https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94460
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:228646a64fc1013f9133159d2e7b05fdd9972772
commit r11-58-g228646a64fc1013f9133159d2e7b05fdd9972772
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
In fact this situation doesn't seem to be handled at all - global variables
are still an afterthought in IPA-PTA it seems. Needs more work than a simple
fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So, hrm, we could in principle attach a REG_EQ* note to any single_set
> instruction?
Yes, I think that's what is currently implemented modulo bugs, although of
course we do not create a REG_EQUAL note fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, so what we do about this bug then if it ought to be combine.c that needs
changing? For REG_EQUAL notes in combine_instructions check for the
auto-incdec side-effects in the pattern (I'd hope we don't ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94948
Bug ID: 94948
Summary: Warn / fail on non-matching parentheses in a header
file before including it
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Ok, so what we do about this bug then if it ought to be combine.c that needs
> changing? For REG_EQUAL notes in combine_instructions check for the
> auto-incdec side-effects in the pattern (I'd hope we do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #3)
> https://send.firefox.com/download/bdf77223953903fa/#WMrJbMYdsL7AXf2vXYm82g
>
> I uploaded the file, UnifiedBindings23-v7.cpp, to the link above.
>
Sorry, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
Bug ID: 94949
Summary: [11 Regression] Wrong code for couple of SPEC
benchmarks since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.0|11.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Easiest to reproduce:
runspec --config=spec2006 --size=test --iterations=1 --no-reportable --action
run --tune=peak 403.gcc -D
...
Contents of cccp.err
***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
objfolderdiff.py /tmp/good/ /tmp/bad
19/ 155: c-typeck.o: different
61/ 155: flow.o: different
95/ 155: loop.o: different
109/ 155: real.o: different
124/ 155: sched-deps.o: diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> 19/ 155: c-typeck.o: different
This one is miscompiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so I guess with -Ofast (-fallow-store-data-races!) we cannot do the
optimization of eliding the loads.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c
index 18e5c18c17e..554dd4be5bb 100644
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
The patch works for me!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
"jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Seems neither accessible_reg_set nor operand_reg_set can exclude frame,
> because
> the latter results in genera
"jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Seems neither accessible_reg_set nor operand_reg_set can exclude frame,
> because
> the latter results in general_operand predicate failing for it and the former
> results into the latter not being enabled either.
> So,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94942
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f916201ac390a5e1c88562bb91b1b4ab2852f22
commit r11-64-g7f916201ac390a5e1c88562bb91b1b4ab2852f22
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d938a5d770d0e94ecd923d20006b05126659235
commit r11-63-g6d938a5d770d0e94ecd923d20006b05126659235
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94932
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94800
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:144aee70b80de50f96a97ee64edd2f1c237c4906
commit r11-65-g144aee70b80de50f96a97ee64edd2f1c237c4906
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94800
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed, but keeping open for #c4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94942
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE: in |[10 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94282
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
This was committed to GCC mainline while it was GCC 10 – hence, GCC 10 and 11
have the fix.
Can this PR now be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Another reason to have -Wmissing-declarations is that otherwise mismatches of
unused functions are not caught until it's too late (mismatching definition is
assumed to be an overload of the function decla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
Bug ID: 94950
Summary: [8/9/10 regression] ICE in gcc.dg/pr94780.c on riscv64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Bug ID: 94951
Summary: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break
strict-aliasing rules when using super class for a
template type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94952
Bug ID: 94952
Summary: Possible false positive of uninitialized variable
usage during release build in
gimple-ssa-store-merging.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
Similar crash for pr94842.c:
/daten/riscv64/gcc/gcc-20200502/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr94842.c:8:1: internal
compiler error: Segmentation fault
0x74a3af crash_signal
../../gcc/toplev.c:328
0x7ea370 tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #15 from Christophe Lyon ---
> Well obviously that won't work. But if you build the interrupt routine with
> a d16 system and then call a function from it that requires d32 then that
> should still work if running on a d32 CPU.
Tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48451&action=edit
gcc11-pr94873.patch
Untested patch then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0424a5ece5307cc22bbc0fe97edf4707d7a798ed
commit r11-67-g0424a5ece5307cc22bbc0fe97edf4707d7a798ed
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 94949, which changed state.
Bug 94949 Summary: [11 Regression] Wrong code for couple of SPEC benchmarks
since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 regression] ICE in |[8/9/10/11 regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> In fact this situation doesn't seem to be handled at all - global variables
> are still an afterthought in IPA-PTA it seems. Needs more work than a
> simple fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I think array_at_struct_end_p conservatively returns true for p->a[i] though.
Indeed all calls to the function return the correct value. So is it somebody
invented a "more clever" variant of said check? Or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #42 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 May 2020, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
>
> Tamar Christina changed:
>
>What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9b5db750bc7fbba69fee93564907f7da1bca35f
commit r11-70-gf9b5db750bc7fbba69fee93564907f7da1bca35f
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #43 from Tamar Christina ---
Oh, that was quick, thanks! I was looking at the log for another commit against
this PR so missed it :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
> which means we are actually vectorizing a multiplication. Like with
> the following. Rainer - can you test this?
