https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104723
--- Comment #9 from cuilili ---
(In reply to cuilili from comment #3)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> > STF issue here?
>
correct comment #3
I used perf to collect the "ld_blocks.store_forward" event for those two test
cases, stl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the glibc problem is in a compiler defaulting to -mabi=ieeelongdouble
they want to use -mabi=ibmlongdouble -mlong-double-64 (because
-mabi=ibmlongdouble is added into CFLAGS everywhere early, and -ml
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104749
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So this is a gdc 9.1.0 bug then, not a GCC 12 issue? (did you try 9.3?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104751
Bug ID: 104751
Summary: Array aggregates using parens aren’t obsolescent
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104752
Bug ID: 104752
Summary: `Concept auto(x)` should not be a valid function-style
cast
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
Sean changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brlcad at mac dot com
--- Comment #23 from Sean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104749
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
> So this is a gdc 9.1.0 bug then, not a GCC 12 issue? (did you try 9.3?)
It seems so, yes. Yet gdc 9.1.0 was good enough until now, and if
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100541
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f2e72db8c03c960d8330305c1e92986373198ca
commit r12-7446-g5f2e72db8c03c960d8330305c1e92986373198ca
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Sean from comment #23)
> Sorry for digging up the past, but recently ran into a related
> implementation issue in OpenBSD's qsort implementation and came across this
> discussion. While I unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104743
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Does anything change if you compile the test with
> `-ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero` ?
No, the test fails just the same.
gdb shows
Thread 2 rece
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104589
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e1b00367abaf8b6dbb47fd8518d9ac69c326a06
commit r12-7447-g2e1b00367abaf8b6dbb47fd8518d9ac69c326a06
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104740
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> b18489.d and ice21727.d were fixed in the last sync (r12-7414).
Good: I just saw that in last night's bootstrap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104744
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Between 20220228 and 20220301, the failure vanished. Unless this is an
accident, the bug is fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Emitted |[11 Regression] Emitted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104738
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> In upstream druntime, stdint aliases were refactored to commonize so-called
> "platform-independent" typedefs.
>
> As you've pointed out, none of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7b4c8feee11ea04b83f9996654c96b130588570
commit r12-7449-gd7b4c8feee11ea04b83f9996654c96b130588570
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104753
Bug ID: 104753
Summary: Sporadic '-fcompare-debug' failure w/ -mcpu=phecda -O2
-funroll-all-loops -fno-tree-reassoc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104753
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
Created attachment 52545
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52545&action=edit
gkd diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #25 from Sean ---
Ah, that makes sense, thank you Richard. I didn't pay as close attention to
the actual swap() code and casting going on there.
Apparently unrelated, but perhaps worth noting the reason this come up on my
radar is b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104754
Bug ID: 104754
Summary: gcc.dg/pr102892-1.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104754
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
Bug ID: 104755
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bic-bitmask-10.c etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 52546
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52546&action=edit
32-bit i386-pc-solaris2.11 vect-bic-bitmask-10.c.210t.dce7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104756
Bug ID: 104756
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-fmax-1.c etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104756
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 52547
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52547&action=edit
32-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 vect-fmax-1.c.172t.vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104756
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
Bug ID: 104757
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE (segfault) GIMPLE pass: walloca -
in gimple_range_global
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
The reason for the nvptx dependency is the following.
omp_max_simt_vf (void)
{
if (!optimize)
return 0;
if (ENABLE_OFFLOADING)
for (const char *c = getenv ("OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES"); c;)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1)
> Confirmed ever since commit 48c6cac9caea1dc7c5f50ad3a736f6693e74a11b
which was committed on 'Nov 12 17:58:21 2021'. — However, that's a FE-only
patch which onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1)
> > Confirmed ever since commit 48c6cac9caea1dc7c5f50ad3a736f6693e74a11b
> which was committed on 'Nov 12 17:58:21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104758
Bug ID: 104758
Summary: [nvptx] sm_30 support
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104759
Bug ID: 104759
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-12.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104759
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80270
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91384
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104345
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Hmmm the tests are gated by vect_int which sparc declares to support but the
code didn't vectorize, so probably an unsupported operation somewhere..
Could you attach the output of -fdump-tree-vect-all?
