https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121159
--- Comment #10 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #8)
> >:3:30: error: cannot tail-call: volatile function type
>
> I wonder how that happened. It looks like a bug. volatile functions should
> be rejected elsewhere and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #11 from Avinash Jayakar ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
> (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #6)
> > > No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #12 from Avinash Jayakar ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> As a meta-comment: almost everything using scan-assembler-times is
> obfuscated.
>
> It should always say in comments *why* it expects it as many times
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121117
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Loew ---
By looking once more very close at the standard, I figured out that for the
given example, the two "foo" overloads are unordered wrt. partial template
ordering:
the reason is the last sentence in https://eel.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #9 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
I remember that LWG3436 was discussed in core in Varna
(https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21varna/CoreWorkingGroup#LWG3436) and the
current wording is result from there.
I was always suspicious about creat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119137
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae00818713756fd45ee379a8a30ae907959433fe
commit r16-2398-gae00818713756fd45ee379a8a30ae907959433fe
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121209
--- Comment #5 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #4)
> I think both GCC /clang are correct, we have
>
> "If any of the original types satisfies all requirements of the composite
> type, it is unspecified whether the comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121026
Giuseppe D'Angelo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peppe at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121213
--- Comment #1 from Vincenzo Romano ---
For point no.1 above, using a5 requires it to be reloaded with 0 at each loop.
Using zero instead saves that one instruction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121214
Bug ID: 121214
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have
'exceptional' (error_mark) with
gcc.dg/asm-hard-reg-error-[45].c
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121214
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121209
--- Comment #6 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Halalaluyafail3 from comment #5)
> (In reply to uecker from comment #4)
> > I think both GCC /clang are correct, we have
> >
> > "If any of the original types satisfies all requireme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
Bug ID: 121222
Summary: add support for -fsanitize-coverage=stack-depth
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is there a reason why fstack-limit-symbol orfstack-check could not be used for
this instead? Since those are similar features and supported longer in gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is hugely misnamed option. There is no sanitizing involved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120101
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2fda72d1315b72e9d43b05da2f260e5c59aaad41
commit r16-2435-g2fda72d1315b72e9d43b05da2f260e5c59aaad41
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120101
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
--- Comment #6 from Kees Cook ---
The primary difference is the compile-time guard for instrumentation that
depends on stack usage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120101
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #6)
> The primary difference is the compile-time guard for instrumentation that
> depends on stack usage.
What value do you normally pass for
-fsanitize-coverage-stack-de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121222
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
How is it different from doing a similar thing from mcount?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61943|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.5
Summary|Warning produce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111750
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michaelkinrosslim at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 121221, which changed state.
Bug 121221 Summary: [13/14/15/16 Regression] Warning produced with -O3: array
subscript 'int (**)(...)[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'f(bool)::A [1]'
[-Werror=array-bounds=]
https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121149
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> I think the canonical is the right fix. Most likely the other needs to be
> changed too. Of nobody gets to it before tomorrow i will handle it.
I think yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118440
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong zero initialization |a store from an
|with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118440
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is NOT wrong code to store a zero there since you are storing from an
uninitialized value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121216
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6acf9501771b8a26643fe6b887eb2d9b6d008b47
commit r16-2436-g6acf9501771b8a26643fe6b887eb2d9b6d008b47
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121216
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103648
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 103648, which changed state.
Bug 103648 Summary: Missed optimization on arm64 when returning an empty struct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103648
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98884
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boleyn.su at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103648
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -fdisable-rtl-init-regs fixes this one which is why it is a dup of bug
98884.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 61947
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61947&action=edit
Shorter reproducer, polarization_test v2
Just a bit more than 4,000 lines, compare the output with correct.tx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110131
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> This was fixed by r14-7148-g7f56a90269b393
Which makes sense since it started with r12-6924-gc2b610e7c6c .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120523
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Summary|gcc.dg/tree-ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #11)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #8)
> > > Created attachment 61945 [details]
> > > Reproducer, single file, first pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
No, profopt-execute properly uses dg-additional-files-options, so that is not
the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
testsuite/lib/profopt.exp:
profopt-get-options executes dg-additional-sources, but profopt-execute does
not reset the additional_files global after use.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120972
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Feng Xue from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Yes, it's not possible to implement the standards restrict qualification
> > constraints reliably for pointers not i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121028
Spencer Abson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sabson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
And yes I noticed it but not in my local builds but with Linaro's builders on a
separate patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121216
Bug ID: 121216
Summary: internal compiler error: in tree_to_uhwi, at
tree.cc:6660 since 13.1 with -std=c2x
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121217
Bug ID: 121217
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
comptypes_equiv_p since 15.1 with -std=c2x
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Note this is with tcl 8.6.16 and dejagnu 1.6.3 and the error quoted happened
with r16-2420-g585ade15412ae0 with an extra gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr109893.c
testcase in the tree (that might affect globbing/partition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121216
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
Bug ID: 121218
Summary: [15/16 regression] highway miscompiled at -O2
-march=znver2 since r15-3036-gb8ea13ebf12117
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119692
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66aa8ad1ece1009a78d6b3f6dc9f8b4e6d313a87
commit r15-10038-g66aa8ad1ece1009a78d6b3f6dc9f8b4e6d313a87
Author: Thomas Schw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121205
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121202
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(gdb) p debug_gimple_stmt (last_stmt)
vect__9.23_46 = { 1, 1, 1, 1 } << a.2_1;
$4 = void
(gdb) p debug_gimple_stmt (stmt)
# VUSE <.MEM_14>
a.2_1 = a;
$5 = void
(gdb) p debug_bb_n (3)
[local count: 10511932
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121202
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bdfb5cc5aa6959a6959fc0cf98da08db89c81032
commit r16-2422-gbdfb5cc5aa6959a6959fc0cf98da08db89c81032
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121202
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120747
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> Looks like the same issue as those others listed as `see also`. Basically
> reassociation is tied to the ssa #s and any small improvements to other code
> ear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121205
--- Comment #2 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> With checking, I also see:
>
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/asm-hard-reg-1.c (internal compiler error: RTL check:
> expected elt 3 type 'e' or 'u', have '0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > I'm not sure what's that supposed to test? Is that already a reduced
> > testcase?
