https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94623
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94677
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94582
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marvin_schmidt at gmx dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-21
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94623
--- Comment #23 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #20)
> I can apply the patch anyway, as it's good to not ICE.
Agreed.
> However it won't prevent the possibility of linker errors due to mismatches in
> ldc-drunti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94678
Bug ID: 94678
Summary: aarch64: unexpected result with -mgeneral-regs-only
and sve
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94678
--- Comment #1 from Fei Yang ---
crash log for test2.c:
during RTL pass: expand
foo.c: In function 'f2':
foo.c:14:10: internal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3815
14 | return svadd_m (*x, *y, 1);
| ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94679
Bug ID: 94679
Summary: link time error: undefined reference to
std::projected<...>::operator *() const
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #13 from Joel Yliluoma ---
GCC 4.1.2 is indicated in the bug report headers.
Luckily, Compiler Explorer has a copy of that exact version, and it indeed
vectorizes the second function: https://godbolt.org/z/DC_SSb
On my own system, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
> > Created attachment 48311 [details]
> > patch
> >
> > Note that apart from the possible bad impact on optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94676
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Joel Yliluoma from comment #13)
> GCC 4.1.2 is indicated in the bug report headers.
> Luckily, Compiler Explorer has a copy of that exact version, and it indeed
> vectorizes the second function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> unsigned char c, n;
>
> int f (void)
> {
> if (n <= 7) return 0;
>
> unsigned char *p = &c, *q = p + n;
This testcase has UB whenever n > 7 and due to that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 9.3.0
Summary|[9 regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 regression] |[9/10 regression]
|-Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #15 from Joel Yliluoma ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> I also think llvms code generation is bogus since it appears the ABI
> does not guarantee zeroed upper elements of the xmm0 argument
> which means they could c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94679
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, we could do movq %xmm0, %xmm0; movq %xmm1, %xmm1; addpd %xmm1, %xmm0 for
the #c4 first function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #20 from Joel Yliluoma ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> (In reply to Joel Yliluoma from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> > > I also think llvms code generation is bogus since it appear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94680
Bug ID: 94680
Summary: Missed optimization with __builtin_shuffle and zero
vector
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
Targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94681
Bug ID: 94681
Summary: filesystem::sysmlink_status using stat instead of
lstat when --disable-libstdcxx-filesystem-ts
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94679
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template
struct projected
{
T operator*() const;
};
struct IMove
{
template
decltype(auto)
operator()(T&& t) const
{
return *t;
}
};
IMove iter_move;
template
concept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94681
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Joel Yliluoma from comment #20)
> Which exceptions would be generated by data in an unused portion of a
> register?
addps adds 4 float elements, there is no "unused" portion.
If some of the ele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #23 from Joel Yliluoma ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> (In reply to Joel Yliluoma from comment #20)
> > Which exceptions would be generated by data in an unused portion of a
> > register?
>
> addps adds 4 float ele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94682
Bug ID: 94682
Summary: coroutines: Promise param preview should get a
reference to *this.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94681
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94682
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Bugzilla is not the right place to educate users. Of course the C FE_*
exceptions map to real hardware exceptions, on x86 read e.g. about MXCSR
register and in the description of each instruction on which E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94683
Bug ID: 94683
Summary: ICE in forwprop when folding to a VEC_PERM_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94683
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31485
--- Comment #25 from Joel Yliluoma ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #24)
> on x86 read e.g. about MXCSR register and in the description of each
> instruction on which Exceptions it can raise.
So the quick answer to #15 is that addps i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94684
Bug ID: 94684
Summary: OpenACC 'async' clause optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94685
Bug ID: 94685
Summary: Misleading error: array must be initialized with a
brace-enclosed initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94665
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94665
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(Because it should handle NaNs, and SMAX etc. do not).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25830
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6cbe9654d14588f8bcaf267730fa4c694216eee
commit r10-7841-ge6cbe9654d14588f8bcaf267730fa4c694216eee
Author: Stephen Casner
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94685
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This diagnostic seems wrong too:
using A = int[1];
A a1{A{}};
ntconsarr.cc:1:26: error: taking address of temporary array
1 | using A = int[1]; A a1{A{}};
| ^~~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94623
--- Comment #24 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #23)
>
> Worse than that ?
>
> It is silently linking with the wrong set of files and producing run time
> errors.
