https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92686
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 47372
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47372&action=edit
Local patch with Bootstrap and regression test on i386/x86_64 is ok.
Also I found there are some disturb with pr8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92686
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> It would be definitely nice to have this. Maybe add a tunable whether to use
> mask registers for SSE/AVX2?
Sure for 128/256-bit vector under avx512f.
> Is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
Vladimir, can you look into this LRA inheritance issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|easyhack|
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92688
Bug ID: 92688
Summary: including introduce the name index to global
namespace scope
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92685
--- Comment #3 from Erick Ochoa ---
Created attachment 47373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47373&action=edit
Possible solution
I attach a possible solution. Although I am not familiar if this will break the
design for IPA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92688
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 88915, which changed state.
Bug 88915 Summary: Try smaller vectorisation factors in scalar fallback
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88915
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88915
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6257
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boostcpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92674
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 27 08:52:17 2019
New Revision: 278757
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278757&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/92674
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92688
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
index was the POSIX name for strchr (because issue 6 marked as legacy):
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/index.html
GCC does not have full control over glibc and even then read the o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 27 08:56:23 2019
New Revision: 278758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278758&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92645
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92689
Bug ID: 92689
Summary: Improve stmt_may_clobber_ref_p_1 on constant memory
reference
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92689
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90632
--- Comment #1 from tangyixuan ---
Hi:
I think the superfluous error information of ‘a’ in the above code is fixed in
gcc-trunk.
$ gcc-trunk -c s.c
s.c:1:13: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘static’
1 | static int c
| ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47374&action=edit
Another test-case
I see very similar error since the problematic revision:
$ g++ -O3 -fPIC file*.ii -flto
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92646
--- Comment #6 from Mysaa ---
So I ran the compilation adding only --enable-multiarch and it failed with
nother error :
cp ../../gcc/../fixincludes/README-fixinc include-fixed/README
chmod a+r include-fixed/README
echo timestamp > stmp-int-hdrs
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92524
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 27 09:04:40 2019
New Revision: 278759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278759&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92524
* tree.c (replace_placeholders_r): Don't walk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92688
SODA Noriyuki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||soda-gnu at yuruyuru dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
Author: linkw
Date: Wed Nov 27 09:08:20 2019
New Revision: 278760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Fix PR91790 by considering different first_stmt_info for realign
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92688
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
See PR 11196 and PR 2082 for that issue ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92646
--- Comment #7 from Mysaa ---
My bad ...
Here is the test that fails :
FAIL: go test misc/cgo/testcarchive
rm -rf check-vet-dir cmd_vet-testlog
/bin/mkdir -p check-vet-dir/src/cmd/internal
check-vet-dir/src/cmd/vendor/golang.org/x
cp -r ../../go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92688
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> See PR 11196 and PR 2082 for that issue ...
More to the point is glibc still does not do the right thing for what is needed
to support C++11 and above:
https://s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92463
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Nov 27 09:16:24 2019
New Revision: 278761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 92463 - Cleanups due to minimum MPFR version bump to 3.1.0
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92463
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cmang at google dot com
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in short
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92690
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92690
Bug ID: 92690
Summary: [10 Regression] vector CTOR optimization performs
invalid conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92688
--- Comment #6 from SODA Noriyuki ---
> More to the point is glibc still does not do the right thing for what is
> needed to support C++11 and above:
hmm, thanks.
the pthread symbols in PR 21327 become visible with -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92679
--- Comment #6 from Marcello Mansueto ---
Hello,
thanks a lot for the support.
Now that I see it, it's really obvious, my bad.
I've really appreciate your proposition to improve further the code, awesome :)
Bye and kind regards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91944
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 27 10:00:50 2019
New Revision: 278762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/91944
* simplify.c (gfc_simplify_spread): Check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91944
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92689
--- Comment #2 from Feng Xue ---
int fn();
int goo(const int *p)
{
return fn();
}
int data;
int foo (const int *p)
{
int i;
int t;
data = *p;
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
int t = *p + 1;
goo (&t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92689
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The argument p could have been a non const when it was passed to foo.
That is outside of the this TU:
static int t;
void (void)
{
foo (&t);
}
void fn(void)
{
t++;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92691
Bug ID: 92691
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in
strlen_dom_walker::before_dom_children at
gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c:5177 since r274933
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92691
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92689
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually the testcase which causes the return true to be correct would be:
extern int data;
void (void)
{
foo (&data);
}
void fn(void)
{
data++;
}
CUT ---
I think you need either a better testca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92675
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> -1u also works
Not in a template:
#include
template
constexpr std::enable_if_t::value, bool>
is_max(U u)
{
#ifdef GOOD
U max = -1; // good
#else
U ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60228
--- Comment #5 from Steffen Seckler ---
(In reply to Steffen Seckler from comment #4)
> I would also like to see this supported, as the intel compiler is already
> able to support this.
fyi: the clang compiler will support lambdas inside of
#pra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92689
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Also see PR92419 which was motivated by improving handling of TREE_READONLY
declarations.
