https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106910
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Christian Ehrhardt from comment #3)
> > Just drop -mbuild-constants.
>
> Thanks for the hint Uroš, but I'm not sure if one can do that, this option
> is from [1]. I do not have the background on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #4 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
Nice, thanks for benchmarks without code.
Also, why do I need call notify when don't have wait?
Common usage from my point of view looks like:
atomic.wait(value, mo):
while (atomic.load(mo) == value) {
fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #5 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
Single reason why I want to use atomic::wait/notify is cross platform api for
futex, wait/wake on address, ulock, etc
Not because I need YOU decide instead of me how many spins, or other
optimization I need.
bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106973
Bug ID: 106973
Summary: coroutine generator and setjmp
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106959
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106955
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106955
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-20
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106963
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106973
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106955
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Can't compile this due to:
% g++-13.0.0 pr106955.c -std=c++20 -O1 -fsyntax-only -ftree-parallelize-loops=2
-c
% echo $?
% g++-13.0.0 pr106955.c -std=c++20 -O1 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106973
--- Comment #2 from Hui Peng Hu ---
Created attachment 53592
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53592&action=edit
preprocessed cpp file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106965
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think it's undefined to invoke a DTOR twice which is what you do here.
> After the DTOR the m_ptr member becomes undefined so re-evaluating that in
> the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106955
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Take a look please:
https://godbolt.org/z/14YYhb8oe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Works on mainline. I can add a testcase though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106973
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100470
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106968
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106961
--- Comment #3 from simon at pushface dot org ---
Problem still present in Xcode 4.1beta.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106961
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to simon from comment #3)
> Problem still present in Xcode 4.1beta.
>From a GCC perspective, what's needed is:
* for someone to file a radar with Apple ("feedback" they are called now)
[https://fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100470
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Does that mean we can assume the incoming edge from BB9 as unreachable?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100470
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
My guess is that either is_nothrow_xible or check_noexcept_r assumes that a
trivial special member is always non-throwing, but that fails to consider the
P1206 rule that says if there's an explicit noexcep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106974
Bug ID: 106974
Summary: g++ bug caused by r260621
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
>
> finite_operands_p() must be adjusted for the case where there is a NAN in
> the source...but still.. is PRE supposed to be adding NANs?
What i meant to say here was the users of finite operands p mus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106953
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> I've tried but those headers are not installed. no utility etc.
I said work has started, not finished.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106975
Bug ID: 106975
Summary: RFC – add: '!$GCC ATTRIBUTE promote_kind ::'
(convert_kind) for integer/logical dummy attributes,
cf. '!DIR$ IGNORE_TKR(k)'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106965
--- Comment #4 from Boaz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > I think it's undefined to invoke a DTOR twice which is what you do here.
> > After the DTOR the m_ptr member becomes u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106976
Bug ID: 106976
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class
'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
override_type_for_decl_p, at dwarf2out.cc:24345
Produ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99546
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #4)
> same form, but this will trigger ICE:
That's a completely different bug. I've opened PR 106976
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106964
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99546
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-08-16 00:00:00 |2022-9-20
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes. Just treat the range from that edge as UNDEFINED.
If one says -ffinite-math-only and divides by zero, that isn't finite...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106965
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Boaz from comment #4)
> which is a good practice as far as I know.
Not really, because it's dead code and typically optimized away anyway.
It's better to use static analysis tools, or dynami
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106955
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #1)
> > Created attachment 53589 [details]
> > Reduced preprocessed testcase
> >
> > Unfortunately a 173K file is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106955
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Started with r13-674-g8ccdc7ce33f5e7ca, but I don't think it's the root
> cause.
Certainly not, when the preprocessed code from comment 0 doesn't produce a
-fc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106973
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
Of course, we should not crash in this case.
However, I am curious as to how you would expect setjmp/longjmp to work with a
coroutine (I recall that the coroutine implementators discussed this with,
AFAIR, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106974
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106973
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The standard says:
> A call to setjmp or longjmp has undefined behavior if invoked in a suspension
> context of a coroutine (7.6.2.4).
Given that, I don't see why using setjmp in example would be useful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106974
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|g++ bug caused by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106973
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> The standard says:
>
> > A call to setjmp or longjmp has undefined behavior if invoked in a
> > suspension context of a coroutine (7.6.2.4).
>
> Given that, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106974
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think gcc is correct here. You cannot take the address of an element of a
packed structure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106974
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Code:
#include
#include
template
struct __attribute__ ((__packed__)) Shard {
NumType data[128];
};
template
class TestVector {
public:
TestVector() {
shard_index_.push_back(Shard());
}
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106636
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d99821624c340429b86855ffa99e731618b36c10
commit r13-2732-gd99821624c340429b86855ffa99e731618b36c10
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93575
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
on re-reading the report I see the gcc-10 tag (I was too focused on trunk).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106976
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-20
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
Bug ID: 106977
Summary: [13 regression] d21 dies with SIGBUS on 32-bit Darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Rodgers ---
(In reply to Mkkt Bkkt from comment #5)
> Single reason why I want to use atomic::wait/notify is cross platform api
> for futex, wait/wake on address, ulock, etc
> Not because I need YOU decide instead of m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #7 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
Can you give example when this optimization needed and cannot be done on user,
not stdlib side?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106761
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84b2ab97e412d9514730db335a795c7db2fb42cc
commit r13-2735-g84b2ab97e412d9514730db335a795c7db2fb42cc
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106761
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #8 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
> I have every confidence that Lewis knows how to bring a paper for a
> 'lightweight manual reset event' to SG1, I suspect it will be well received
> when he does.
