https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Peter Bohning from comment #9)
> No. I think you've misunderstood the problem and I mean I can't test it
> because I don't have a computer now but..
No I am not misunderstanding the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bohning ---
No. I think you've misunderstood the problem and I mean I can't test it
because I don't have a computer now but..
Like I said I'm doing this to get the libstdc++ library for aarch64, I already
am using the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82394
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82413
Bug ID: 82413
Summary: -O0 crash (ICE in decompose, at tree.h:5179)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
--- Comment #8 from Joshua T, Fisher ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Joshua T, Fisher from comment #5)
> > and my blog where I first encountered this in a closed source codebase:
> >
> > http://www.nullterminated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81854
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Oct 2 23:57:19 2017
New Revision: 253372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Clean up more fallout from r252976.
libatomic/ChangeLog:
2017-10-02 Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70570
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|ndkrempel at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70570
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 2 22:21:16 2017
New Revision: 253370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/70570
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79590
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79590
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 2 22:02:03 2017
New Revision: 253369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/79590
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79005
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|mmccutcheon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 79005, which changed state.
Bug 79005 Summary: Use of a captured variable within nested generic lambdas
provokes internal compiler error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79005
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82412
Bug ID: 82412
Summary: [8 regression] gfortran.dg/graphite/pr42334-1.f fails
starting with r253342
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79005
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 2 21:44:55 2017
New Revision: 253368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/79005
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82411
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #12 from Qing Zhao ---
> Well it is not wrong, just non-optimal. It is possible to use a single
> register
> here but it means teaching GCC that these values are identical, which is
> non-trivial as it likely affects various places i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82411
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually it is just undefined what happens when a write to a const variable.
So a trap or the write happened for a const both are valid thing.
Now const really should be put in the read only section if pos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82411
Bug ID: 82411
Summary: const is not always read-only
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bohning ---
Well I guess, that seems strange that one would ever actually want to do that.
But it sounds great that it supports such things.
Anyway, I will try --target but my laptop just completely died. Says there's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82410
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|tomilovanatoliy at yandex dot ru |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82384
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82384
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
Thanks for reporting the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82384
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Oct 2 19:38:06 2017
New Revision: 253366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253366&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/82384
* libgnarl/s-linux__x32.ads (suseconds_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82410
Bug ID: 82410
Summary: ICE in replace_placeholders_r
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82409
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82312
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 2 18:17:39 2017
New Revision: 253362
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253362&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-02 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82312
* resolve.c (gfc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 2 18:10:40 2017
New Revision: 253361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-10-02 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 2 18:09:20 2017
New Revision: 253360
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253360&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-10-02 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 2 18:07:45 2017
New Revision: 253359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-10-02 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82358
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82409
Bug ID: 82409
Summary: Superflous pxor instructions in the generated
assembly.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82390
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
dg-options is absolutely fine in torture directories, as long as the
options specified are not among the -O options that the test should be
looping over. For example, it's fine for a tortu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #27)
> program main
> implicit none
> open (10, file='foo.dat', asynchronous='yes')
> call s()
> close(10)
> contains
> subroutine s()
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bohning ---
Well I can't say I understand why the host and the target would ever be
different, but are you saying that I need to add another flag for something? I
mean I never set the target, so it can't determine the t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gcc has three different triplets.
Host
Build
Target
Host is where the newly compiled compiler will run on.
Build is where you are building
Target is what processor the compiler is targeting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82363
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg00070.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bohning ---
Is that really it? I saw a warning about that but... I assumed BUILD was the
build machine and HOST was the target?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So you are trying to compile a compiler that is hosted on aarch64-linux-gnu but
targeting the target on what you are building on?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bohning ---
export CFLAGS="-Wl,--sysroot=$SYSROOT -I$SYSROOT/../gcc-7.2.0/include
-I$SYSROOT/include -I$SYSROOT/usr/include"
export CC_FOR_TARGET="$CROSS_COMPILE"gcc
export GCC_FOR_TARGET="$CROSS_COMPILE"gcc
export CXX_F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
--- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon Oct 2 16:56:58 2017
New Revision: 253358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253358&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/80210
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82381
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42286|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408
Bug ID: 82408
Summary: cross-compiling for arm64 problems
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||meta-bug
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82390
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42279|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82386
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I like that last patch. Pre-approved if it works :-)
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82384
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42277|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79768
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Understood on your hardware limitations.
You could certainly do bisection work on the compile farm.
