https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81389
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> (In reply to rockeet from comment #3)
> > @Martin Liška Yes, my use case is:
> >
> > __m128i key128 = { key }; // key is an unsigned char
> > int idx = _mm_cmpestri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is better, syscall_linux_s390.go already compiles, but
syscall_linux_s390x.go still doesn't:
../../../libgo/go/syscall/syscall_linux_s390x.go:28:3: error: incompatible type
for field 3 in struct constru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
Andy Lutomirski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luto at kernel dot org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #7 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Thinking about this some more, this is really not an aspect of __seg_* but
rather the section the symbol is placed in. An embedded system kernel, for
example, could quite possibly want to access an absolute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #6 from H. Peter Anvin ---
It is probably inappropriate to generate non-absolute address references for
these symbols for any kind of PIC or PIE output (as that would require unwanted
relocation!), so #2 is probably not really relevan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #5 from H. Peter Anvin ---
The test case was compiled with:
gcc -fno-plt -fpie -fvisibility=hidden -mcmodel=small -O2
(note: no code changes between -fpie and -fpic)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #4 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Created attachment 41801
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41801&action=edit
Test case: assembly output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #3 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Created attachment 41800
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41800&action=edit
Test case: preprocessor output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #2 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Created attachment 41799
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41799&action=edit
Test case: object file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #1 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Created attachment 41798
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41798&action=edit
Test case: source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
Bug ID: 81490
Summary: x86: Handling of symbol ranges for __seg_fs/__seg_gs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65254
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #22 from Randy MacLeod ---
Yes, the host is an x86-64-linux system running Ubuntu-16.04.1.
The cross-compiler was built using the Open Embedded (OE) build system so of
course, it's not part of Ubuntu.
I did get a better backtrace as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49582
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81478
--- Comment #6 from Sean McAllister ---
FWIW, it seems the compute, check, re-compute if necessary is what clang does.
Rather than "setp %al" and "jne" on that, they just use the "jp" instruction
directly after ucomiss:
0x004005d5 <+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48097
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69601
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69818
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hrm, those ?? are a bit worrying, is that normal on x86_64-linux
(that is what this is, as host?)
I also don't see line numbers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25470
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65294
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81193
--- Comment #15 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jul 19 22:05:20 2017
New Revision: 250371
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250371&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-07-19 Michael Meissner
Back port from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62273
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81489
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 41797
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41797&action=edit
Patch with more strict checking in gimple_phi_arg, bootstrapped and reg-tested
This is the patch with which this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57607
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81489
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 41796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41796&action=edit
Patch, bootstrapped and reg-tested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81489
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 41795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41795&action=edit
trigger and assert patch
This patch uses the bit that makes the bug easier to trigger, and adds an
assert demons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81489
Bug ID: 81489
Summary: invalid phi argument used in
find_implicit_erroneous_behavior
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81463
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53905
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81331
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] FAIL:|[5/6/7 Regression] missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81331
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jul 19 21:06:55 2017
New Revision: 250370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81331
* except.c (execute): Fix ordering is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80969
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41794&action=edit
proposed fix (still needs cleanup and tests)
This still needs cleanup and tests as well as some explanations, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41791|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81476
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> The advantage of doing it as in comment 13, rather than:
> [comment #11]
> is that when inserting the inputrange causes reallocations we only have to
> transfer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #20 from Randy MacLeod ---
I can try! ;) How's this:
$ gdb
/buildarea/rmacleod/src/distro/yocto/b/sd-ppc/tmp-glibc/work/ppc7400-oe-linux/libjpeg-turbo/1_1.5.1-r0/recipe-sysroot-native/usr/bin/powerpc-oe-linux/../../libexec/powerpc-oe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81193
--- Comment #14 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jul 19 20:31:53 2017
New Revision: 250368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-07-19 Michael Meissner
Back port from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6506/20616506/build.log
That fails to build:
../../../../libgo/go/syscall/syscall_linux_s390.go:28:33: error: reference to
undefined name 'regs'
uint32(uintp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81147
--- Comment #6 from Felipe Magno de Almeida ---
NRVO: Named Return Value Optimization
RVO: Return Value Optiomization
It is the eliminiation of copying when returning objects by value (or passed
by-value as parameters for rvalues).
The assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81476
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
I am not so sure this one is fixed.
I have this code:
__attribute__((__cold__)) a();
b() { a(); }
c() {
b();
if (d())
e();
}
derived from Linux kernel and it does this with revision 250361:
dur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51063
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25537
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hm, the symptom looks very much like another issue I've been looking at on
trunk. There may be an issue with the statement->candidate mapping hash table
that's responsible for both. It appears to be a somewh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
--- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #3)
> > It seems I got a little confused when I only looked at the initial patch
> > that was proposed, which was supposed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37041
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21759
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37704
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48839
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Randy MacLeod from comment #18)
> 2. The "smaller reproducer with manual work-around " DOES STILL result in an
> ICE as does the libjpeg-turbo build as you'd expect.
