https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88162
Bug ID: 88162
Summary: GCC does not accept non-type template parameters of
class type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53608
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88144
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that I also filed PR 88158 about the manual still saying C++ doesn't
support designated initializers at all. It's clear that's incorrect, but it's
not clear to me what it should say instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53608
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Fri Nov 23 05:18:19 2018
New Revision: 266402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-22 Sandra Loosemore
Alan Coopersmith
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85861
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> > > Does anyone know the history -Wconversion does not already turn on
> > > sign-conversion warnings for C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59922
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80140
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79996
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69818
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
Summary|warn for C++ fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64132
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-11-22 9:58 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can somebody who sees the bug please see what this says:
no grouping
This is with Debian Linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37760
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Oppenlander ---
I just tried with the gcc-7.3.0 I have installed here and can't reproduce the
(> 10 year old!) ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88161
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87754
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87883
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88142
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88161
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The compiler works on x86_64-unknown-freebsd13.0 (aka amd64 freebsd)
and fails on i586-unknown-freebsd13.0 (aka ia32 freebsd).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85726
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|hp at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88161
Bug ID: 88161
Summary: libbacktrace cannot find executable file on
i586-*-freebsd
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88142
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Nov 22 23:10:57 2018
New Revision: 266396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/88142
* ipa-devirt.c (type_variants_equivalent_p):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88155
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88051
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88051
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Nov 22 22:46:54 2018
New Revision: 266393
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266393&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-11-16 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88160
--- Comment #1 from Armin Diedering ---
little correcture:
the first command line (without error) should be:
gcc -mshort -mcpu=5475 -g -S test.c -o-
the second command line (with error) should be:
gcc -mshort -mcpu=5475 -g -O2 -S test.c -o-
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88140
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am testing:
Index: tree-cfg.c
===
--- tree-cfg.c (revision 266382)
+++ tree-cfg.c (working copy)
@@ -3196,8 +3196,8 @@ verify_types_in_gimple_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88159
--- Comment #3 from Wanying Luo ---
Ah, you're right. Thanks for pointing it out, Andrew.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88160
Bug ID: 88160
Summary: Error: register save offset not a multiple of 4
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88051
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Nov 22 21:45:01 2018
New Revision: 266392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-11-16 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88140
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Ok, we die testing:
3199 if (!useless_type_conversion_p (TREE_TYPE (expr),
3200 TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND
(expr, 1
where expr is:
pub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88159
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
If you try without -O2 and without -flto, you will get the same issue as with
-flto.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88159
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88159
Bug ID: 88159
Summary: LTO seems to mishandle exceptions that're thrown from
c-linkage functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #19 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #18)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #17)
> > I've reproduced it. Clearly, it is some bug in LRA conflict calculation.
> > I will be working on it.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88152
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88143
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 45073
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45073&action=edit
Patch for the PR
The attached bootstraps and regtests OK.
I will apply as obvious in the next 24 hours.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44976
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
While it might look too specialized, it actually triggered (i.e. narrowed the
range info) in 105473 cases during x86_64-linux bootstrap + regtest.
--- gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.c.jj2018-11-22 18:45:54.67066943
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #18 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #17)
> I've reproduced it. Clearly, it is some bug in LRA conflict calculation.
> I will be working on it.
I investigated it more. Before scheduling we hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88153
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
I checked that godbolt.org uses g++ (GCC-Explorer-Build) 9.0.0 20181110
(experimental). This version does not have such patch merged.
Anyway, code compiled with -fmath-errno enabled would benefit from
vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88157
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Note, no need to revert if it is something that can be resolved within a few
> days, I can just exclude go from the enabled languages till then.
OK, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85206
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85794
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 22 19:58:50 2018
New Revision: 266387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85794
* gcc.dg/vect/O3-pr85794.c: New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88158
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88157
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, no need to revert if it is something that can be resolved within a few
days, I can just exclude go from the enabled languages till then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88158
Bug ID: 88158
Summary: Document designated initializer support in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88157
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88157
Bug ID: 88157
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE when building libgo encoding/gob.lo
starting with r266385
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88156
Bug ID: 88156
Summary: ftree-vrp elides sign condition on mingw
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Nov 22 18:10:05 2018
New Revision: 266386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Improve relocation
2018-11-22 Marc Glisse
PR libstdc++/87106
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88144
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I think one of the reasons why it has not been removed is there is still code
> out there that uses this syntax.
