https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97133
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |ipa
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57703
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
>
> --- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97132
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97132
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97044
Clément Chigot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96979
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97132
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I think there is no compliant way to test alignment assumptions during
> constant evaluations and after all, one should always see the actual objects
> and ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97124
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97135
Bug ID: 97135
Summary: [11 Regression] Wrong code at -Os since
r11-408-g84935c98221
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97132
--- Comment #4 from fsb4000 at yandex dot ru ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> I'll test this:
>
> {
>static_assert(std::has_single_bit(_Align));
>_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_ASSERT((std::uintptr_t)__ptr % _Align == 0);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97069
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96968
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrea Corallo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5e73de00e9c853ce65333efada7409b0d00f758
commit r11-3317-gf5e73de00e9c853ce65333efada7409b0d00f758
Author: Andrea Corallo
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97135
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97136
Bug ID: 97136
Summary: [11 Regression] bootstrap-asan fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97137
Bug ID: 97137
Summary: Missed add-with-carry after FP compare
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97137
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-21
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97124
--- Comment #3 from Liu Hao ---
Did you reproduce the ICE when cross-compiling?
I suspect no, as the MSYS2 patch contains some twiddling about stack limits and
forces static linking of libgcc during bootstrapping, which should not affect
cross-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97124
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Of course not, I don't have any libraries/headers for that.
What I meant is if you upload preprocessed source, one might try to reproduce
it with a cross that doesn't have anything (binutils, libraries, heade
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97138
Bug ID: 97138
Summary: cross-BB vectorization opportunity
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97139
Bug ID: 97139
Summary: [11 Regression] Miscompare of
foreman_test_baseline_encodelog.out in 464.h264ref
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97139
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97140
Bug ID: 97140
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in error: unable to generate
reloads for since r10-400-gecfdb16c54ad06ac
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97139
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Version|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96307
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
May I ask about progress of the RISC-V sanitization enablement?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97136
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Version|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97135
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97141
Bug ID: 97141
Summary: [10/11 Regression] aarch64, SVE: ICE in decompose, at
rtl.h (during expand) since r10-4676-g9c437a108a
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97135
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It's lim4 that does the bogus transform. It seems to be confused by the dead
store in BB3:
[local count: 118111600]:
a = 1;
a = 6;
*d.2_3 = 0;
ivtmp.15_9 = ivtmp.15_24 + 1;
if (c.7_7 != 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96915
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
Bug ID: 97142
Summary: __builtin_fmod not optimized on POWER
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96919
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97143
Bug ID: 97143
Summary: aarch64-none-elf Code generated for array after
another array within a global structure marked
volatile is broken.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97144
Bug ID: 97144
Summary: [10/11 Regression] SVE: ICE (could not split insn) in
final_scan_insn_1 since r10-2553-g0fdc30bcf56
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96919
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Using latest GCC release you can see what happens:
$ g++ pr96919.cc --coverage && ./a.out && gcov a-pr96919.cc -t
hello
libgcov profiling
error:/home/marxin/Programming/testcases/a-pr96919.gcda:overwriting an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97062
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-21
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97065
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97119
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97144
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-21
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, with -ffast-math (or -Ofast) on x86 you get fmod inlined, I guess xlf -O5
is to some extent doing -ffast-math?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97141
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97140
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96861
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96915
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d726ecd9554a805d4a5e044cb21ca23a7f7ca49f
commit r11-3320-gd726ecd9554a805d4a5e044cb21ca23a7f7ca49f
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96915
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97145
Bug ID: 97145
Summary: Sanitizer pointer-subtract breaks constexpr functions
subtracting pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97135
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97135
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0df746afc50a47d1eb53a401e017c4373cf05641
commit r11-3321-g0df746afc50a47d1eb53a401e017c4373cf05641
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97124
--- Comment #5 from Liu Hao ---
I didn't keep a copy of the file. It was stage1 xgcc that ICEs, not the host
gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97139
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] Miscompare |[11 Regression] Miscompare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Richa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97145
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97146
Bug ID: 97146
Summary: [11 regression] ipa/ipa-sra-*.c fail since r11-3303
(g:6450f07388f9fe575a489c9309c36012b17b88b0)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97146
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
On arm, there is also:
FAIL: gcc.dg/fixed-point/composite-type.c (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97044
