https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104593
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
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=104592
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 52476
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52476&action=edit
minimal patch
This is a minimal untested patch adjusting APIs to allow for the cost hook to
receive a slp_no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104000
--- Comment #5 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Based on stackoverflow answer, a modified example was found with the delegation
to consteval constructor:
```
struct A {
int i = 0;
consteval A() = default;
A(const A&) = delete;
A(i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104595
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Another testcase is
struct S { double a, b; } s;
void
foo (double a, double b)
{
s.a = a;
s.b = b;
}
which also receives the same costs and compiles vectorized to
unpcklpd %xmm1,%xmm0
movaps %x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
The patch will cause
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91446.c scan-assembler-times vmovdqa[^\\n\\r]*xmm[0-9]
2
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr92658-avx512bw-2.c scan-assembler-times pmovsxdq 2
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr926
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104596
Bug ID: 104596
Summary: Means to add a comment in the assembly
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104590
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104588
--- Comment #3 from LIU Hao ---
Sounds so. Changing `char a[32]` to `long a[4]` or `void* a[4]` makes GCC
generate MOVAPS like Clang, but `int a[8]` or `short a[16]` does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104597
Bug ID: 104597
Summary: LTO does not inline indirect call
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104597
--- Comment #1 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
clang-12 optimizes it to:
Dump of assembler code for function main:
0x00401110 <+0>: mov$0x1,%eax
0x00401115 <+5>: ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102286
Artur Bać changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at ebasoft dot com.pl
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
For
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91446.c scan-assembler-times vmovdqa[^\\n\\r]*xmm[0-9]
2
we used to produce
:
0: 48 83 ec 28 sub$0x28,%rsp
4: c4 e1 f9 6e d7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104597
--- Comment #2 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Similarly when indirect call is a result of virtual function call, gcc cannot
optimize it, while clang can:
// main.cpp
struct foo
{
virtual int getInt0() const = 0;
virtual int getInt1()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva ---
and then, as I reduced it myself down to the following and compared with the
minimized test, I've finally turned on both of my neurons ;-) and it finally
hit me: "only with -mv850e2v3" didn't mean "not wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104598
Bug ID: 104598
Summary: [12 regression] g++.dg/ext/undef-bool-1.C has excess
errors after r12-7284-gefbb17db52afd8
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104598
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df5ed150ee5fbcb8255e05eed978c4af2b3d9bcc
commit r12-7294-gdf5ed150ee5fbcb8255e05eed978c4af2b3d9bcc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104257
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df5ed150ee5fbcb8255e05eed978c4af2b3d9bcc
commit r12-7294-gdf5ed150ee5fbcb8255e05eed978c4af2b3d9bcc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104598
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104595
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is exactly the same as the char case here though, so it is a bit silly
that we miss it :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104599
Bug ID: 104599
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.dg/deprecated.c has excess errors
after r12-7287-g1b71bc7c8b18bd
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550
--- Comment #17 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, based on the discussion so far, I'd like to take the following steps:
1. In GCC12, I will take a conservative solution to fix this bug, i.e:
mark the load "MEM" as not needing a warning du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #27 from Segher Boessenkool ---
OTOH, it makes no sense to test if we have hard float. The pack and unpack
builtins should work (and work the same) whenever long double is double-double.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104024
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Most of those options were removed. Does this problem (adjusted properly,
those options are now enabled iff you use -mcpu=power10 or later) still
happen on trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103573
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #21 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
*** Bug 103573 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104581
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1931cbad498e625b1e24452dcfffe02539b12224
commit r12-7295-g1931cbad498e625b1e24452dcfffe02539b12224
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Feb 18 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #28 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #27)
> OTOH, it makes no sense to test if we have hard float. The pack and unpack
> builtins should work (and work the same) whenever long double is
> double-do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550
--- Comment #18 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One question here, for the following testing case:
[opc@qinzhao-ol7u9 104550]$ cat t1.c
struct vx_audio_level {
int has_monitor_level : 1;
};
void vx_set_monitor_level() {
struct vx_audio_le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96445
--- Comment #2 from tyu at eridex dot org ---
The extern template and constant are what would appear in the header file for
class C. The explicit instantiation would appear in the source file:
// -- C.h
template
class C {
private:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104600
Bug ID: 104600
Summary: VCE(vector){} should be converted (or
expanded) into BIT_INSERT_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Hmm:
> _14 = {_1, _5};
> _8 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__int128>(_14);
>
> Wouldn't it better to convert that to just (hopefully I got the order
> correct):
> t1 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104596
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am trying to understand what you are trying to do.
You want to mark an insn with a comment which is emitted during formation of
the prologue generation as being generated because of a specific option?
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #28)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #27)
> > OTOH, it makes no sense to test if we have hard float. The pack and unpack
> > builtins should work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #30 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Btw, does this issue exist for the corresponding __builtin_{un,}pack_ibm128
builtins as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100289
Joerg Wunsch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j at uriah dot heep.sax.de
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
Bug ID: 104601
Summary: [11 Regression] Invalid branch elimination at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #22 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks. I'll commit your patches #1 through #8.
Your patch #9 is to a generated file. The fix there can't be to patch just the
top-level Makefile.in. It has to be to patch whatever is causing Makefil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] Invalid |[11/12 Regression] Invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-18
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testcase without the unneeded which aborts if miscompiled.