[...]
Works for me: te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> Transition to C++ did not change -Wmissing-prototypes to
> -Wmissing-declarations, so over time several violations crept in. In
> particular this penalizes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> > Transition to C++ did not change -Wmissing-prototypes to
> > -Wmissing-declarations, so over time several v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #16 from Christophe Lyon ---
Another potential issue just came to my mind: what if the IRQ handler is
compiled with -mfloat-abi=soft but calls a function compiled with
-mfloat-abi=softfp? We have no way to guess that the FP registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0
Summary|[10/11 regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3fbf43b9bc060e2904abe64e870868b9a4bfce13
commit r11-71-g3fbf43b9bc060e2904abe64e870868b9a4bfce13
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly simplified testcase:
struct A { unsigned a[32]; };
template
struct B : public A
{
static B foo () { B t; t.a[0] = 4; return t; }
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And the array isn't needed either:
struct A { int a; };
template
struct B : public A
{
static B foo () { B t; t.a = 4; return t; }
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92565
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b33430b53b2a884f177f1d9b40ed840e07240c5
commit r11-73-g8b33430b53b2a884f177f1d9b40ed840e07240c5
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d73d45f19180a474b1bd3af3c9cdf52da3bafc78
commit r11-74-gd73d45f19180a474b1bd3af3c9cdf52da3bafc78
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89860
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98f7381d17a1ad47773b70a5de7d94a164357916
commit r11-75-g98f7381d17a1ad47773b70a5de7d94a164357916
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03f9754665b889e0988d0392db1eb35e91b97693
commit r11-76-g03f9754665b889e0988d0392db1eb35e91b97693
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92565
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 92565, which changed state.
Bug 92565 Summary: trunk/libgcc/config/libbid/bid_internal.h: 2 * useless
assignments ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92565
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
> Why is it missing the static keyword then? (Or alternatively, why isn't it in
> an anonymous namespace?)
Huh? Without the warning developers may simply forget to put the 'static'
keyword. With the war
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 92472, which changed state.
Bug 92472 Summary: enhancement: 5 * constify some parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 89860, which changed state.
Bug 89860 Summary: liboffloadmic/runtime/offload_target.cpp:332]: (style) Array
index 'i' is used before limits check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89860
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94636
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab37baa60ef287c0f5ba9eaa067aa3192b9fb37e
commit r11-79-gab37baa60ef287c0f5ba9eaa067aa3192b9fb37e
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri Ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94330
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f62caf58b5d11f375f789385d6d49891ebd9a94
commit r11-81-g0f62caf58b5d11f375f789385d6d49891ebd9a94
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94330
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90591
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Somewhat related: In terms of OpenMP (to be refined in the spec), the following
applies (in order to work both with shared + nonshared memory):
int x = 5;
#pragma omp target map(from:x)
x = 7;
prin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0532db47d092430f8e8f497b2dc53343527bb13
commit r11-84-gc0532db47d092430f8e8f497b2dc53343527bb13
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d39f7dc8d558ca31a661b02d08ff090ce65e6652
commit r11-83-gd39f7dc8d558ca31a661b02d08ff090ce65e6652
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:811b7636cb8c10f1a550a76242b5666c7ae36da2
commit r11-85-g811b7636cb8c10f1a550a76242b5666c7ae36da2
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Fixed on trunk by r11-17-g82d5decef38b5562d97c49a70ca2636a08769dbc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef3479afc5ab415f00a53fc6f6a990df7f6a0747
commit r11-86-gef3479afc5ab415f00a53fc6f6a990df7f6a0747
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] Calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d44f14ccef831d90feb57fab56bc3389d543ffdd
commit r11-87-gd44f14ccef831d90feb57fab56bc3389d543ffdd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94953
Bug ID: 94953
Summary: A lot of false maybe-uninitialized warnings with O3
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] gnutls |[10 Regression] gnutls test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94954
Bug ID: 94954
Summary: Wrong code generation for vec_pack_to_short_fp32
builtin for Power
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94954
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94807
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> Created attachment 48451 [details]
> gcc11-pr94873.patch
>
> Untested patch then.
This one-liner is pre-approved. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48453&action=edit
gcc11-pr94921.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Bug ID: 94955
Summary: ICE in to_wide
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Bug ID: 94956
Summary: Unable to remove impossible ffs() test for zero
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #1 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Sorry, truncated the assembler. GCC's is:
atum17:~> objdump --disassemble test.o
test.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
Bug ID: 94957
Summary: Compilation slowww for simple code with -O1/2/3 and -g
in GCC 8 and 9
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|should not warning with |should not warn in dead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-05
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 48455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48455&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94906
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
