https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44033
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102027
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102031
Bug ID: 102031
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in simplify_truncation, at
simplify-rtx.c:620 since
r12-3074-g7e5f9ead16d7514b3baa0254084de94f0bfcd216
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102031
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #8 from Petr Ovtchenkov ---
Why this marked as "FIXED"? The problem still present. No changes have been
made.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-24
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #4 from HaoChen Gui ---
Codes in rs6000-cpus.def,
#define ISA_2_7_MASKS_SERVER(ISA_2_6_MASKS_SERVER \
| OPTION_MASK_P8_VECTOR\
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #10 from Petr Ovtchenkov ---
This is not for you ;)
But somebody set field "resolved as" to "FIXED". This is not the case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102025
--- Comment #2 from Harun BOZACI ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> So it looks like COMMON_LVB_REVERSE_VIDEO is defined sometimes but not in
> all versions of the header files.
Should I create a manual patch for this symbolic na
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Petr Ovtchenkov from comment #10)
> This is not for you ;)
> But somebody set field "resolved as" to "FIXED". This is not the case.
I don't see that, it still says UNCONFIRMED for me and the h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97565
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5bc33f0318152235ce10220f0d1a2e0c87bde9f1
commit r11-8897-g5bc33f0318152235ce10220f0d1a2e0c87bde9f1
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #12 from Petr Ovtchenkov ---
> I don't see that,
This is thanks for javascript programmers. View is different with/without
javascript:
resolved as
FIXED
INVALID
WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34835
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||internal-improvement
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82704
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0deabebedd16c9519bfb1dfbff303c2d9bd701ee
commit r12-3106-g0deabebedd16c9519bfb1dfbff303c2d9bd701ee
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0adc557a26963b9ad0e07829872c968e67c5ffc
commit r11-8898-gd0adc557a26963b9ad0e07829872c968e67c5ffc
Author: Jan Hubicka
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e527b92b183de8c887213ccf6b024ddb4e363865
commit r11-8899-ge527b92b183de8c887213ccf6b024ddb4e363865
Author: Jan Hubicka
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-11-18 22:32:30 |2021-8-24
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
--- Comment #16 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
The issue is that the source code assuming -fno-wrapv may be more complex, thus
giving slower generated code. Here's an example, which consists in adding 3
signed integers, for which the user knows that th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
>
> --- Comment #16 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> The issue is that the source code a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102032
Bug ID: 102032
Summary: missed optimization on 2 equivalent expressions when
-fwrapv is not used
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57918
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||niva at niisi dot msk.ru
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
--- Comment #18 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #16)
> int f (int a, int b, int c)
> {
> if (b < 0)
> return a + b + c;
> else
> return a + c + b;
> }
>
> The generated code with -O3 has 6 instructi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
--- Comment #19 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> True. The user could have written the following though:
>
> int f (int a, int b, int c)
> {
> return (unsigned)a + b + c;
> }
This code is incorrect,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102032
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102032
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for the RTL level PLUS for SImode has no knowledge of signed vs unsigned,
it is just an add and will always wrap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85207
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102032
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Confirmed, one way of fixing this is to have a "lower" gimple where signed
> integer overflow does not matter and then we can reassociate all we want.
> There i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89347
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102031
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97565
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b0c38012093078549811ae1ca0215d1047a2be2
commit r10-10061-g3b0c38012093078549811ae1ca0215d1047a2be2
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97565
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to fail|11.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102031
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> It's just not my week... A pair of silly typos.
Don't worry, it's so easy to make a typo :P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102033
Bug ID: 102033
Summary: template function signature incorrectly drops
top-level cv-qualifiers causing template
specialization failing to match
Product: gcc
Versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102033
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-24
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
So if we agree to a sane way to cost branchy code on the scalar side then it
should be possible to compare the scalar cost of the not if-converted inner
loop body against the full partially vectorized and i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78787
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102034
Bug ID: 102034
Summary: template function signature incorrectly drops
top-level cv-qualifiers of parameter from
typedef-array of template-template
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81969
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102034
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102033
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 102034 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101989
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ddb30f941a44bd528904558673ab35394565f08
commit r12-3108-g6ddb30f941a44bd528904558673ab35394565f08
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96032
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19165
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christian.friedl at gmx dot at
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91084
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93090
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2020-01-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102033
--- Comment #3 from qingzhe huang ---
I can give tons of similar cases with even more complicated template levels
combined with using/typedefs/default arguments. i.e.
