-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180511 (experimental) [trunk revision 260178] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk -m32 -O0 small.c; ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Sigh, i forgot -mcpu=power8 on that last test.
GCC 7 was just fine, stdu, everything.
GCC 8 was bad already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That is, that GCC 8 did not do pre-increment, but it did no silliness
with float registers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755
Bug ID: 85755
Summary: PowerPC Gcc's -mupdate produces inefficient code on
power8/power9 machines
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85753
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44112|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85754
Bug ID: 85754
Summary: missing -Wrestrict on memcpy with non-constant offsets
less than size
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85698
--- Comment #5 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
>
> Can you claify whether test, ref or train inputs fail for you? I tried
> AVX256, AVX128 and plain old SSE sofar without any issue but ref takes some
> time...
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85753
Bug ID: 85753
Summary: missing -Wrestrict on memcpy into a member array
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85752
--- Comment #1 from H. Peter Anvin ---
N.B.: this presumably needs some kind of special treatment of NULL, to prevent
NULL from being an absolute value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85752
Bug ID: 85752
Summary: RFE: self-relative (prepickled) pointers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse ---
(patch should use 'fn && DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fn)' since fn can be NULL)
As I was half expecting, messing with the types that directly doesn't work. It
means 'this' has type T*restrict, and if I try for instan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85542
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 18:58:21 2018
New Revision: 260182
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260182&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85542
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85751
Bug ID: 85751
Summary: RFE: option to align code using breakpoint
instructions when unreachable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85750
Bug ID: 85750
Summary: Default initialization of derived type array missing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84595
H. Peter Anvin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hpa at zytor dot com
--- Comment #9 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056
Bug 33056 depends on bug 70870, which changed state.
Bug 70870 Summary: Segmentation violation in gfc_assign_data_value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 18:35:20 2018
New Revision: 260181
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260181&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/70870
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 18:34:14 2018
New Revision: 260180
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260180&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85521
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 18:33:05 2018
New Revision: 260179
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260179&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85687
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749
--- Comment #1 from martingalvan at sourceware dot org ---
Created attachment 44119
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44119&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749
Bug ID: 85749
Summary: Possible -Wsign-conversion false negative with
std::default_random_engine
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 18:00:41 2018
New Revision: 260176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/70870
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 17:59:05 2018
New Revision: 260175
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260175&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85521
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 17:58:03 2018
New Revision: 260174
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260174&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85687
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 17:32:28 2018
New Revision: 260171
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260171&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/70870
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 17:30:57 2018
New Revision: 260170
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260170&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85521
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 11 17:29:14 2018
New Revision: 260169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85687
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85745
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85722
--- Comment #9 from Chris Giorgi ---
Created attachment 44118
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44118&action=edit
gcc-7.3.1-r1.ebuild
Funtoo gcc ebuild attached, enabling go triggers libffi test failures.
Repo, including patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85643
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Summary|attribute nonstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85739
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri May 11 15:58:29 2018
New Revision: 260166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check is_single_const in intersect_with_plats
2018-05-11 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri May 11 15:55:15 2018
New Revision: 260165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check is_single_const in intersect_with_plats
2018-05-11 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> For different versions there is the
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-03/msg00355.html
> patch.
Time to ping that one? ;-)
(I don't have a particular opinio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
When benchmarking GCC 8 on an older Ivy Bridge Xeon, I also got 549.fotonik3d_r
verification error just with -Ofast -g -march=native -mtune=native
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82571
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||6.4.0, 7.3.0, 8.1.0
--- Comment #1 from M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Remains now:
1) add support for PIC access to the guard
2) finish cleanup of the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85725
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
That's right: unless otherwise specified, string functions require as arguments
valid strings, or as the C++ standard defines them, NTBS (nul-terminated byte
string). Thus the only valid string that can be st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #20 from Martin Lišk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #3)
> Created attachment 44108 [details]
> i386-pc-solaris2.11 ipa-icf-38.exe.wpa.073i.icf
>
> It's only one part that fails
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c scan-ltran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri May 11 13:30:55 2018
New Revision: 260163
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260163&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85733 Restore be8 linking behaviour for ARMv6-M and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
There is function_always_visible_to_compiler_p which should disable this sort
of warning. So I suppose we want to test it prior warning about malloc
attribute?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri May 11 13:29:41 2018
New Revision: 260162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260162&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85733 Restore be8 linking behaviour for ARMv6-M and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #4)
> Does providing some kind of -Oon-the-fly switch solves the issue with JIT
> compile times while still allows more optimizations for the traditional non
> JIT -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|documentation |
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85717
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> (In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #0)
> > Could the compiler detect that `a[7]` holds values known at compile time and
> > force the constexpr on `sort(a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #3 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> What's the reason for writing the code as you pasted it?
