https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85603
Bug ID: 85603
Summary: ICE with character array substring assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85602
Bug ID: 85602
Summary: regression with strncat and -Wall in GCC 8
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81420
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85600
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|CPU2006 471.omnetpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85580
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andres at anarazel dot de
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85601
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85601
Bug ID: 85601
Summary: [8 Regression] anonymous struct & union namespace
conflict in extern C block
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84654
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 1 22:47:33 2018
New Revision: 259813
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259813&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/84654 Disable __float128 specializations for -mno-float128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85143
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
Note that the patch still doesn't handle
_1 = n_15(D) <= i_46;
_2 = i_46 > 1336;
_3 = _1 | _2;
because of the mix between strict and large inequalities.
(if I write int m = 1337; and replace i < 1337 w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85143
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Tue May 1 21:41:05 2018
New Revision: 259812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Generalize a a
PR tree-optimization/85143
gcc/
* match.pd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85600
--- Comment #2 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Does adding -fno-lifetime-dse help? This could be a bug in the omnetpp
> sources ...
Nope, still fails.
471.omnetpp: copy 0 non-zero return code (exit code=1, sig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85600
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does adding -fno-lifetime-dse help? This could be a bug in the omnetpp sources
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85600
Bug ID: 85600
Summary: CPU2006 471.omnetpp fails starting with r259771
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81420
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Created attachment 44050
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44050&action=edit
untested hackish patch
This seems to help a bit, but it doesn't feel like the right approach.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85597
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
Summary|internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83792
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
pinged: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-05/msg00046.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
Bug ID: 85599
Summary: invalid optimization: function not always evaluated in
logical expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
Bug ID: 85598
Summary: Incorrect warning only at -O2 and -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85597
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from Ma
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
gcc version 9.0.0 20180501 (experimental) (GCC)
$ cat q.c
extern double fma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #21 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #20)
> (In reply to Hans Åberg from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Tim Shen from comment #14)
> > > I have a C++ test case for this:
> >
> > I get segmentation fault on the re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81420
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-01-08 00:00:00 |2018-5-1
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85595
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Alexander Ivchenko from comment #0)
> (long long is only 4-byte aligned on i686)
Not when it's placed on the stack. GCC will always align the variable in your
example to 8 bytes. But a better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85596
Bug ID: 85596
Summary: aarch64 --with-multilib-list documentation missing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85451
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #20 from Tim Shen ---
(In reply to Hans Åberg from comment #18)
> (In reply to Tim Shen from comment #14)
> > I have a C++ test case for this:
>
> I get segmentation fault on the regex_match line with g++ 7.3.0.
On Linux I set "ulim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85595
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
That does not mean the local variable is not aligned to 8 bytes ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #19 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #16)
> I set (kStart, kEnd) to be (1000, 2000), (1000, 3000), ..., (1000, 9000) to
> see how the time grows. ...
> Here are my numbers for end ranging 2000 to 9000, in ms:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85595
Bug ID: 85595
Summary: __atomic_is_lock_free(sizeof(unsigned long long), &v)
returns true on i686
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #18 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #14)
> I have a C++ test case for this:
I get segmentation fault on the regex_match line with g++ 7.3.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85451
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue May 1 19:52:57 2018
New Revision: 259809
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259809&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Improve "offload compiler not found" message in mkoffload
2018-05-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #17 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #16)
> (In reply to Hans Åberg from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Tim Shen from comment #14)
> > > How fast does your prototype run on the following example?
> > > ((10)|(11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85594
Bug ID: 85594
Summary: ICE during expand when compiling with -fwrapv -fopenmp
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85444
--- Comment #10 from Will Hawkins ---
Thanks for the feedback! I tried ignored-attributes but Mr. Meyers said that
was not an appropriate match. I think that I am going to have to go with adding
a completely separate category. This will be good p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
--- Comment #2 from Austin Morton ---
Where is this limitation documented? The GCC documentation on the naked
function attribute makes no mention of such a caveat:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/ARM-Function-Attributes.html
See here for rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83786
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83786
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue May 1 19:16:43 2018
New Revision: 259808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add VEC_ORDERED_REMOVE_IF
2018-05-01 Tom de Vries
PR other/837
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think naked function are supposed to be called directly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #16 from Tim Shen ---
(In reply to Hans Åberg from comment #15)
> (In reply to Tim Shen from comment #14)
> > How fast does your prototype run on the following example?
> > ((10)|(11)|(12)|...|(98)|(99))* matching "10111213141516...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
Bug ID: 85593
Summary: GCC on ARM allocates R3 for local variable when
calling naked function with O2 optimizations enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84258
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84258
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue May 1 18:51:15 2018
New Revision: 259807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
-Wformat: fix nonsensical "wide character" message (PR c/84258)
gcc/c-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #15 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #14)
> How fast does your prototype run on the following example?
> ((10)|(11)|(12)|...|(98)|(99))* matching "10111213141516...9899"
> how about this:
> ((100)|(101)|(102)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85592
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|__builtin_cpu_is does not |__builtin_cpu_is and
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85592
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85592
Bug ID: 85592
Summary: __builtin_cpu_is does not exist on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85465
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85465
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=b5146f735883031f6661dda1d3ee9a34ad557e52
[c, openacc] Handle non-var-decl in mark_vars_oacc_gangprivate
2018-05-01 Tom de Vries
PR target/85465
* c-parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm now of the opinion that we should push these down.