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104758
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 52549
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52549&action=edit
vect-bic-bitmask-10.c -fdump-tree-vect-all output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104730
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ced22c51baaa3fe84d14d5baef60c4440a35b4be
commit r12-7450-gced22c51baaa3fe84d14d5baef60c4440a35b4be
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100408
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104730
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8eb36ce5576817c54ad1f8061d2232774fc0d093
commit r11-9635-g8eb36ce5576817c54ad1f8061d2232774fc0d093
Author: Tamar Christi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104730
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
Hmmm looks like it doesn't support vector comparisons
missed: not vectorized: relevant stmt not supported: _6 = _5 <= 255;
I'll probably just have to skip them on sparc*-* then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #5)
> The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7b4c8feee11ea04b83f9996654c96b130588570
>
> commit r12-7449-gd7b4c8feee11ea04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fede2876a751d53a28442dcca32466daa929daa
commit r12-7451-g8fede2876a751d53a28442dcca32466daa929daa
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104758
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
FWIW, I ordered an sm_30 board, to be able to test this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
Bug ID: 104760
Summary: Attribute [[deprecated]] causes diagnostic in
never-instantiated template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
And I think this is the same problem as in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911#c18. Not sure if we want to
change anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
--- pieces-memset-46.s 2022-03-02 06:44:55.845212762 -0800
+++
/export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-gitlab-debug/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/pieces-memset-46.s
2022-03-02 06:45:03.313188978 -0800
@@ -8,9 +8,11 @@ foo:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103393
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
Another testcase:
[hjl@gnu-tgl-2 pr103393]$ cat x.c
struct TestData {
float arr[8];
};
void cpy(struct TestData *s1, struct TestData *s2 ) {
for(int i=0; i<16; ++i) {
s1->arr[i] = s2->arr[i];
}
}
[hjl@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
Bug ID: 104761
Summary: [12 Regression] False positive -Wdangling-pointer
warning on NetworkManager since r12-6606
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1)
> > Confirmed ever since commit 48c6cac9caea1dc7c5f50ad3a736f6693e74a11b
... which added the testcase (by porting i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the problem is in:
if (!bitmap_set_bit (visited, bb->index))
/* Avoid cycles. */
return true;
pass_waccess::use_after_inval_p
When walking the bbs from use_bb:
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911
Louis Dionne changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104752
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-02
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
--- Comment #3 from Louis Dionne ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> And I think this is the same problem as in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911#c18. Not sure if we want
> to change anything.
Yup, I agree this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> > 923 r = gimple_range_global (name);
> >
> > (gdb) p debug_tree(name)
> > > type > ...
> you do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think EDGE_DFS_BACK is only computed (or guaranteed to be correct?) if
mark_dfs_back_edges () is called, I think the waccess pass doesn't call that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104762
Bug ID: 104762
Summary: x86_64 538.imagick_r 8%-28% regressions after
r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d718
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dbaabd06aaf4a1b0f2a20671c39148a0bd6ccf0e
commit r12-7452-gdbaabd06aaf4a1b0f2a20671c39148a0bd6ccf0e
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101018
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101018
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104762
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|x86_64 538.imagick_r 8%-28% |x86_64 538.imagick_r 8%-28%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104737
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Fixed test was downstreamed in r12-7454.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104737
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104735
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104729
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104741
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
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=104744
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I think the glibc problem is in a compiler defaulting to -mabi=ieeelongdouble
> they want to use -mabi=ibmlongdouble -mlong-double-64 (because
> -mabi=ibmlongdou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104763
Bug ID: 104763
Summary: [12.0] Generate wrong assembly code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #7)
> Florian, can you confirm that -mlong-double-64 comes after the
> -mabi=ibmlongdouble option in the problematical glibc build?
The mailing list post referenced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12463f1ecbcb30b39b8212454a6e598645123305
commit r12-7456-g12463f1ecbcb30b39b8212454a6e598645123305
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It isn't sufficient though, consider:
#pragma omp declare target
void
foo (int x, int y, int *z)
{
int j = 0;
#pragma omp simd linear(j:x + y)
for (int i = 0; i < 64; i++)
j += x + y;
}
#pragma omp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104763
--- Comment #1 from 。 <570070308 at qq dot com> ---
change `*i=0x0700070007000700;` to `*(volatile size_t *)i=0x0700070007000700;`
will fix it.
This is my mistake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52551|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103521
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-02
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103521
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Comparing the IR, the discrepancy looks like it relates to signedness of the
"char" type.
Works with --target=powerpc64le-linux-gnu if I add -fsigned-char to the command
line; otherwise it fails as noted in
-linux-gnu
Configured with: /tmp/tmp.V0AGQ6q77G-gcc-builder/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto --enable-checking-yes --enable-multiarch
--prefix=/home/xuzhy/usr/bin --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220302 (experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104618
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104622
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104765
Bug ID: 104765
Summary: Expression statement with a return in a
lambda-parameter-default causes segfault when called
in a different function
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