So at least before C++26 I and any other dev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e41e69ab2d85f6756d5217a3d87ada559691e0d
commit r13-2736-g3e41e69ab2d85f6756d5217a3d87ada559691e0d
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #9 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
Why do you think you smarter than msvc stl, libc++, boost::atomic developers?
Maybe it's about your "I"?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106978
Bug ID: 106978
Summary: Internal compiler error including unordered_map
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106794
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1005c89431cc78a68762643e1bc7249c3959927e
commit r13-2738-g1005c89431cc78a68762643e1bc7249c3959927e
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106491
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bf5a704d36243c4c04b17a9408ebe881beb0051
commit r13-2739-g6bf5a704d36243c4c04b17a9408ebe881beb0051
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106914
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1005c89431cc78a68762643e1bc7249c3959927e
commit r13-2738-g1005c89431cc78a68762643e1bc7249c3959927e
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106794
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106491
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Fixed on trunk so far. I'll backport to the release branches soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106969
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=106967
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 53595
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53595&action=edit
patch in testing
This was painful. I had audit all the relational code to make sure we're
handling NANs befo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106978
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ben Fulton from comment #0)
> 502:5: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction
This is not a GCC bug, it means your gcc executables were compiled for a
different CPU and use instructions t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 53596
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53596&action=edit
another patch in testing
This one may be needed as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please try to be civil, or your requests will simply be ignored.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Her
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
*** Bug 106970 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Rodgers ---
(In reply to Mkkt Bkkt from comment #9)
> Why do you think you smarter than msvc stl, libc++, boost::atomic developers?
>
> Maybe it's about your "I"?
I should ignore this (see jwakely's response), but -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106978
Ben Fulton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
I am not too sure that what I found is the same as the original bug report.
Reduced C code is:
int script_obj_as_number_obj, script_obj_as_number_obj_0_0;
double script_obj_as_number() {
if (script_ob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
abulafia:~/bld/t/gcc$ cat a.c
int script_obj_as_number_obj, script_obj_as_number_obj_0_0;
double script_obj_as_number() {
if (script_obj_as_number_obj)
return script_obj_as_number_obj_0_0;
return _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106972
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I don't think we're talking about removing support for the CPU, just support
for the iwmmxt extension. That is, you can still use it as an Arm cpu, but
without the vector engine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #12 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
First of, I was a toxic, sorry.
But you start this first, maybe it's allowed for maintainer, I don't know.
But I still waiting code of benchmarks.
Also I want to see example of usage when we notify atomic, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106972
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
ACK, but what we're using in this configuration is --with-cpu=iwmmxt. I'm a bit
confused between it being a CPU type, and it being just a vector extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106972
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Nobody has proposed any patches yet, but I imagine we'd end up treating
-mcpu=iwmmxt[2] in the same way as -mcpu=xscale. Similarly for
-march=iwmmxt[2].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106979
Bug ID: 106979
Summary: Gcov tutorial for Freestanding Environments failing
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106974
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106636
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d812e8cb2a920fd75768e16ca8ded59ad93c172f
commit r13-2740-gd812e8cb2a920fd75768e16ca8ded59ad93c172f
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106979
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106979
--- Comment #2 from rob at lightmatter dot co ---
What is the solution for embedded systems using earlier versions of GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #13 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
example of simple mutex pseudocode that don't need call notify every unlock:
Same possible for other cases, if it doesn't please share example for me
```
int kUnlocked = 0;
int kLocked = 1;
int kLockedWithWait
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Mkkt Bkkt from comment #12)
> First of, I was a toxic, sorry.
> But you start this first, maybe it's allowed for maintainer, I don't know.
No, you started it with sarcasm and disparaging rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106980
Bug ID: 106980
Summary: Concept on a variadig template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106980
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Ever confirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #15 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
> If you have an atomic counter and want to signal when it has been
> incremented, you cannot tell from the previous value whether another thread
> is waiting.
I wrote it example.
Do you talk about like se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #16 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
> it with sarcasm
I started with sarcasm because you restart this thread with some doubtful
benchmarks without code for them.
I think it's very disrespectfully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106981
Bug ID: 106981
Summary: [OpenMP] ICE in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 with
'#pragma acc atomic capture'
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106981
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106979
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
The embedded support is new, so please try using the latest master snapshots we
provide :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106982
Bug ID: 106982
Summary: [OpenACC] ICE incorrect sharing of tree nodes with
nested reduction / .GOACC_REDUCTION
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106983
Bug ID: 106983
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE tree check: expected class
'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
type_build_dtor_call, at cp/class.cc:5794
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106984
Bug ID: 106984
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE with -fsanitize=thread :
verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106985
Bug ID: 106985
Summary: ICE in gfc_simplify_expr, at fortran/expr.cc:2290
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
