https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99422
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99467
Bug ID: 99467
Summary: ice in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:1006
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99553
Bug ID: 99553
Summary: libgo/misc/cgo/testcarchive/testdata/main_unix.c:39:
suspicious compare ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99489
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99614
Bug ID: 99614
Summary: diagnostic-manager.cc:85: possible missing copy
constructor ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99615
Bug ID: 99615
Summary: gcc/cp/decl.c:10038:possible null pointer dereference
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99616
Bug ID: 99616
Summary: gcc/cp/decl.c:12220: pointless test ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
Bug ID: 99617
Summary: gcc/cp/coroutines.cc:2807: member variables not
initialised in constructor ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99674
Bug ID: 99674
Summary: gcc/config/i386/i386-features.c: 2143: 2 * member
variable not inited in ctor ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99674
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
A straightforward generalisation of this bug report would
be for gcc to warn on code like this:
struct S
{
int a, b, c;
S();
};
S::S() : a( 0), c( 2)
{
};
cppcheck finds the problem but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99866
Bug ID: 99866
Summary: gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h: 2 * passing
structs ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99917
Bug ID: 99917
Summary: gcc/d/dmd/mtype.c:5223: missing call to va_end ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99933
Bug ID: 99933
Summary: gcc/brig/brigfrontend/brig-function.cc: 4 * possible
performance problem ?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99933
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pekka.jaaskelainen@parmance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100143
Bug ID: 100143
Summary: gcc/gengtype.c:4097:34: warning: Function
'finish_root_table' argument order different
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100147
Bug ID: 100147
Summary: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/gslice.h:170: missing check
for assignment to self ?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
Bug ID: 100150
Summary: ice in bp_unpack_string
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 50634
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50634&action=edit
x86_64 object module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Starting git bisect ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 50635
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50635&action=edit
preprocessed C source code file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
The command line seems to be:
gcc -o src/bin/tolua.o -c -g -O3 -funroll-all-loops -freport-bug -flto=auto
-ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-fstack-protector-strong -fasy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> How is libtolua++-5.3.so built?
$ gcc -o lib/libtolua++-5.3.so -Wl,-soname,libtolua++-5.3.so -shared
src/lib/tolua_event.os src/lib/tolua_is.os src/lib/tolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
>From a different fedora package build, I have a much simpler test case:
$ /home/dcb/gcc/results/bin/gcc grtter.o gruser.o
Two object modules attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 50641
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50641&action=edit
x86_64 object module
grtter.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 50642
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50642&action=edit
x86_64 object module
gruser.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97354
Bug ID: 97354
Summary: ice during GIMPLE pass: slp
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97359
Bug ID: 97359
Summary: ice in logical_combine, at gimple-range-gori.cc:754
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97359
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
The code seems to break gcc trunk sometime between 20201006 and 20201007.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97359
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
The reduced C code is
typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
int a;
void b(uint32_t c) {
uint32_t *d = &c;
for (; a;)
for (;; (*d %= a) / (*d > 1 > (c > 0)) ?: d)
;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97371
Bug ID: 97371
Summary: evrp problem with gcc.target/s390/pr77822-2.c and -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97371
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is
int a, b;
void c() {
if (b >> 38)
a = b;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97378
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97381
Bug ID: 97381
Summary: ice error: invalid types in nop conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97381
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
The problem first seems to occur sometime between 20201006 and 20201007.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97381
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is:
int a;
void b() {
char c = 27;
for (; c <= 85; c += 1) {
a /= 148372120 * c;
if (a)
for (;;)
;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #25 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #21)
> Maybe gcc compiling itself with the analyzer might find some bugs, too.
I tried this and all I found were AFAIK false positives.
Perhaps someone with more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97466
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97472
Bug ID: 97472
Summary: Another EVRP problem
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97480
Bug ID: 97480
Summary: ice in vect_get_and_check_slp_defs, at
tree-vect-slp.c:538
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97496
Bug ID: 97496
Summary: ice during during GIMPLE pass: cddce
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97539
Bug ID: 97539
Summary: error: definition in block 5 does not dominate use in
block 24
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97578
Bug ID: 97578
Summary: ice during IPA pass: inline
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97578
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Here is a second simpler test case:
int a;
static void b(int c) {
if (a)
while (c)
b(0);
d();
}
void e(c) { b(c); }
void f() { e(0); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
Bug ID: 97581
Summary: libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97540
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> No, this would be definitely wrong.
Agreed.
