https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86710
Bug ID: 86710
Summary: 3 missing logarithm optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86710
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
This kind of transformation needs to be protected by some unsafe math flag, and
by a single_use (aka :s) check on the logs. No :c in the output. The third
transformation has nothing to do with logs, you are jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86711
Bug ID: 86711
Summary: wrong folding of memchr
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59616
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86472
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86712
Bug ID: 86712
Summary: libitm produces libitm.so with TEXTREL on SuperH (sh4)
in _ITM_beginTransaction
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86712
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
This fix seems to be enough to not encode absolute address into
_ITM_beginTransaction:
diff --git a/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S b/libitm/config/sh/sjlj.S
index 043f36749be..80a810d8360 100644
--- a/libitm/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86472
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86712
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #1)
> This fix seems to be enough to not encode absolute address into
> _ITM_beginTransaction:
Sent the above as
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86472
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Yes indeed with respect to the declaration of 't'. However, since the
> submodule
> is a separate compilation unit, I believe that it also must contain
> an 'implicit none' to pick up the undeclared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86711
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 44458
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44458&action=edit
untestted patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86713
Bug ID: 86713
Summary: 'nofp', 'nosimd', 'nocrypto' and 'nofp16' feature
modifiers for Aarch64 fail to build
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86693
--- Comment #2 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
Also may be (partially) related the following cases:
1.
#include
#include
void func2();
void func(_Atomic(unsigned long) * obj, void * obj2)
{
if (atomic_fetch_sub(obj, 1) == 1 && obj2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86706
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Started with r260782 aka PR85815 fix.
> GCC 7 doesn't seem to ICE, eventhough PR85815 has been backported to it.
The GCC 7 fix for 85815 was more conservative.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 64095, which changed state.
Bug 64095 Summary: [C++14] Ellipsis at end of generic lambda
parameter-declaration-clause should be parsed as a parameter pack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64095
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64095
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86714
Bug ID: 86714
Summary: tree-ssa-forwprop.c confused by too long initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86713
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86713
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Bashkirtsev ---
Would happy oblige but GNU coding standards say "Please keep the length of
source lines to 79 characters or less, for maximum readability in the widest
range of environments." and this bug is caused sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86224
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Sent https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg01791.html for review.
I went by hidden symbols as they generate roughly the same code as before and
don't require GOT/PCREL setup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86713
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vladimir Bashkirtsev from comment #2)
> Would happy oblige but GNU coding standards say "Please keep the length of
> source lines to 79 characters or less, for maximum readability in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86481
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86481
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86693
--- Comment #3 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> The reason why this works for sub/add is that x86 has xadd instruction, so
> we expand it as xadd and later on during combine find out we are actually
> compari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86715
Bug ID: 86715
Summary: ICE passing too large argument on stack
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86716
Bug ID: 86716
Summary: use of parameter outside function body before ‘++’
token
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86717
Bug ID: 86717
Summary: Unexpected error in dynamic allocation of an array of
function pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86716
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
With the C front-end this is accepted. I suspect C99 feature is not
implemented in the C++ front-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86718
Bug ID: 86718
Summary: ICE during RTL pass: expand
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: u
33 matches
Mail list logo