At least gcc-7.
That's what I'm doing with the specfun bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85588
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r229484.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #14 from Tim Shen ---
How fast does your prototype run on the following example?
((10)|(11)|(12)|...|(98)|(99))* matching "10111213141516...9899"
how about this:
((100)|(101)|(102)|...|(998)|(999))* matching "100101102...998999"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82665
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82665
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue May 1 18:20:39 2018
New Revision: 259806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259806&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82665
* vr-values.c (vr_values::extrac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85587
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 1 18:11:53 2018
New Revision: 259805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259805&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85587 - error with scoped enum in template.
* sema
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85591
Bug ID: 85591
Summary: __builtin_cpu_is() is not detecting bdver2 with Model
= 0x02
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #61 from Davin McCall ---
(In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #59)
> (In reply to Davin McCall from comment #56)
> > (In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #55)
> > > The problem is, you're using a statement that the access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #60 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #51)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #49)
> > (In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #46)
> >
> > The principle of type-based alias analysis is that al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83140
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 44047
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44047&action=edit
This adds a defaulted arg to the underlying __assoc_legendre_p for phase.
2018-05-02 Edward Smith-Ro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85587
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85444
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't see an appropriate one, so I'd add a new one.
Maybe the closest is something like -Wignored-attributes but that's not quite
right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83258
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Testcase from Bug 85589:
template struct foo {};
int main() {
static auto v = "str";
(void) foo {};
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81805
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||nvptx
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gufideg at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85589
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85444
--- Comment #8 from Will Hawkins ---
Help!
Just wanted to let everyone know that I submitted a patch for this to
gcc-patches and got feedback. However, I need some help!
There's no consensus on the category that should contain this warning. I h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #13 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #11)
> If you think it's time and space efficiently doable, maybe you can develop a
> prototype first.
I put action number lists on the NFA transitions (no markup of the stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85279
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84871
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85519
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85590
Bug ID: 85590
Summary: [nvptx, libgomp, openacc] Use cuda runtime fns to
determine launch configuration in nvptx plugin
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #59 from James Kuyper Jr.
---
(In reply to Davin McCall from comment #56)
> (In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #55)
> > The problem is, you're using a statement that the access must occur via a
> > union, with the implication
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83140
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85586
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85578
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 1 15:29:05 2018
New Revision: 259801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259801&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR web/85578
* doc/install.texi2html: Replace _002d with -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85578
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 1 15:26:36 2018
New Revision: 259799
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259799&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR web/85578
* doc/install.texi2html: Replace _002d with -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #13 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> ?? That is the task for the linker SHF_MERGE|SHF_STRINGS handling.
> Why should gcc duplicate that?
Because gcc would benefit from knowing if merging makes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #58 from Davin McCall ---
(In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #57)
> (In reply to Davin McCall from comment #52)
> > (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #45)
> > > (In reply to Davin McCall from comment #44)
> > > > The "one spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #57 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to Davin McCall from comment #52)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #45)
> > (In reply to Davin McCall from comment #44)
> > > The "one special guarantee" clause appears in the section descri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85589
Bug ID: 85589
Summary: Non type template parameter should allow object with
no linkage
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85585
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 1 May 2018, peter at cordes dot ca wrote:
> The current strings + pointer-table implementation doesn't merge string
> literals where one string is a suffix of another; this is anothe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #12 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> (In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #9)
> > gcc already totally misses optimizations here where one string is a suffix
> > of another. "mii" could just be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85588
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85507
--- Comment #12 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch is not referring to the failures in Opencoarrays. The fix for #56 is
in Opencoarray's pull request #528. The other one has nothing to do with this
initial issue and is not of my current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85588
Bug ID: 85588
Summary: -fwrapv miscompilation
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85586
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85587
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.2
Summary|bogus error: ‘F’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85587
Bug ID: 85587
Summary: bogus error: ‘F’ was not declared in this scope
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85507
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > It does with reverting the change in dependency.c with two failures in the
> > test suite:
> >
> > 17 - alloc_comp_multidim_shape (Failed)
> > 56 - get-put-allocatable-comp (Failed)
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85429
--- Comment #11 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue May 1 14:08:44 2018
New Revision: 259797
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259797&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/85429
cmd/go: support more Solaris assembler syn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85580
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85507
--- Comment #10 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> > Thanks for the proposed bugfix. Did you check that also OpenCoarrays 2.0
> > compiles again with this fix?
>
> It does with reverting the cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85586
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> ?? That is the task for the linker SHF_MERGE|SHF_STRINGS handling.
> Why should gcc duplicate that?
I suppose there would be small room for improvements where GCC could use the
fact that one string's add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #9)
> gcc already totally misses optimizations here where one string is a suffix
> of another. "mii" could just be a pointer to the 3rd byte of "sgmii", but
> we inste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85586
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85507
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Thanks for the proposed bugfix. Did you check that also OpenCoarrays 2.0
> compiles again with this fix?
It does with reverting the change in dependency.c with two failures in the test
suite:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84955
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