> If the original code does not make you happy, do you think sth. along
>
> #define SZ (SZU64 * (sizeof (uint64_t) / siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97606
Bug ID: 97606
Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2196
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97619
Bug ID: 97619
Summary: error: true/false edge after a non-GIMPLE_COND in bb
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97619
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code is:
char a;
char *b;
int c;
void f(void)
{
char *d = f;
int e;
for(;e;e++)
{
d[4*e] = a*(256-c) + b[4*e]*c >> 8;
d[4*e+1] = a*(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97636
Bug ID: 97636
Summary: error: missing ‘PHI’ def
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97655
Bug ID: 97655
Summary: gcc/fortran/openmp.c:4133: possible cut'n'paste error
?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97655
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97657
Bug ID: 97657
Summary: libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_posix.cpp:162:
no code to deal with bad mode ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97732
Bug ID: 97732
Summary: ice: tree check fail
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97746
Bug ID: 97746
Summary: ice in vect_init_pattern_stmt, at
tree-vect-patterns.c:116
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50355
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
$ fgrep INTVAL /home/dcb/gcc/trunk.git/gcc/config/alpha/alpha.c | fgrep 8
&& INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) == -8)
mod_f = memmodel_from_int (INTVAL (operands[8]));
(INTVAL (x) & 0x) - 2 *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71327
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> WAITING for David to reconfirm
$ fgrep scan trunk.git/libiberty/cplus-dem.c
$
Another one gone away, this time in four years.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66469
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> > I can't seem to find the mentioned code in the source file any longer...
>
> WAITING for David to reconfirm
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97753
Bug ID: 97753
Summary: ice in operator[], at vec.h:880
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97763
Bug ID: 97763
Summary: valgrind error in ./gcc.dg/vect/vect-nest-cycle-3.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
Bug ID: 97789
Summary: valgrind error with ./gcc.dg/c11-atomic-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> I can't reproduce that.
Presumably you mean on today's compiler ?
Richard's change of Monday 9 November seemingly fixes it.
I'll check this on next Friday's va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Nice. Next time, please mention the exact revision you use.
Will do, although I suspect mentioning 20201107 in the compiler name
was a small clue.
For more pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
>Maybe something like
>
> $ git rev-parse HEAD >> gcc/trunk.git/gcc/DATESTAMP
>
> would be enough to get it into the output of gcc -v.
For the record, my cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97830
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97830
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is:
a;
b() {
((void (*)())b)(a);
b(a);
}
Interestingly, this similar code
int a;
void b() {
((void (*)())b)(a);
b(a);
}
compiles fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
Bug ID: 97890
Summary: Abstract virtual classes suddenly allowed as parameter
types ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
For C++ testsuite file g++.dg/other/abstract8.C, the number
of errors seems to have gone down from 21 to 16.
Here is a diff of the errors:
$ diff /tmp/00 /tmp/11
1d0
< ./g++.dg/other/abstract8.C:13:9: err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I am having my first go at a git bisect. I am trying git hash 9243f0fba68339fa.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Git hash 9243f0fba68339fa is silent on the code. Trying git hash
253c415a1acba507
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97894
Bug ID: 97894
Summary: gcc/attr-fnspec.h: 8 * function could be const ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
Bug ID: 97905
Summary: ice in duplicate_decls, at cp/decl.c:2754
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ test case seems to be:
template void a() { extern int *b; }
int *b;
git bisect proceeds in other window.
If all I am interested in is the performance of cc1plus, which
make target should I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I am getting git bisect results which indicate either commit
cb1a4876a0e724ca3962ec14dce9e7819fa72ea5 or commit
ba97b532604815333848ee30e069dde6e36ce4c9 is at fault.
Neither seem anything to do with C++ or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #5)
> David, to build just cc1plus: 'make -C gcc cc1plus
> -j$how_many_cpus_available'
>
> pass 'CXXFLAGS=$whatever' to override the default (usually -O2 -g)
$ cd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94440
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
No progress for another couple of months.
Can I assume that fixing this bug isn't a priority for the next release of gcc
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94440
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> I can't reproduce it anymore.
The code in comment 7 still fails.
$ /home/dcb/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c -w -ffast-math bug634.c 2>&1 | fgrep error:
bug634.c:5:4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98235
Bug ID: 98235
Summary: ice in decompose with -O3 -fallow-store-data-races
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93337
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93337
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
This valgrind problem has existed since sometime before 20201123.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98263
Bug ID: 98263
Summary: valgrind error in gfc_find_derived_vtab
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93337
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> Could you open a new PR to simplify tracking?
Sure. # 98263
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98263
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
bug 9337 => 93337
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
Bug ID: 98264
Summary: ice during linear_loads_p
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Trying a git bisect now. First step hash
54f75d8fb3f54541e37432329581a362e6aab94e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Seems ok. Try 1751a78ecafb1d16d4a843dd22e739b8fd1cfede
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Seems ok. Trying 10bbba9145700e2c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
10bbba9145700e2c won't build ;-<
git bisect skip says 3ed472af6bc9f83b7a8ac553b282f659a0bf53f7. Try that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Looks bad. Trying 501f470267445e03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98264
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tamar.christina at arm dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98311
Bug ID: 98311
Summary: libcody configure checking problem
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98311
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
I am also seeing some evidence that top of trunk won't build,
due to problems with the new modules source code.
Is is worth documenting here or should I raise a new bug report ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
Bug ID: 98323
Summary: current trunk won't build with clang
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #2)
> stupid underspecified offsetof
I did try commenting out the offending block of code and a re-build
and got further errors ;-<
I don't know if you have access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98340
Bug ID: 98340
Summary: gcc trunk build with clang failure, part 2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: boot
1 - 100 of 1212 matches
Mail list logo