>
> Maybe it would be a good idea to put some cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94623
--- Comment #25 from Iain Buclaw ---
Secondly, the ICE that you managed to catch occurred during CTFE (Compile-time
function evaluation). Nothing that is done here leaks out to the generated
run-time code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94686
Bug ID: 94686
Summary: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 6.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94661
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cd08718d57d1552fa2dbca96809e4915559685e7
commit r10-7842-gcd08718d57d1552fa2dbca96809e4915559685e7
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94661
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94665
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93786
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried now also:
--- gcc/gimplify.c.jj 2020-04-19 12:10:35.700627184 +0200
+++ gcc/gimplify.c 2020-04-21 12:24:41.444307978 +0200
@@ -886,7 +886,11 @@ mostly_copy_tree_r (tree *tp, int *walk_
/* Cop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94687
Bug ID: 94687
Summary: PPC vector fails to optimize shift (used bits)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71311
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haoxintu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94686
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94665
--- Comment #12 from z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> Confirmed the comment 4 problem, on all archs. This is a very old bug.
Ok to me, can this optimization change flag_unsafe_math_optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94686
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:187bdbd5645ff5271bee436e0c854a11b69e9570
commit r10-7843-g187bdbd5645ff5271bee436e0c854a11b69e9570
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94665
--- Comment #13 from z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com ---
When change to flag_finite_math_only, this fmaxnm can also be generated with
the patch above(swap the true_rtx/false_rtx).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94665
--- Comment #14 from z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> Confirmed the comment 4 problem, on all archs. This is a very old bug.
There are two ways to fix this bug:
1. Change flag_unsafe_math_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94672
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sorry for the wrong revision, started really with
r10-3563-g73a28634098cb1aba4a1773e62b6387af120dd9e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94688
Bug ID: 94688
Summary: ice caused by analyzer
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9300be2c74e35709ded209a378edab91a9073fbc
commit r9-8520-g9300be2c74e35709ded209a378edab91a9073fbc
Author: Martin Jambor
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
Bug ID: 94689
Summary: arrays of functions are not meaningful
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94672
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Further examples, one for which should be rejected:
subroutine s1 (array)
real, optional :: array(:)
!$omp parallel default(none) ! { dg-error "" }
if (.not.present (array)) stop 1 ! { dg-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess get_or_create_mem_ref should punt or do something else for pointers to
functions, trying to create an ARRAY_TYPE of FUNCTION_TYPE (or METHOD_TYPE) is
rejected by build_array_type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94645
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94645
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ppalka at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94597
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For debug stmts when DCE isn't involved, we already seem to do the right thing,
consider -O2 -g:
__attribute__((noinline)) static void
foo (int a)
{
int b = 2 * a;
int c = 3 * a;
a = a + 4;
asm volat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94248
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2020-03-21 00:00:00 |2020-4-21
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94278
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94248
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Stubbs ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #3)
> > Actually, I think that recent changes to the register alignment mean that
> > this can't happen any more, so the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Frederik Harwath :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:15256c8a8ac6573d250506c40dbe13082186c2aa
commit r10-7845-g15256c8a8ac6573d250506c40dbe13082186c2aa
Author: Frederik Harwath
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94278
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Stubbs ---
Well, it works for me:
PASS: libgomp.c/examples-4/async_target-2.c (test for excess errors)
PASS: libgomp.c/examples-4/async_target-2.c execution test
That's with an unmodified LLVM 9 we built ourselves.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94688
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94690
Bug ID: 94690
Summary: [OpenMP] omp ... distribute – lastprivate not
permitted and more issues
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94604
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
I think this is provided by arm_acle.h:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/config/arm/arm_acle.h;h=6b08ffd4174c8d829fe5730f99cd8f28e300afab;hb=HEAD
You can see that saturating and DSP intrins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94690
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
However, adding LASTPRIVATE to OMP_DISTRIBUTE_CLAUSES (see patch) *is*
sufficient for sollve_vv's test_target_teams_distribute_lastprivate.F90.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94691
Bug ID: 94691
Summary: ICE resolving deduction guide
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94577
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c0ab626113ef20ee2986cb8a102b5394aeb888a
commit r10-7847-g6c0ab626113ef20ee2986cb8a102b5394aeb888a
Author: XieZhiheng
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
>
> Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94576
Trass3r changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94692
Bug ID: 94692
Summary: Zero-sized arrays shouldn't require a complete element
type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94515
--- Comment #1 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
i had a fix but it's not enough, so here is another test case:
__attribute__((noreturn)) void unwind(void);
int bar(void);
int global;
int foo(int x)
{
if (x==1) return 2;
int y = bar();
if (y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94693
Bug ID: 94693
Summary: IPA SRA should elide unused out parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94693
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94691
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94691
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Same ICE as bug 94560 but this actually might be valid (?).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94693
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||90591
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Bug ID: 94694
Summary: [libgfortran] libgfortran does not compile on
bare-metal aarch64-none-elf (newlib)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94695
Bug ID: 94695
Summary: Implement -Wrange-loop-analysis
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94695
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #50 from akrl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
I've opened a dedicated bug for the discussed build issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
akrl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