I still cannot reprodu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36994
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|any |
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Jul 19 19:31:26 2017
New Revision: 250365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix for PR81423
We here have an AND of a SUBREG of an LSHI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81476
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 19 19:32:15 2017
New Revision: 250366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250366&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81476 Optimise vector insertion from input iterators
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Jul 19 19:28:41 2017
New Revision: 250363
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250363&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
simplify-rtx: The truncation of an IOR can have all bits set (PR8142
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81478
--- Comment #5 from Sean McAllister ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Confirmed. It shouldn't be very difficult to do,
> gcc/tree-complex.c:expand_complex_multiplication would need to emit if
> (isnan(rr) || isnan(ri)) .
>
> Un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81324
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That works fine. Thanks Ian!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
Bug ID: 81488
Summary: gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in
gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50909
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81487
Bug ID: 81487
Summary: [mingw32] ld.exe: error: asprintf failed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j.d.pryce at ntlworld dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34261
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68988
--- Comment #4 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> Not a commit, merely a proposed patch at this point. Sorry I missed this bug
> when preparing the patch.
Yes, I should avoid working too late in the evening.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81331
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jul 19 18:08:07 2017
New Revision: 250358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250358&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81331
* except.c (maybe_add_nop_after_sect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 41791
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41791&action=edit
Possible patch
I agree that the simplest approach is to not try to pick up the definitions
from the header f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68988
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81483
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81486
Bug ID: 81486
Summary: Class template argument deduction fails with (),
succeeds with {}
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #3)
> It seems I got a little confused when I only looked at the initial patch
> that was proposed, which was supposed to cover specifically the comparison
> followed b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #18 from Randy MacLeod ---
With both patches applied:
1. The "minimal testcase produced by the delta utility" no longer ICEs the
toolchain.
2. The "smaller reproducer with manual work-around " DOES STILL result in an
ICE as does the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434
--- Comment #5 from jim.wilson at linaro dot org ---
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:25 AM, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> To more accurately schedule fusion pairs wouldn't we need to specify the
> scheduling behaviour of the group as well? From the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
Rainer Emrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
--- Comment #3 from Arnd Bergmann ---
It seems I got a little confused when I only looked at the initial patch that
was proposed, which was supposed to cover specifically the comparison followed
by ?: as in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81478
--- Comment #4 from Sean McAllister ---
Looking at the assembly for the __mulsc3 function:
<+0>:movaps %xmm0,%xmm10
<+4>:movaps %xmm2,%xmm11
<+8>:movaps %xmm0,%xmm5
<+11>:mulss %xmm3,%xmm10
<+16>:movaps %xmm1,%xmm6
<+19>:mulss %xmm1,%xmm11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81485
Bug ID: 81485
Summary: [SH] ICE: in sh_find_set_of_reg, at
config/sh/sh-protos.h:232
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
URL: https://people.debian.org/~glaubitz/totem-pl-pars
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 19 13:12:58 2017
New Revision: 250343
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250343&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libquadmath/65757
* quadmath-imp.h (math_opt_barrier,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81346
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 19 13:10:05 2017
New Revision: 250342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81346
* match.pd: Optimize (X - 1U)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
...which could be simply written as:
void
foo (int c)
{
if (c == 0)
__builtin_abort ();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And r249663. Perhaps it would be better for the release branches to just
define the ptrace_area type in the *.go files like syscall_linux_alpha.go used
to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oh, and r249712.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81346
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 19 12:31:59 2017
New Revision: 250338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81346
* fold-const.h (fold_div_compa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81476
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, the rotate needs to be done unconditionally.
The advantage of doing it as in comment 13, rather than:
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11)
> switch to the "new allocation" strategy, create a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
Bug ID: 81484
Summary: incorrect -Wint-in-bool-context warning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80846
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81476
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11)
> Or one could (not legal) directly start a new allocation, copy the beginning
> of the vector, append the range, then append the end of the vector. Or a
> combin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81481
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I'm too dumb to understand the LRA dump ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81483
Bug ID: 81483
Summary: spurious -Wformat-overflow warning for limited types
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81430
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 41788
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41788&action=edit
for lto1, call finish_options after cl_optimization_restore in
invoke_set_current_function_hook
This is an attem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81482
Bug ID: 81482
Summary: by-value lambda capture in remove_if
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81451
--- Comment #6 from martin ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note that the patch doesn't apply cleanly (capital vs. lowercase letter of some
field), and depends on r249472, r249662 and r250324.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81481
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81481
Bug ID: 81481
Summary: [7/8 Regression] Spills %xmm to stack in glibc strspn
SSE 4.2 variant
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81480
Akhilesh Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Host|
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
