https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88105
Bug ID: 88105
Summary: Possibly infinite loop in pass_dominator::execute
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog, openmp
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88104
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The failing tests are compile-only (don't involve the assembler), and would
pass even with a default-configured GCC. The reason why they fail is that the
large_long_double DejaGnu configuration test both comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85673
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
The testcase from comment 0 doesn't fail for me anymore w/ the current trunk
snapshots (as of 266255), while the following one does w/ -mavx -O1 (-O2, -O3,
-Ofast, -Og) -fexpensive-optimizations -fschedule-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88074
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
MPFR deals with larger exponent ranges for intermediate computations
itself (MPFR functions generally set the maximum possible exponent range
internally). MPC generally doesn't seem to, s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88074
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Note that such issues are not unique to ctan.
E.g., compiling __builtin_jn (10, 1e10) will produce such a hang.
The difference is that in the ctan case the additional algorithm ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88091
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88039
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> However, there's another option: C11, 6.4.2.1 General, n.71 suggests
>
> On systems in which linkers cannot accept extended
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16615
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Note there are a few places where it's "cannot",
which the most obvious find/sed might not locate. E.g. in lra-remat.c:
/* Map: insn -> candidate representing it. It is null if the insn c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #55 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Fixed in the trunk. Does anyone care enough to backport it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #54 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Nov 20 00:07:47 2018
New Revision: 266290
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266290&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR81878: fix --disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=ada
gnattools bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71496
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> Tobias: Yes, please file a new bug (with a small testcase, if possible).
> Thanks!
FAOD, comment #6 is the only reason to keep this open - so when a new bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88091
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52382
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Nov 19 23:27:10 2018
New Revision: 266289
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266289&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/87957
* ipa-devirt.c (free_enum_values): Do not IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88103
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71496
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Tobias: Yes, please file a new bug (with a small testcase, if possible).
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is good that it doesn't warn if trampolines are not data. This is not
documented, fwiw.
It also warns if the stack is executable *anyway*, like it is for many
targets. This is not useful; as docume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Regarding your suggestion, is there a way to get the compiler to reveal the
> steps it goes through in compiling the program? All I get now is the
> backtrace when it hits the error. I need to know what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52382
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52473
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The original test case is still slow, so I guess we should
> keep this open.
Which test?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50250
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50250
--- Comment #6 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Mon Nov 19 21:53:09 2018
New Revision: 266287
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266287&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-19 Sandra Loosemore
PR driver/50250
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88104
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87781
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88098
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87781
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Nov 19 21:37:01 2018
New Revision: 266285
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266285&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87781 - detect invalid elaborated-type-specifier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88104
Bug ID: 88104
Summary: sparc-solaris2.11 testsuite failures due to
unrecognized as option -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40196
--- Comment #13 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz ---
OK
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:51:27 +
> From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
> To: John Harper
> Subject: [Bug fortran/40196] [F03] [F0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52473
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Koenig ---
The original test case is still slow, so I guess we should
keep this open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88103
Bug ID: 88103
Summary: Wrong value category when conditional expression
result is used as object expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88028
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80864
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 88028 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80864
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Another test from PR88028:
struct S {};
struct A { S s[1]; };
template
struct R { static constexpr auto h = A{S{}}; };
A foo = R::h;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87025
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88070
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
BTW: The extra blockage would crash compilation for all mode-switching
targets, also in the pre-reload mode switching; the vzeroupper
post-reload insertion just trips x86 target on a generic problem in
the midd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44551
--- Comment #21 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #20)
> The original issue I meant to report is fixed. There are many more missed
> optimizations in the original example, though.
ok, your choice if you prefer to clos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88070
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
For reference:
The assert in create_pre_exit at mode-switching.c expects return copy
pair with nothing in between. However, the compiler starts mode
switching pass with the following sequence:
(insn 19 18 16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57371
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #9)
> TBH I didn't implement all Josephs suggestions (particularly my patch does
> not try to optimize more under -ffast-math and friends)...