Again, thanks for your work on cleaning up some of this old stuff.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82387
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 2 15:44:10 2017
New Revision: 253356
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253356&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82387
PR tree-optimization/82388
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82389
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 2 15:44:10 2017
New Revision: 253356
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253356&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82387
PR tree-optimization/82388
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82388
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 2 15:44:10 2017
New Revision: 253356
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253356&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82387
PR tree-optimization/82388
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82390
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 42287
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42287&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Bug ID: 82407
Summary: [8 Regression][meta-bug] qsort_chk fallout tracking
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82364
Adrian Bunk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7 Regression] Enormous |[7 Regression] Enormous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82381
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82397
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82406
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82381
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Richard, this is something you've suggested in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01871.html
To answer my question from:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01873.html
the bb_rank can be t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #11 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #10)
> the following is my conclusion on this bug based on previous discussion and
> study, for this testing case:
>
> 1. due to the fact that "mov" and "uxtw" are the same in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80188
nik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from nik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82406
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2017-10-2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82406
Bug ID: 82406
Summary: [7 Regression] Rejects a valid snippet
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396
--- Comment #2 from Wilco ---
I've got a simple patch that fixes the AArch64 bootstrap failure. This should
fix ARM as well.
-gnueabi-gcc |arm-*-*, aarch64-*-*
Host|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
This also fails on aarch64, during boostrap:
In file included from
/opt/gcc/gcc-20171002/Build/aarch64-suse-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #10 from Qing Zhao ---
the following is my conclusion on this bug based on previous discussion and
study, for this testing case:
1. due to the fact that "mov" and "uxtw" are the same instruction, the
assembly generated by -O1 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82386
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42285
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42285&action=edit
gcc8-pr82386.patch
This patch implements the latter option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405
Bug ID: 82405
Summary: Function not inlined for switch and suboptimal
assembly is generated
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh this has to be c++ because of enum class.
So gcc just does not use the undefinedness here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82363
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I'm testing the following fix:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c
index f5675edc7f1..bac593951e7 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-sra.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-sra.c
@@ -2691,7 +2691,7 @@ propagate_subaccesses_across_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82386
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So one option is to defer the splitting after we've processed the whole
this_basic_block, like:
--- combine.c.jj2017-09-15 17:53:28.0 +0200
+++ combine.c 2017-10-02 15:43:53.102116326 +0200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82375
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 42284
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42284&action=edit
Provisional patch for the PR
I need to do a bit more to complete this fix in order that allocatable
components ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404
Bug ID: 82404
Summary: Unnecessary instructions in switch table
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82398
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82402
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
The leaf attribute seems to make a difference,
before my patch the compiler assumed returns_twice + leaf,
but that may be unsafe for free standing environment.
the crash goes away if the header file adds lea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82402
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> Martin, try this modified test case:
>
> cat ice.c
> typedef int jmp_buf[1];
>
> extern exit(int) __attribute__((__noreturn__));
> extern int setjmpx(jmp_buf) _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82386
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82402
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Martin, try this modified test case:
cat ice.c
typedef int jmp_buf[1];
extern exit(int) __attribute__((__noreturn__));
extern int setjmpx(jmp_buf) __attribute__((__returns_twice__));
jmp_buf jbAnagram;
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82363
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71386
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 71386, which changed state.
Bug 71386 Summary: Wrong code on c++14 (GCC trunk)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71386
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 79180, which changed state.
Bug 79180 Summary: Nested lambda-capture causes segfault for parameter pack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79180
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79180
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82394
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
Used -O2 flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71386
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 2 12:40:26 2017
New Revision: 253350
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253350&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/79180
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79180
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 2 12:40:26 2017
New Revision: 253350
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253350&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/79180
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82403
Bug ID: 82403
Summary: [openacc, nvptx] Optimize binary shuffle tree
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82402
Bug ID: 82402
Summary: [5/6/7/8 Regression] error:
SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI should be set
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/b
-*-*
Host|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
This is probably the same bug (on ia64):
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr57861.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
-fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions (test for excess errors)
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20171002/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82401
Bug ID: 82401
Summary: error: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output:
1 in insert_late_enum_def_bindings on an invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82400
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> The scheme is the same for all operators, using the compare-and-swap atomic
> ptx instruction (atom.cas).
>
> However, some of the operators are supported natively
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82400
Bug ID: 82400
Summary: [openacc, nvptx] Use ptx atomic operators for
reductions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82393
--- Comment #2 from Didier G ---
Not tested but
rtinit.c
should be checked too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67165
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon Oct 2 11:56:39 2017
New Revision: 253345
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253345&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libbacktrace: Support the case that clock_gettime is in librt
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