template
struct A{
template
struct B{
using T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90411
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
For other discussions about this issue, which is the same as in grep:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=456943
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15444 (which I already gave in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77980
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101989
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8da9b4f73c2c878b48f45fa2ed47d8a9edd31262
commit r12-3109-g8da9b4f73c2c878b48f45fa2ed47d8a9edd31262
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51350
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51350&action=edit
patch
This implements scanning for not vectorized COND_EXPRs with
-fvect-cost-model=very-cheap when vectorizi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101989
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102035
Bug ID: 102035
Summary: arm/m-profile/cmse add mitigation for CVE-2021-35465
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102035
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rearnsha at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102035
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3929bca9ca95de9d35e82ae8828b188029e3eb70
commit r12-3112-g3929bca9ca95de9d35e82ae8828b188029e3eb70
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102035
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:574e7950bd6b34e9e2cacce18c802b45505d1d0a
commit r12-3113-g574e7950bd6b34e9e2cacce18c802b45505d1d0a
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102035
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30461cf8dba3d3adb15a125e4da48800eb2b9b8f
commit r12-3114-g30461cf8dba3d3adb15a125e4da48800eb2b9b8f
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102035
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:809330ab8450261e05919b472783bf15e4b000f7
commit r12-3115-g809330ab8450261e05919b472783bf15e4b000f7
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102028
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Lars Maier from comment #0)
> Reason: the result of operator<< with std::stringstream and A const& is just
> an std::ostream&
No it isn't, https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue1203 changed th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101060
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot
org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #23 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #22)
> *** Bug 101060 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I can confirm Yujie Yang's patch works. Just add -nostdinc++ to configure and
configure.ac in gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
--- Comment #24 from alex_y_xu at yahoo dot ca ---
Thanks! :D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102033
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> And I have no GCC write access and the code is extremely difficult to
> maintain.
We don't just give people write access as soon as they propose a patch (does
any serious software proejct do that?!)
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102036
Bug ID: 102036
Summary: -Wmismatched-tags doesn't warn for explicit
instantations
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102037
Bug ID: 102037
Summary: False positive in -Warray-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102038
Bug ID: 102038
Summary: another case of template function signature
incorrectly dropping top-level cv-qualifier with
function parameter of decltype from qualified-id of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102039
Bug ID: 102039
Summary: another case of template function signature
incorrectly dropping top-level cv-qualifier with
function parameter dependent on template argument
Produ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9216ee6d1195d48388f825cf1b072e570129cbbe
commit r12-3116-g9216ee6d1195d48388f825cf1b072e570129cbbe
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102029
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
So this fixes it for -fvect-cost-model=very-cheap. One could argue that we
should enable the code for all cost models, fixing the -O3 regression (and
backportable to the branch).
I'll see to experiment w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #24 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #22)
> *** Bug 101060 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
We can fix it today XDXD
PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT!!!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102021
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e5401e87d02919b0594e04f828892deef956407
commit r12-3117-g6e5401e87d02919b0594e04f828892deef956407
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Aug 23 14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93090
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW there's also:
https://github.com/antoyo/rustc_codegen_gcc
which isn't a GCC Rust frontend per se, but uses libgccjit to embed GCC as a
code generation backend inside the existing rustc compiler (I'm th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102021
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102040
Bug ID: 102040
Summary: vectorizer costing is off because of if-conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102027
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Yes, it would be nice to transition away from relying on TYPE_MODE for
> argument passing. Does the psABI say anything about this case or is it in
> the area of impl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93090
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> FWIW there's also:
> https://github.com/antoyo/rustc_codegen_gcc
> which isn't a GCC Rust frontend per se, but uses libgccjit to embed GCC as a
> co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96032
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34835
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568
Bug 50568 depends on bug 34835, which changed state.
Bug 34835 Summary: splay-tree doesn't support 64bit value on 32bit host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34835
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102035
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80e7c4638444790e4bcc871220a279e84d9ce299
commit r11-8902-g80e7c4638444790e4bcc871220a279e84d9ce299
Author: Richard Earn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102035
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2539763c89a6777502f16457269e2c31d6d95b67
commit r11-8903-g2539763c89a6777502f16457269e2c31d6d95b67
Author: Richard Earn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102035
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8933c1b66a6b7a66b8843e21c8cb6c0679fc2d09
commit r11-8904-g8933c1b66a6b7a66b8843e21c8cb6c0679fc2d09
Author: Richard Earn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102035
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41ccd2b32415d55f2f97b8afb01f4cde87de9028
commit r11-8905-g41ccd2b32415d55f2f97b8afb01f4cde87de9028
Author: Richard Earn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102041
Bug ID: 102041
Summary: Pretty printing of variable templates could be
improved
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102038
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102033
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 102038 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102036
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8b7282ea27e02f687272cb8ea5f66ca900f1582
commit r12-3118-gd8b7282ea27e02f687272cb8ea5f66ca900f1582
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86389
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
The fortran fail can be reduced to the following with -O1 -fipa-pta, not
sure what goes wrong. It looks like part of the
a (idx (10:6:-2)) = b (idx (10:6:-2))
stores are wrongly elided.
! PR 19239. Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102042
Bug ID: 102042
Summary: specialization after instantiation error possibly
rooted from mis-calculating template function
signature of parameter of array of template function
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