Including system he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87718
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Nov 22 17:25:57 2018
New Revision: 266385
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-22 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/87718
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88155
Bug ID: 88155
Summary: ICE in gfc_format_decoder, at fortran/error.c:947
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49802
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #10 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88154
Bug ID: 88154
Summary: [F18] ICE: Intrinsic function '_gfortran_caf_get_team'
(119) not recognized
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77604
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #3 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86608
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84757
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Vlad, is this something that can be still done for GCC 9 or should we defer
> to GCC 10?
Adding live analysis on subreg level to LRA is a big work and I thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88153
Bug ID: 88153
Summary: sqrt() is not vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88055
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2018-11-16 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85925
--- Comment #33 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 22 16:29:29 2018
New Revision: 266383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-11-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85925
--- Comment #34 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 22 16:29:50 2018
New Revision: 266384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-11-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67843
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87514
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> It's possible this can already be devirtualized by the compiler, but only
> when optimising. If it isn't, then this might help:
>
> @@ -653,9 +652,8 @@ _GLIB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
If it is simply location overflow it likely won't reduce into something simple
:(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88152
Bug ID: 88152
Summary: optimize SSE & AVX char compares with subsequent
movmskb
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88141
--- Comment #3 from Joshua Morrison ---
The same error occurs with the MSYS2 distribution of texinfo 5.2 (4.13 isn't
available in their repository anymore).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Thanks. The issue is that we have a discrepancy between analysis and transform
stage for the def type of one of the comparison operands. I'll see to track
that down tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 45070
> --> https://gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #1)
> Hmm, this looks like another overfow in line map - my understanding is that
> the assert checks that correct line number is added. I am not quite
> line_map expert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87520
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85930
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Nov 22 15:02:46 2018
New Revision: 266380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87520 Always pass type-punned type_info reference
The imple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87520
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Nov 22 15:02:46 2018
New Revision: 266380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87520 Always pass type-punned type_info reference
The imple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45071
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45071&action=edit
reduced test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64132
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88149
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45070
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45070&action=edit
gcc9-pr85598.patch
Hack that works for me, but perhaps it is too specialized. Can gather
statistics how many r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 22 14:46:17 2018
New Revision: 266379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR85434: Prevent spilling of stack protector guard's address on A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, this looks like another overfow in line map - my understanding is that the
assert checks that correct line number is added. I am not quite line_map
expert :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53182
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #6)
> This is not specific to noreturn, because in C99, it didn't exist yet (I
> mean that in future C standards, you could have similar problems with other
> attri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88148
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 22 14:08:44 2018
New Revision: 266378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88148
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88148
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to janus from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > More details are needed here.
>
> What exactly do you need?
>
>
> $ gfortran-7 -march=knl -Ofast -g c0.f90
> $ gdb ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
> > --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> > Thanks, I will write up a small documentation of how the sections modules
> > interacts with runtime - al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Misaligned |[8 Regression] Misaligned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87520
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ODR|[8 Regression] ODR
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87520
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Nov 22 13:42:39 2018
New Revision: 266376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87520 Always pass type-punned type_info reference
The imple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85930
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Nov 22 13:42:39 2018
New Revision: 266376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87520 Always pass type-punned type_info reference
The imple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Koenig ---
> Once you are done on this, you might consider implementing a -parallel as in
> ifort.
>
> This could conveniently be triggered in frontend-passes.c, I suspect. ie.
> this would be a good place to check fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88111
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or just +__x instead of (__x + 0).
I'm assuming that the non-standard integer type will promote to one of the
standard integers, which is true for __int20 but maybe not in general.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88111
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks! I'll look through that when I get a chance.
For the iostream case I think it should always be possible to write size_t to a
stream, so we might want to solve it properly with overloads like:
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Or, couldn't e.g. number of iterations analysis if it determines linear IV
> adjust the value range?
It indeed could if it's just the PHI that is lacking. OTOH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82961
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67222
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82961
--- Comment #14 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Nov 22 13:12:41 2018
New Revision: 266375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport "[vms] Add missing vmsdbgout_early_finish"
2018-11-22 Tom de Vr
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
