with_arch"; then" is missing from x86-64 target.
You *did* read the comment above this part, didn't you?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70455
Bug ID: 70455
Summary: spurious "assuming signed overflow does not occur when
simplifying conditional to constant
[-Wstrict-overflow]"
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70454
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> # Similar jiggery-pokery for x86_64 multilibs, except here we
> # can't rely on the --with-arch configure option, since that
> # applies to the 64-bit side.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70456
Bug ID: 70456
Summary: GTM::gtm_thread::operator new should properly allocate
aligned memory
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.4 |7.0
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68672
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:27:12 2016
New Revision: 234547
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234547&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-12 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69885
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:28:24 2016
New Revision: 234548
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234548&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-22 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69771
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:28:24 2016
New Revision: 234548
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234548&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-22 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69764
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:28:24 2016
New Revision: 234548
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234548&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-22 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69797
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:29:47 2016
New Revision: 234549
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234549&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-15 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69802
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:30:40 2016
New Revision: 234550
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234550&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-16 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67767
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:31:21 2016
New Revision: 234551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234551&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-19 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:32:08 2016
New Revision: 234552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234552&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-19 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69705
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:33:42 2016
New Revision: 234554
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234554&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-24 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69826
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:33:02 2016
New Revision: 234553
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234553&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-19 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69891
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:34:48 2016
New Revision: 234555
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234555&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-26 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69969
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:35:50 2016
New Revision: 234556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-26 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70364
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:37:37 2016
New Revision: 234557
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234557&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly align stack in gcc.target/i386/cleanup-[12].c
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70028
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:38:21 2016
New Revision: 234558
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234558&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-03-02 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70439
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:38:36 2016
New Revision: 234559
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234559&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly check conflict between DRAP register and __builtin_eh_retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69888
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:39:20 2016
New Revision: 234560
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234560&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-03-04 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70152
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:39:58 2016
New Revision: 234561
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234561&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-03-09 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70062
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:39:20 2016
New Revision: 234560
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234560&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-03-04 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70442
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70169
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:40:50 2016
New Revision: 234562
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234562&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-03-11 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:41:40 2016
New Revision: 234563
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234563&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-03-15 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70272
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:42:43 2016
New Revision: 234564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-03-17 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70296
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:43:44 2016
New Revision: 234565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-03-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70329
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:44:30 2016
New Revision: 234566
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234566&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-03-22 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70429
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:45:39 2016
New Revision: 234567
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234567&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-03-29 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #13 from Nick Clifton ---
Patch applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70457
Bug ID: 70457
Summary: ICE (segfault) in gimple_expand_builtin_pow on
powerpc64le-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70455
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70455
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
As repeatedly mentioned VRP should instead track a -fwrapv lattice as well and
warn if optimization results differ between them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70457
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux-gnu |powerpc64le-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70430
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70457
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Using gdb, the gimple stmt causing the ICE is:
# .MEM_10 = VDEF <.MEM_1(D)>
ret_5 = pow (1.0e+0);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68672
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] |[4.9 Regression]
|g++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69764
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69797
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] ICE on |[4.9 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69802
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] gcc ICE |[4.9 Regression] gcc ICE at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67767
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 5.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70458
Bug ID: 70458
Summary: Function and function pointers that, when called,
imply an optimization barrier
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69826
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] Lra |[4.9 Regression] Lra
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69705
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70449
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
I have tested the patch in Comment 3 and will submit it - this fixes the ICE.
The problem in Comment 4 is a different issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69891
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 5.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69969
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70028
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69888
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 5.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70062
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70169
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] ICE at |[4.9 Regression] ICE at -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 5.4+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