>
> Yeah, it's already reduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119137
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f59cb28d53b62aa080da60617109440b303ceb2b
commit r16-2424-gf59cb28d53b62aa080da60617109440b303ceb2b
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
Jan Wassenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.wassenberg at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119737
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:655f83308244dbf96e4bc0d53a6773684da50144
commit r15-10031-g655f83308244dbf96e4bc0d53a6773684da50144
Author: Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119854
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebc72ad7b4df7cbfca00fb00a263c964b351cc7d
commit r15-10033-gebc72ad7b4df7cbfca00fb00a263c964b351cc7d
Author: Thomas Schwi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118794
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4677f3b048470d3b7659ad7bbaf562e4d071294
commit r15-10030-ge4677f3b048470d3b7659ad7bbaf562e4d071294
Author: Thomas Schw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120530
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a708f6a645ce4025a5f03a69eff684e4ee6a382
commit r15-10039-g0a708f6a645ce4025a5f03a69eff684e4ee6a382
Author: Tobias Burnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119854
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eca0a536dfd863cbac9b9cd609e266d7c0ecdf31
commit r15-10034-geca0a536dfd863cbac9b9cd609e266d7c0ecdf31
Author: Thomas Schwi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120308
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a9b7f81f19c05cdb730c70dd825ba3ab5c30443
commit r15-10041-g7a9b7f81f19c05cdb730c70dd825ba3ab5c30443
Author: Thomas Schwi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119795
--- Comment #2 from Konstantinos Eleftheriou ---
We have sent a fix for this
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690209.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121199
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
It looks a bit like this was fixed in gcc-9.
Based on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714#c19
I suspect this is just a dup of that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108958
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(Btw, the subject says "powerpcle", but this is about something very different:
powerpc64le. "powerpcle" is also a valid first component of a target triple!
Almost no one used 32-bit PowerPC in wrong-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119737
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121091
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
New patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690240.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121218
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61940
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61940&action=edit
interleaved_test_bigger.cxx.xz
This one aborts on a miscomparison.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #11)
>
> > I think the code before worked because a non-partial epilogue would have
> > niters_vector
> > be a const (e.g. a gimple value) but the partial iterati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can reproduce it with just:
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-prof.exp=afdo-crossmodule-1.c
tree-ssa.exp=pr67891.c"
(well I had to hack it so check_profiling_available for -fauto-profile would
return 0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Tomasz Kamiński from comment #9)
> I remember that LWG3436 was discussed in core in Varna
> (https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21varna/CoreWorkingGroup#LWG3436) and the
> current wording is resul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121209
--- Comment #8 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Halalaluyafail3 from comment #7)
> (In reply to uecker from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Halalaluyafail3 from comment #5)
> > > Is it not required that the composite type of two types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120119
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690239.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111459
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> So i have a patch for cfgcleanup but it causes a regression which looks like
> a fake one. I will finish it up later today. Dceing more definitely will
> improve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121209
--- Comment #7 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #6)
> (In reply to Halalaluyafail3 from comment #5)
> > Is it not required that the composite type of two types has to be the same
> > when obtaining it twice, or that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61927|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120004
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31e8896dcd87279be73674e8f2258db26d7a6e1e
commit r16-2429-g31e8896dcd87279be73674e8f2258db26d7a6e1e
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31e8896dcd87279be73674e8f2258db26d7a6e1e
commit r16-2429-g31e8896dcd87279be73674e8f2258db26d7a6e1e
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi!
(In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #12)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> > As a meta-comment: almost everything using scan-assembler-times is
> > obfuscated.
> >
> > It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121215
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
possible fix:
```
[apinski@xeond2 lib]$ git diff profopt.exp
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/profopt.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/profopt.exp
index b4d244b3132..13cc5956ec8 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/profopt.e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121200
--- Comment #10 from Jean-Michaël Celerier ---
Thanks! Ubuntu will likely never upgrade 14 (last update to the package was a
year ago) so I guess I'll just have to tell my users to upgrade on their own..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119085
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6wm80s22z@virgil.suse.cz/T/#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121203
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121085
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121221
Bug ID: 121221
Summary: array subscript 'int (**)(...)[0]' is partly outside
array bounds of 'f(bool)::A [1]'
[-Werror=array-bounds=]
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61891|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fdbc5ff61b471076cc9c758fb6c30d62f7ef1c56
commit r16-2432-gfdbc5ff61b471076cc9c758fb6c30d62f7ef1c56
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
