https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47069|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #27 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #26)
> Created attachment 47070 [details]
> gcc10-prereload-splitters.patch
>
> Updated patch for the pre-reload splitters, which uses a new predicate and
> additionall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Oct 19 12:46:57 2019
New Revision: 277203
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277203&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/92140
* config/i386/predicates.md (int_nonimmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 91368, which changed state.
Bug 91368 Summary: Implement P1301R4: [[nodiscard("with reason")]]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91368
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91368
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91368
--- Comment #4 from JeanHeyd Meneide ---
🎉!!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92158
Bug ID: 92158
Summary: Enum warning when -1 enum converted to unsigned int or
int
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92159
Bug ID: 92159
Summary: -Wenum-conversion for C++
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78736
--- Comment #19 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #17)
> > Hello Joseph
> >
> > This was the test case I created. There isn't any warning output when 'a_t'
> > is converted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92160
Bug ID: 92160
Summary: The control variable of TLS variable alias be removed
when use emutls(--enable-tls=no)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91593
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92113
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91926
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Oct 19 16:44:06 2019
New Revision: 277204
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277204&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/91926
* runtime/ISO_Fo
On 18/10/2019 19:43, AlwaysTeachingable . wrote:
> The following C code:
> unsigned int wrong(unsigned int n){
> return (n%2) ? 0 : 42;
> }
>
> should return 42 when n is odd and 0 when n is even.
No. Your code returns 42 when n is even.
It's equivalent to "return ((n%2) != 0) ? 0 : 42;"
Now i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #27)
> FYI, these constraints were used in the past (when combine was allowed to
> propagate hard registers into combined insn) to prevent reload failures,
> where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92113
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I don't understand that Fortran code correctly, but it seems to me that
ARTIFICIAL code is the correct one, so you shouldn't have reverted this
patch, and that may just be a red herring even?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92096
--- Comment #3 from Roger Orr ---
A binary chop shows the fault starts with r276878.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90159
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
18 matches
Mail list logo