I've tried to provide a simplified case. In real world `generate()` function
will have some arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85698
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I can see what the patch does to this testcase on x86_64 - it enables BB
vectorization of the first two loops after runrolling. I don't see anything
suspicious here on x86_64 and 525.x264_r works fine for m
__
Even Wall Thickness Hollow Rotor For Downhole PC Pump
* Well washing through hollow rotor;
* Steam injection into well through hollow sucker rod and hollow rotor;
* use of same components of sucker rod pumping system for both pumping and
injecting.
* The system requires the drilling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82229
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85725
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
The C standard defines a string as "a contiguous sequence of characters
terminated by and including the first null character" (7.1.1).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #0)
> Could the compiler detect that `a[7]` holds values known at compile time and
> force the constexpr on `sort(a + 0, a + 7);`?
There has to be a limit. If I write
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85748
Eberhard Franz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eberhard.franz@th-nuernberg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83687
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85748
Bug ID: 85748
Summary: dbg, gfortran: Erroneous watch of matrix rows as
formal arguments using assumed shape
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68846
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri May 11 09:35:55 2018
New Revision: 260160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/68846
PR fortran/70864
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70864
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri May 11 09:35:55 2018
New Revision: 260160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/68846
PR fortran/70864
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83687
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri May 11 09:35:31 2018
New Revision: 260159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260159&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/83687: Fix invalid combination of VSUB + V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85606
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85606
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri May 11 09:30:49 2018
New Revision: 260158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260158&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85606 prefer armv6s-m for armv6-m parts
When Arm in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85606
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri May 11 09:28:10 2018
New Revision: 260157
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260157&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85606 prefer armv6s-m for armv6-m parts
When Arm in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Confirmed with a Haswell CPU as well. Without the __builtin_expect we
> rightfully predict the branch to be 50%/50% which means BB re-ordering will
> do either n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85717
--- Comment #4 from claudio daffra ---
I expect that the compiler regardless of the location of the types
always gives me the same result, error message or warning
indeed :
# case integer before double :
union
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85739
Freddie Chopin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44111|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Sorry, I don't want to generate unnecessary traffic, I'm just scrolling thru
old c.l.f. discussions and stumble over some old reports there from time to
time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This gives in ICE now with the current trunk, while it just shows
> an error message for a "Deleted feature" when using -std=f95.
Confirmed from at least 4.8 up to trunk (9.0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Bug ID: 85747
Summary: suboptimal code without constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85742
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85742
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85692
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85696
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 9.1+ so far, backports queued.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85739
--- Comment #1 from Freddie Chopin ---
I'm currently in the process of reducing the test case with the wonderful tool
that I've found yesterday - C-Reduce (; I hope that I'll be able to upload
something short and generic (not requiring arm-none-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85722
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(Based on discussion on IRC these log files are just copy&pasted from the
terminal connected to the machines where gcc is being built, because of some
weird restricted system with limited access which also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85722
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 44115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44115&action=edit
libffi test log
(In reply to Chris Giorgi from comment #6)
> Sorry, only pasted one link, here's the libffi t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 May 2018, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
>
> --- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> Dup of PR23094 (and fixed).
Richard, comment #9 shows that the original testcase is only half-fixed (though
the other half seems hard to fix). Does this mean yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
Bug ID: 85746
Summary: Premature evaluation of __builtin_constant_p?
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