And indeed we cannot rely on const qualification of pointers in any way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92691
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92691
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r274933.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91839
--- Comment #1 from tangyixuan ---
Hi, there still exists the above error defect in recent GCC: no error
suggestions about ‘l_2’. The reduced code is as follow:
static long a //error
static int f1(void; //error
static int f1(void)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11196
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boostcpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92688
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to SODA Noriyuki from comment #6)
> the pthread symbols in PR 21327 become visible with -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700
> without -D_GNU_SOURCE.
> the M_PI symbol in PR 11196 becomes visbile with -D_XOPEN_SOU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92691
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Started with r274933.
Yep, it's already mentioned in the PR title :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
Bug ID: 92692
Summary: Saving off the callee saved register between ldxr/stxr
(caused by shrink wrapping improvements)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92691
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92392
--- Comment #1 from tangyixuan ---
Hi, I replace the ‘int32_t’ with other identifier(here I replaced that with
abc):
1st case:
cat s.c
typedef int abc;
static abc * const f1(void);
gcc-trunk -c -Wignored-qualifiers s.c
s.c:2:8: warning: type qu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46558
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88702
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.5 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92005
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14799
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
Bug ID: 92693
Summary: Inconsistency between __UINTPTR_TYPE__ and
__UINT32_TYPE__ on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92694
Bug ID: 92694
Summary: Can't build powerpc-eabi cross compiler: :
fatal error: internal error: builtin function
‘__builtin_ddedpd’ had an unexpected return type ‘DD’
Product
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 27 12:09:36 2019
New Revision: 278763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92690
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 27 12:16:54 2019
New Revision: 278764
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278764&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92690
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92476
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
And I have one more test-case reduced from rubygem-passenger:
$ cat kit.ii
namespace Passenger {
namespace Json {
class Value;
}
namespace ConfigKit {
class Translator;
}
namespace LoggingKit {
void initializ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Bug ID: 92695
Summary: [10, 9] P1064R0 - virtual constexpr fails if object
taken from array
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthijs Kooijman from comment #0)
> I would expect that, since both types are 32-bit long, they would actually
> resolve to the same type. This would also make overload resolution work as
> ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. you get exactly the same overload failure if you call func(1u). The
problem is your overload set, not the definition of uintptr_t.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
--- Comment #3 from Matthijs Kooijman ---
> I don't see why you should expect that, there's nothing in the standards
> suggesting it should be the case.
This is true, current behaviour is standards-compliant AFAICS. However, I
expect that becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #24 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #23)
> Vladimir, can you look into this LRA inheritance issue?
Yes, I've started to work on this. I can not reproduce it on the current
trunk. But yesterday, I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92688
--- Comment #8 from SODA Noriyuki ---
> Libstdc++ cannot define _XOPEN_SOURCE though,
> because it could conflict with something the user defines.
Yeah, it has similar problem with _GNU_SOURCE,
_XOPEN_SOURCE is only closer to what it should be.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92609
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthijs Kooijman from comment #3)
> Fair point, though I think that it is hard to define a proper overload set
> here. In my case, I'm defining functions to print various sizes of integers.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47377
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47377&action=edit
gcc10-fnspec-test.patch
Just for archival purposes, here is a short gcc plugin that allows testing "fn
spec" a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #1 from Toni Neubert ---
Future more, the following example also fails. Could be the same root cause but
another error message appears:
accessing value of 'f.Foo::b[0].B::' through a 'B' glvalue in a
constant expression
Clang is ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #2 from Toni Neubert ---
Copy paste error. The above example should be:
```
struct A {
constexpr virtual int get() = 0;
constexpr virtual int set(A *o) = 0;
};
struct B : A {
constexpr int get() override {
retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92599
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92372
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
@Honza?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
@Uros: Any update about this? Do you know about somebody who can help us with
an answer to your question?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91916
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
@Iain: ping^2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 27 14:24:47 2019
New Revision: 278770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278770&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/90007
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92600
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92599
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Status|NE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91574
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|hubicka at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> @Uros: Any update about this? Do you know about somebody who can help us
> with an answer to your question?
This is MS ABI, so perhaps cygwin/mingw-w64 maintainer c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||10walls at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
So with all tricks I arrive at the following for the reduced testcase
f:
.LFB2:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movl%ecx, %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92696
Bug ID: 92696
Summary: #pragma GCC diagnostic ... interferes with if/else
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92690
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Does that work? You cannot put all hard registers in memory I think?
Or do we require that and it is just not documented?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395
--- Comment #12 from asutton at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: asutton
Date: Wed Nov 27 15:09:22 2019
New Revision: 278773
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278773&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Andrew Sutton
PR c++/88395
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92439
--- Comment #3 from asutton at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: asutton
Date: Wed Nov 27 15:16:37 2019
New Revision: 278774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278774&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Andrew Sutton
PR c++/92439
Im
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #7 from asutton at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: asutton
Date: Wed Nov 27 15:23:02 2019
New Revision: 278775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278775&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Andrew Sutton
PR c++/92236
De
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92696
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Sure, before that we would punt much earlier at simplification of the
> non-sensical subreg.
We probably should again then?
> I don't mind if simplify_subr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Liu Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #7 from Li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To be precise, I meant something like:
--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj 2019-11-27 10:03:37.916867165 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c 2019-11-27 16:55:17.475150697 +0100
@@ -1441,6 +1441,22 @@ cxx_bind_parameter
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