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97140
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97147
Bug ID: 97147
Summary: GCC uses vhaddpd which is bad for latency
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97088
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
also has this on ppc linux:
typedef struct {
__u32 u[4];
} __attribute__((aligned(16))) __vector128;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97140
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
The updated patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/554383.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97139
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
So one can reproduce it with current master with:
-O3 -march=znver2 -g -flto=auto -flto-partition=one
where first bad debug counter value is:
-fdbg-cnt=vect_slp:357
The change is:
before:
_648 = pix.x;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97132
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f10ed928e2f8ecc2c859abff8f2f9296b11b8d95
commit r11-3324-gf10ed928e2f8ecc2c859abff8f2f9296b11b8d95
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97139
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, I've got the problem, it's bit later in the function:
The diff is:
diff -u before.txt after.txt
--- before.txt 2020-09-21 15:29:56.462394644 +0200
+++ after.txt 2020-09-21 15:29:48.086453128 +0200
@@ -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
--- Comment #3 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #2)
> Richard, though register moves are resolved by renaming, they still occupy a
> uop in all stages except execution, and since renaming is one of the
> narrowest po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97139
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 49245
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49245&action=edit
patch I am testing
So the issue must be a bit subtle, I am testing the following patch on SPEC and
will try to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97139
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
#include "tree-vect.h"
int pix[4];
int __attribute__((noipa)) foo (void)
{
pix[0] = pix[0] / 4;
pix[1] = pix[1] / 4;
pix[2] = pix[2] / 4;
pix[3] = pix[3] / 4;
return pix[0] + pix[1] + pix[2] + pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97148
Bug ID: 97148
Summary: Add
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97119
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 49246
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49246&action=edit
Hack to disable .localalias* generation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97099
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6ff694e592669e7865d39a884100dd677e7ceec
commit r11-3326-gb6ff694e592669e7865d39a884100dd677e7ceec
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97119
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
(In reply to Ali Bahrami from comment #0)
> Rainer did a one off experiment that showed that it would be
> fairly easy to provide this. I'll leave it to him to describe.
Right: initially I looked around tryin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97099
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97119
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97149
Bug ID: 97149
Summary: sincos failed to be vectorized by gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97149
--- Comment #1 from 康 珊 ---
Created attachment 49247
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49247&action=edit
test source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Btw, with -ffast-math (or -Ofast) on x86 you get fmod inlined, I guess xlf
> -O5
> is to some extent doing -ffast-math?
Xlf at -O3, -O4 and -O5 automatically en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97131
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97150
Bug ID: 97150
Summary: [AArch64] 2nd parameter of unsigned Neon scalar shift
intrinsics should be signed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97150
--- Comment #1 from David Spickett ---
Created attachment 49248
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49248&action=edit
reproducer C file
Added test file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97143
Simon Willcocks changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-elf |aarch64-elf, arm-eabi
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
--- Comment #4 from Dave Love ---
Created attachment 49249
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49249&action=edit
xlf -O5 -S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
--- Comment #5 from Dave Love ---
I meant to show that x86_64 expands the built in fmod too. (I wasn't sure
whether "inline" was the right term, as it seems not to be done by
-finline-functions.)
Yes, xlf -O3 (?) and above imlies something like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97150
--- Comment #2 from David Spickett ---
Created attachment 49250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49250&action=edit
preprocessed test file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97139
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 97139, which changed state.
Bug 97139 Summary: [11 Regression] Miscompare of
foreman_test_baseline_encodelog.out in 464.h264ref since
r11-3319-g48b0c1250a5c7d72be6b3fbbb1117d1cce43daee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97139
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6f58fb6196ba16ce070e3722451f040a13f963b
commit r11-3327-ge6f58fb6196ba16ce070e3722451f040a13f963b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97151
Bug ID: 97151
Summary: GCC fails to optimize away uselessly allocated arrays
(C++)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97151
--- Comment #1 from Marat Radchenko ---
Another program that exhibits the same behavior:
int main()
{
int *a = new int[10];
a[0] = 0;
delete[] a;
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
> More so, gcc variant occupies 2 reservation station entries (2 fused uOps) vs
> 4 entries by de-transformed sequence.
I don't think this is true for the test at hand? With base+offset memory
operand th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96307
--- Comment #4 from Kito Cheng ---
ASAN related patches are seems need take more time than expect, I plan to fix
that this week, and I think ASAN is a new feature so that it won't back port to
GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97145
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=96821
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97130
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97143
Simon Willcocks changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97136
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
My guess is that the new external functions have to be added to
libsanitizer/libbacktrace/backtrace-rename.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97152
Bug ID: 97152
Summary: Wrong code generation since commit b6ff3ddecfa
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97136
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97153
Bug ID: 97153
Summary: [10 Regression] -Wformat causes libstdc++ tests to
FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
