https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94437
Giles Atkinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48158|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94030
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:514bd32c5273b1b6c3438016faf96ffdd45639ca
commit r9-8440-g514bd32c5273b1b6c3438016faf96ffdd45639ca
Author: Mark Eggleston
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Huh, looks like this is the (patched by us) memory copying done in
> > spec_qsort?
>
> Yes
>
> > I wonder if y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94030
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26191cec3421a157f4bafa7760cfd1bc4f90f0e5
commit r8-10157-g26191cec3421a157f4bafa7760cfd1bc4f90f0e5
Author: Mark Eggleston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94453
Bug ID: 94453
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl since r10-3591
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94453
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
>
> --- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
> This case has one conversion insn generated after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
Yes, thanks Richi! I had the same update locally but didn't update here. The
latest whole patch is
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr94443.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr94443.c
new file mode 100644
inde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93498
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6e546912555c9b9b27bdce516e98546f4cd3d25
commit r9-8441-gb6e546912555c9b9b27bdce516e98546f4cd3d25
Author: Mark Eggleston
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94030
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
>
> > + remove_phi_node (&gsi, false);
>
> I prefer to have the PHI removed before you re-use its LHS.
>
Oops, missed this, will move it back when posting to email list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93498
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-02
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94452
--- Comment #2 from ChenLiu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I see gx aligned to 64 bytes (as I expected). Can you be more specific as
> to what target you tested?
I tested on i386 target. I think you may misunderstand what I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #17 from Iain Buclaw ---
> The commit for it is here.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=98eb7b2ed249537d12004f2c58583140ac25d666
I just noticed that I had a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94452
--- Comment #3 from ChenLiu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I see gx aligned to 64 bytes (as I expected). Can you be more specific as
> to what target you tested?
The gcc version I use is 7.3.0 and only one option was used: -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|I386 ABI: How to determine |I386 ABI: How to determine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89148
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Some remarks:
1. There are AVR devices that don't support named address spaces. You will run
into ICEs with this approach. You'll have to disable it for respective avr
families.
2. The patch sets non-ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93522
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:224efaf7e1e9240b64602ea81a255cb43e4dcb0c
commit r10-7510-g224efaf7e1e9240b64602ea81a255cb43e4dcb0c
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94452
--- Comment #5 from ChenLiu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> (In reply to ChenLiu from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > > I see gx aligned to 64 bytes (as I expected). Can you be more specific as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94451
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93581
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93522
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff825b8158394a01a43359efd91d0b6b8c4fa21b
commit r10-7512-gff825b8158394a01a43359efd91d0b6b8c4fa21b
Author: Srinath Parvathaneni
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94453
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-02
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #2 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
start_decl seems to be doing the right thing, investigation continues...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So the current situation is similar to that of
static inline int foo(int i)
{
static int j;
j = i + 1;
return j;
}
int bar(int i)
{
return foo(i);
}
int baz(int i)
{
return foo(i);
}
here we ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> So the current situation is similar to that of
Modifying the testcase to C99
inline int foo(int i)
{
static int j;
j = i + 1;
return j;
}
int bar(int i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94451
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
Rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48168
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48168&action=edit
patch to drop DW_TAG_imported_unit DIEs
I'm testing this patch. Does it help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94435
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66e327517b10a19690a470c8dccfa363ba061022
commit r10-7513-g66e327517b10a19690a470c8dccfa363ba061022
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94435
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df562b12d90699c20923f91df48eed08ebcb572e
commit r10-7514-gdf562b12d90699c20923f91df48eed08ebcb572e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94435
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be64fc4cab7facee309447302b6ee7616dfe60b4
commit r9-8442-gbe64fc4cab7facee309447302b6ee7616dfe60b4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94435
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94249
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Khem Raj from comment #20)
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #18)
> > The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/g:142d68f50b48309f48e34fc1d9d6dbbeecf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Host|p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
I also checked that arm_handle_cmse_nonsecure_call correctly duplicates the
type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94453
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94439
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48169
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48169&action=edit
qsort patch
I'm sending spec_qsort patch we use. I'm going to prepare a patch that will
revert this and add -fno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #7)
> I'm seeing the same failure on Solaris/SPARC (32 and 64-bit).
Do you have any info on why the tail-call fails there?
(e.g. is it not possible to make an indirect tai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #4 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah...
So far I have checked that 'gimplify_call_expr' creates the right gimple, and
up until 'gimplify_modify_expr' I can verify it does by using
gimple_call_fntype .
Though at expansion time,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah...
So far I have checked that 'gimplify_call_expr' creates the right gimple, and
up until 'gimplify_modify_expr' I can verify it does by using
gimple_call_fntype .
Though at expansion time,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So let's try to address this in cfgloop.c - we're likely facing the situation
of
header:
...
if (...) goto latch1;
latch2:
goto header;
latch1: // in cold section
goto header;
where latch disa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94452
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
With something like:
diff --git a/benchspec/CPU/505.mcf_r/src/spec_qsort/spec_qsort.c
b/benchspec/CPU/505.mcf_r/src/spec_qsort/spec_qsort.c
index 05cad501..ad79ddae 100755
--- a/benchspec/CPU/505.mcf_r/src/sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Unfortunately I can't reproduce on todays trunk, will try rewiding backwards
> to the reporting time to have a closer look.
