https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87315
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
There could be 2 steps:
- replace the read with an undefined value (SSA_NAME with GIMPLE_NOP defining
statement). I vaguely remember someone was not enthusiastic about it, but I
don't remember why.
- fold a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87317
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87317
Bug ID: 87317
Summary: Missed optimisation: merging VMOVQ with operations
that only use the low 8 bytes
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #26 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Sep 14 23:30:32 2018
New Revision: 264337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/87188
* dojump.c (do_compare_and_jump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #25 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Sep 14 23:26:12 2018
New Revision: 264336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/87188
* dojump.c (do_compare_and_jump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87184
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87316
--- Comment #4 from David ---
Hmm, yeah, increasing the memory a bit (4GB -> 5GB) leads to a successful
compile.
I guess it is expected that newer versions use more memory -- more features,
etc.
The interesting thing is that I was combining tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Fixed on trunk; keeping open until I backport it to gcc-8-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Sep 14 22:02:58 2018
New Revision: 264335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix overeager spelling corrections (PR c/82967)
This patch tunes clas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69968
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Sep 14 22:02:58 2018
New Revision: 264335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix overeager spelling corrections (PR c/82967)
This patch tunes class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87316
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87316
--- Comment #2 from David ---
The test.i file was too large to attach directly so I was forced to gzip it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87316
--- Comment #1 from David ---
Created attachment 44696
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44696&action=edit
preprocessed output of test.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87316
Bug ID: 87316
Summary: gcc: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87314
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Same here (Clang doesn't eliminate the test here though):
void f (void)
{
void *p = __builtin_malloc (sizeof (void*));
if (p == f) // not folded
__builtin_abort ();
}
Here, GCC eliminates the equa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87315
Bug ID: 87315
Summary: uninitialized read from memory returned by malloc not
eliminated, no warning
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87314
Bug ID: 87314
Summary: pointless comparison of malloc result to a string not
eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87313
Bug ID: 87313
Summary: attribute malloc not used for alias analysis when it
could be
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65158
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |REOPENED
--- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87311
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
/* -A - 1 -> ~A */
(simplify
(minus (convert? (negate @0)) integer_each_onep)
(if (!TYPE_OVERFLOW_TRAPS (type)
&& tree_nop_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
(bit_not (convert @0
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #12 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia from comment #10)
> > Given those, gcc only builds if we have the DevSDK ("headers at /" package)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77440
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kataoka-instructor at ka2 dot
so-n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80495
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87312
Bug ID: 87312
Summary: statics in lambdas should be weak not local symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79586
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-07-31 00:00:00 |2018-9-14
Known to fail|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79458
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #4 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79021
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87311
Bug ID: 87311
Summary: missing integer overflow detection on negation of the
minimum value with -ftrapv or UB sanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78951
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77542
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87260
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87260
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Sep 14 19:42:27 2018
New Revision: 264331
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264331&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/87260
cmd/go: correct gccgo buildid file on ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77440
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77419
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77306
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72865
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70678
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300
--- Comment #4 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Wait, can it elide the move even if it's a conversion? How could that work in
the general case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes
The first published standard to include the change was C++14 but it's a DR
against the previous standard. That means it's fixing a bug in the previous
standard.
The -std=c++11 flag is documented to m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70435
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68524
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I believe the syntax in N2269 does allow [[]] attributes there (and
disallows them as prefixes on old-style parameters to avoid ambiguity) -
but they appertain to the function type (whereas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70382
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70082
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45780
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87310
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68524
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68201
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68039
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-10-22 00:00:00 |2018-9-14
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65158
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65115
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77696
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
Prototype of a new approach posted here:
"[PATCH 0/5] RFC: gimple-ssa-sprintf.c: a new approach (PR middle-end/77696)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00771.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65055
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64862
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63650
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87310
--- Comment #1 from Róbert Kohányi ---
Created attachment 44695
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44695&action=edit
a.c preprocessed version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87310
Bug ID: 87310
Summary: -Wc90-c99-compat does not warn about bool usage
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63459
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87303
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't see a bug here. Excess precision semantics mean that the
comparison is effectively with 0.1e-100L (whereas the array initializer is
(double) 0.1e-100L). If you use "!= (double) 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62307
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194
--- Comment #5 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #0)
> >
> > I'm willing to work on a patch for this.
>
> If there still is interest in this feature are you still interest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87309
Ilya Leoshkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iii at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61941
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87309
Bug ID: 87309
Summary: Spurious note: messages when building with
-fopt-info-vec-optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87224
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87224
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Sep 14 15:52:23 2018
New Revision: 264320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport PR87224 fix to 8
Backport from trunk
2018-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87308
Bug ID: 87308
Summary: pretty printer for std::any fails with: Python
Exception Unknown
manager function in std::any
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87307
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>However when you try to perform explicit conversion, you will gen an error.
Right there is another reason why we don't want to support that is because we
support bitwise conversion between vector types and i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87307
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87307
Bug ID: 87307
Summary: Implicit conversion from int to vector works, explicit
is an error
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87224
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Sep 14 15:24:47 2018
New Revision: 264316
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264316&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Add another Z to go with Y (PR87224)
This is another case w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85628
--- Comment #3 from samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: samtebbs
Date: Fri Sep 14 15:16:17 2018
New Revision: 264315
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264315&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Aarch64] Added pattern to match zero extended bfxil
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87306
Bug ID: 87306
Summary: test case gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pow-1.c fails with its
introduction in r263290
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300
--- Comment #2 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Hm, am I misunderstanding it? It said “Status: C++14”. Even so, does it apply
to C++11?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87305
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.2.1
Version|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87305
Bug ID: 87305
Summary: [9 Regression] Segfault in end_hard_regno in
setup_live_pseudos_and_spill_after_risky_transforms on
aarch64 big-endian
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87304
Bug ID: 87304
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-over-widen-1.c fails
starting with r262371
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87283
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87259
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87283
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Sep 14 13:13:14 2018
New Revision: 264312
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264312&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[tree-ssa-mathopts] PR tree-optimization/87259: Call execu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87259
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Sep 14 13:13:14 2018
New Revision: 264312
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264312&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[tree-ssa-mathopts] PR tree-optimization/87259: Call execu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87301
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87296
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87297
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
> Created attachment 44692 [details]
> patch that does not help
>
> The attached patch changes the partition view so that members of bases are
> adjacent. Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87302
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 44692
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44692&action=edit
patch that does not help
The attached patch changes the partition view so that members of bases are
adjacent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87303
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87303
Bug ID: 87303
Summary: DFmode FP constants are not correctly truncated when
promoted to XFmode
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87298
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87302
Bug ID: 87302
Summary: -mfpu=auto -march=armv8-a does not work
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83428
--- Comment #6 from Wolfgang Roehrl ---
Hi Jonathan, I would like to draw your attention to my new comment on your
answer to my bug report.
Thank you,
W. Roehrl
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Aliaksei Kandratsenka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87301
Bug ID: 87301
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
statement marked for throw, but doesn't)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #18 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
OK, but then, this means that the first sentence of the -Wmaybe-uninitialized
documentation is incorrect. That's probably the "there exists" that is
problematic, because of the possible difference of what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86864
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #11 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia from comment #10)
> Given those, gcc only builds if we have the DevSDK ("headers at /" package)
> installed.
I may be misunderstanding what you say: GCC buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79885
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia ---
Because of this issue, gcc only builds if we have the DevSDK ("headers at /"
package) installed. That package is being provided as a workaround for any
projects that fail to build without it (and
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