Your choice if you want to r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31130
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71500
--- Comment #20 from Danila ---
Can confirm that it was fixed in 8.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88102
Bug ID: 88102
Summary: Implement P0542R5, C++20 contracts
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88101
Bug ID: 88101
Summary: Implement P0528R3, C++20 cmpxchg and padding bits
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88033
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88033
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon Nov 19 19:35:51 2018
New Revision: 266282
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266282&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/88033
* ira-lives.c (non_confli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968
Hannes Hauswedell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71496
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Netzel ---
Any opinion regarding my comment? Should I file a new bug for that?
Without PIC enabled unconditionally saving and restoring R31 is obviously a
waste of time and stack space...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> This also would warn for targets where it is not an issue at all (where
> trampolines are just data, or where the stack is executable anyway, or where
> ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87718
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The culprit for the bad code generation is the following insn description
(define_insn "*movsi_internal"
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "nonimmediate_operand"
"=r,m ,*y,*y,?*y,?m,?r,?*y,*v,*v,*v,m ,?r,?*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
--- Comment #10 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
it turns out the ieee_* functions are allowed in const expressions so they need
to work at compile time too (see bug 78449), which of course won't work if they
need runtime detection.
so now compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88098
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88100
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc*|powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88100
Bug ID: 88100
Summary: no warning reported when value for
vec_splat_{su}{8,16} would overflow
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #19 from Stanisław Halik ---
Works on my end.
regards,
sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
I think we have separate PR for this ICE. It is the ODR violation
confusing the walk of duplicates. It needs to stop assuming that all
duplicates are same TREE_CODE of type.
I will cook up patch.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53542
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58684
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is not resolved yet no. That patch has some biggish issues still.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Dominique: Can the bug be marked as resolved?
The attached tests are still failing on trunk (9.0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78913
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88099
Bug ID: 88099
Summary: ICE in maybe_legitimize_operand, at optabs.c:7170
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77382
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #5 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66695
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #6 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87542
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83656
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88098
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88098
Bug ID: 88098
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch-4.c (test
for warnings, line 80)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67164
--- Comment #14 from Louis Dionne ---
I think so -- all the reproducers posted in this bug report can compile with
GCC trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88097
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Please also take a look on code which performs opposite conversion. gcc also
does not use movbe here. Both gcc and clang are not able to optimize this into
one 32-bit store, this is another possible optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87025
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Nov 19 16:42:03 2018
New Revision: 266280
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266280&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix -fsave-optimization-record ICE (PR tree-optimization/87025)
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49370
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57371
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44551
--- Comment #20 from Matthias Kretz ---
The original issue I meant to report is fixed. There are many more missed
optimizations in the original example, though.
I.e. https://godbolt.org/z/7P1o3O should compile to:
use_insert_extract():
vmovdqu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79206
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87025
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Nov 19 16:31:03 2018
New Revision: 266279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Eliminate global state from -fsave-optimization-record
As work towards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88097
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
I also tried to swap Word1 and Word2 fields in structure to see what will
happen. It turned out that gcc with -O3 -mmovbe generates code without movbe:
[asm]
test(Test*):
movzx eax, WORD PTR [rdi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87246
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Started with r233107.
>
> Slightly adjusted testcase:
>
> __int128 a;
> int b;
>
> void
> bar (__int128 *x)
> {
> if (*x != 0)
> {
> a = 0;
> b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46636
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80624
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78952
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression]|[8 Regression] DW_OP_fbreg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71500
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88071
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE: |[8 Regression] ICE:
|v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88097
Bug ID: 88097
Summary: Missing optimization of endian conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70745
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63345
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87246
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68426
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Can the bug be marked as resolved?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-11-14 00:00:00 |2018-11-19
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53440
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43721
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44933
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88022
--- Comment #5 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Agree with Jakub that if really not necessary, I wouldn't complicate
> libsanitizer.
My point was that we won't need to complicate libsanitizer -- al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #14 from Gary Mills ---
Regarding your suggestion, is there a way to get the compiler to reveal the
steps it goes through in compiling the program? All I get now is the backtrace
when it hits the error. I need to know what the compi
1 - 100 of 465 matches
Mail list logo