#include
#include
inline std::optional a(std::vector::iterator b,
std::vector::iterator c,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This changed with r11-3408-ge977dd5edbcc3a3b88c3bd7efa1026c845af7487
Hmm, even -fno-ipa-modref does not prevent the wrong code from showing up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104601
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
But adding noipa to f does though:
[[gnu::noipa]]
std::optional f() { return 1; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3343e7e2c4cd2cd111cda86737f539cc6eda49ff
commit r12-7298-g3343e7e2c4cd2cd111cda86737f539cc6eda49ff
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto, missed-optimization
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104602
Bug ID: 104602
Summary: std::source_location::current uses cast from void*
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104602
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-November/534374.html
Explains why it is currently this way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
Bug ID: 104603
Summary: wrong detection of g++ -Warray-bounds about downcast
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-DA just changes inlining.
This is just an inlining mess which you can see from the diagnostic on the
trunk:
In member function 'bool Base::isX() const',
inlined from 'bool Base::operator==(const Base&)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong detection of g++ |[10/11/12 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #3 from herumi ---
>Also if this is from some larger code,
>it might be useful to have the non-reduced testcase
>since the reduced testcase might being showing something different.
The reason why I made this code is from the issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to herumi from comment #3)
> The reason why I made this code is from the issue:
> https://github.com/herumi/xbyak/issues/137
Can you file a seperate issue with the preprocessed source (-save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #5 from herumi ---
>Can you file a seperate issue with the preprocessed source (-save-temps) since
>it really does look like a seperate issue all together.
May I attach a zipped a.ii which is generated by the following commands?
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to herumi from comment #5)
> >Can you file a seperate issue with the preprocessed source (-save-temps)
> >since it really does look like a seperate issue all together.
>
> May I attach a zipped a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104596
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I am trying to understand what you are trying to do.
> You want to mark an insn with a comment
One ore more insns, yes.
> which is emitted during formation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
--- Comment #7 from herumi ---
Created attachment 52478
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52478&action=edit
an original code
The array-bounds.zip file is a little stripped original issue.
array-bounds% g++-11.2 -O2 -c a.cpp
d LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220218 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96522
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:308de43fe48321588dca9830a617b92441779429
commit r9-9958-g308de43fe48321588dca9830a617b92441779429
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97043
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e75e5d2c41d294c4da4adfe610204ce5d97c3a4e
commit r9-9959-ge75e5d2c41d294c4da4adfe610204ce5d97c3a4e
Author: Richard Biener
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96522
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
Bug 102798 depends on bug 96522, which changed state.
Bug 96522 Summary: [9 Regression] Incorrect with with -O -fno-tree-pta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96522
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
OK, let me try cooking sth up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104590
Bug ID: 104590
Summary: ppc64: even/odd permutation for VSX 64-bit to 32-bit
conversions is no longer necessary.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Just trying a dumb microbenchmark:
struct S { unsigned long a, b; } s;
__attribute__((noipa)) void
foo (unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
{
s.a = a;
s.b = b;
}
int
main ()
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #25 from Kewen Lin ---
The key difference from the previous bif support is that: previously we checked
TARGET_HARD_FLOAT but now we didn't. I think we still need to check it, as the
document here
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104591
Bug ID: 104591
Summary: Problem with unary_function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104590
--- Comment #1 from Sayed Adel ---
forget to mention:
- vector signed int vec_signede(vector double) -> xvcvdpsxws
- vector signed int vec_signedo(vector double) -> xvcvdpsxws
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104591
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104353
Sayed Adel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seiko at imavr dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #26 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 52474
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52474&action=edit
Untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104591
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Just trying a dumb microbenchmark:
> struct S { unsigned long a, b; } s;
>
> __attribute__((noipa)) void
> foo (unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
> {
> s.a =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104024
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 52475
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52475&action=edit
Tested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104592
Bug ID: 104592
Summary: Problem with std::basic_ostream
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104024
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I think it makes sense to build libgcc with -mno-sse, maybe even
-mgeneral-regs-only. Or globally with -fno-tree-vectorize (but we likely do
not want
%xmm uses for parameter setup either with the mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104592
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104593
Bug ID: 104593
Summary: Problem with va_list
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104593
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-18
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
True.
So another option is to try to undo some of those short vectorization cases
during isel, expansion or later, though e.g. for the negdi2 case it will go
already during expansion into memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104593
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104593
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
#include
#include
extern std::function g_msgFnc;
Does not warn for me on x86_64-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104592
--- Comment #2 from Jamaika ---
http://msystem.waw.pl/x265/mingw-gcc1201-20220206.7z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104593
--- Comment #4 from Jamaika ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you provide the preprocessed source?
http://msystem.waw.pl/x265/mingw-gcc1201-20220206.7z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104592
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jamaika from comment #2)
> http://msystem.waw.pl/x265/mingw-gcc1201-20220206.7z
That is the GCC binary.
Please read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ and provide the preprocessed source for
what you ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104594
Bug ID: 104594
Summary: narrowing conversion of -1 to unsigned char at compile
time not detected
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
>
> --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> True.
> So another option is to try to u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104594
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:462900ba21f5fdf865c93f693083da3179dd3151
commit r11-9591-g462900ba21f5fdf865c93f693083da3179dd3151
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100468
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:462900ba21f5fdf865c93f693083da3179dd3151
commit r11-9591-g462900ba21f5fdf865c93f693083da3179dd3151
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100537
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a1e92ff45e8e254fb557d20dcfa54a88d354329
commit r11-9592-g8a1e92ff45e8e254fb557d20dcfa54a88d354329
Author: Ian Lance Tay
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
--- Comment #8 from Sebastian Huber ---
I can't reproduce the issue with the reduced test case, however, compiling the
preprocessed file still results in an infinite loop.
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