Strange, I can (tried r10-7514).
./c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Pilot error.
loop->header is in the cold partition, both latch sources are as well,
the loop entry source is in the hot partition. We're correctly
redirecting that from hot -> cold to hot -> cold state so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Bug ID: 94454
Summary: ICE 'canonical types differ for identical types'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I guess the more correct DWARF would be to have the 13d DIE include
> DW_AT_declaration?
Well, currently the debug info contains two concrete symbols, one with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-02
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #39 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c0fa3ecf70d199af18785702e9e0548fd3ab793
commit r10-7515-g2c0fa3ecf70d199af18785702e9e0548fd3ab793
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Makes me wonder if hot/cold splitting should use a special jump instruction
for crossing jumps which we could fixup/split very late so we see
(parallel
(set reg (label_ref ..))
(set pc (reg))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #6 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have also identified that this only goes wrong in O2 or higher. And it
happens sometime between tailcall optimization pass 1 and 2. But there's loads
of passes in between.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #40 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86c924113208f58fdda24078c9cc9285ee8000cd
commit r10-7516-g86c924113208f58fdda24078c9cc9285ee8000cd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
there's a gist here:
https://gist.github.com/jwakely/e131d3a268a78764458186eff02f29ec
with Jonathan's valgrind session and some debug output from one case where I
managed to catch the fail under a debugger.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See also PR94044 for this, including a patch to do so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94455
Bug ID: 94455
Summary: no [] operator overload for type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94456
Bug ID: 94456
Summary: ICE in aarch64/sve/pr87815.c since r10-7491
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94456
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94249
--- Comment #22 from Khem Raj ---
yes you are right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
Khem Raj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raj.khem at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #12 from Khem Raj ---
Created attachment 48170
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48170&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #11 from Roman Zhuykov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
Thank you, I'm glad to see new ideas and some discussion.
> On the testcase itself
>
> diff --git a/gcc/modulo-sched.c b/gcc/modulo-sched.c
> index 77254b31b42
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |ipa
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #41 from Martin Liška ---
The current master does:
$ time gfortran module_configure.fppized.f90 -c -march=znver2 -std=legacy
-fconvert=big-endian -fno-openmp -Ofast -march=znver2 -g
...
real2m21.190s
user2m20.487s
sys 0m0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #42 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is that good enough to mark this PR as resolved? In #c0 you said before
Richard's change it took ~200s, which is more than 2m21s, though it is unclear
if those 141s are with checking compiler or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #13 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Khem Raj from comment #11)
> this patch seems to be causing gcc ICE on ARM when compiling lz4 sources in
> kernel, lz4, vlc almost identical ICE is seen
>
> attached is the test case please compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94455
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Not compiler, but a missing library feature that was introduced in a more
recent version than what is bundled with gdc.
It could be backported for convenience, but if it can wait until after gcc-10,
then I hop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #43 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #42)
> Is that good enough to mark this PR as resolved? In #c0 you said before
> Richard's change it took ~200s, which is more than 2m21s, though it is
> unclear if th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 94364, which changed state.
Bug 94364 Summary: 505.mcf_r is 8% faster when compiled with
-mprefer-vector-width=128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 94364, which changed state.
Bug 94364 Summary: 505.mcf_r is 8% faster when compiled with
-mprefer-vector-width=128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94401
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81ce375d1fdd99f9d93b00f4895eab74c3d8b54a
commit r10-7519-g81ce375d1fdd99f9d93b00f4895eab74c3d8b54a
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Thu Apr 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 92264, which changed state.
Bug 92264 Summary: [10 Regression] Compile time hog in 521.wrf_r with -Ofast
-march=znver2 -g since r276318
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94401
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54af95767e887d63dc332731738e642536d87a48
commit r10-7521-g54af95767e887d63dc332731738e642536d87a48
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The DW_TAG_imported_unit are now gone for GCC 10. So can we consider this
fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94206
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b1087f8dc7505997dc475b554b5b86a06c78d69
commit r9-8443-g4b1087f8dc7505997dc475b554b5b86a06c78d69
Author: Richard Biener
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b0b6303dde0c32d936926de45b54cfe508fa677
commit r9-8444-g4b0b6303dde0c32d936926de45b54cfe508fa677
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94392
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:75efe9cb1f8938a713ce540dc3b27bc2afcd3fae
commit r10-7522-g75efe9cb1f8938a713ce540dc3b27bc2afcd3fae
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94457
Bug ID: 94457
Summary: using ~VariableName in trailing return type deduction
does not compile
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94457
--- Comment #1 from Peter Foelsche ---
g++ 7.4 works fine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94457
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94458
Bug ID: 94458
Summary: -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive when returning a
heap-allocated struct by value holding a
heap-allocated pointer
Product: gcc
Version
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
