https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88399
Lukas Schork changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
Bug ID: 88492
Summary: SLP optimization generates ugly code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88261
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87292
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88311
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 45235
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45235&action=edit
fix
r266604, git 0a4b5c66df9, "[RS6000] Use standard call patterns for
__tls_get_addr calls" is the patch that reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88311
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
I don't profess to grok the intracecies of combine, but ISTM that the stored
indirection needs the moral equivalent of "used", or else it should surely be a
candidate for removal. After all, that's a useful op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88479
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4)
> If you want to do modulo arithmetic on signed values, the idiom (in
> common-usage C which supports conversions to signed integer types as being
> m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88444
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88444
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 13 23:35:10 2018
New Revision: 267113
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267113&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88444
* tree-inline.c (fold_marked_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88470
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 13 23:33:57 2018
New Revision: 267112
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/88470
* cfgcleanup.c (outgoing_edges_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
--- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #7)
> > --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
> >> 8, but that let the constructor already fail the first time through
> >> where _d_arraycopy checks that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
>> 8, but that let the constructor already fail the first time through
>> where _d_arraycopy checks that the right amount of data is copied:
>>
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88311
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
Hmm, it looks like combine is removing the long call.
hello2.c.262r.ud_dce:
(insn 10 9 11 2 (set (reg/f:SI 127)
(high:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("printf") [flags 0x41] ))) "hello2.c":5:3 651 {elf_high}
(n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88470
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87241
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88311
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|amodra at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88311
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88414
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #5)
>
> Unfortunately, this doesn't work: the first time through, _locks[0] was
> already 8-byte aligned and everything worked fine. This remained when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88414
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Dec 13 20:54:27 2018
New Revision: 267109
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267109&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-13 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/88414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88479
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> The C standard would have to drop ones' complement and sign-magnitude first.
And there's substantial support for doing so.
> In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88216
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Dec 13 20:47:32 2018
New Revision: 267108
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267108&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88216 - ICE with class type in non-type template paramet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88216
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85544
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88467
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71044
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> Before the code is moved from std::experimental::filesystem to
> std::filesystem (and into the shared library) there are a few improvements
> that should be m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88477
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'm referring to C17 6.7.9#3, in the constraints for initializers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71044
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Dec 13 20:33:55 2018
New Revision: 267106
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267106&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/71044 optimize std::filesystem::path construction
This new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88464
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For masked gathers it is now fixed on the trunk, for masked stores I'll have a
look tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88416
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in in |[8 Regression] ICE in in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88416
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 13 19:44:50 2018
New Revision: 267105
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267105&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/88416
* valtrack.c (cleanup_auto_inc_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88482
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88491
Bug ID: 88491
Summary: new test case allocfail.sh in r267054 fails if dash is
the default shell (/bin/sh)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88490
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Ehh, small typo. This is correct version, also not vectorized:
[code]
struct S
{
double* __restrict__ * __restrict__ d;
};
void test(S* __restrict__ s, int n, int k)
{
if (n > k)
{
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88490
Bug ID: 88490
Summary: Missed autovectorization when indices are different
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38658
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.3.5, 4.4.7, 4.8.5, 4.9.4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42778
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60035
--- Comment #13 from Nathaniel J. Smith ---
Unfortunately, AFAICT, the omp_pause_resource APIs don't actually solve the
problem.
They're fine and useful if you have a single piece of code that wants to use
both omp and fork(). But, this was neve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 13 17:47:52 2018
New Revision: 267099
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267099&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87531] Fix second bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88489
Bug ID: 88489
Summary: [9 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/avx512f-vfixupimmss-2.c execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88414
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Started with r257077. In any case, it seems to be a LRA error-recovery bug.
> We first properly diagnose that the inline asm has constraints that are
> imposs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@li-snyder.org
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88485
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88488
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88469
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Simpler test-case.
struct x
{
long long a : 61;
};
void bar (int, struct x);
int foo (int a, int b, int c, struct x d)
{
bar (a, d);
return 2;
}
This does not seem to generate ldrd, but does show
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88487
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
I spotted that test3 in previous comment uses structure S2 which does not have
union inside. When I changes it to use S1, I got non-vectorized code. So this
workaround does not work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88486
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88487
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Update: when pointers to data are copied to local variables like below,
autovectorization starts working again.
[code]
void test3(S2* __restrict__ s1, S2* __restrict__ s2)
{
double* __restrict__ * __r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks. I still don't see what's wrong. Are you testing only by single-stepping
in gdb, or does your program overall behave differently with/without
if-conversion?
In other words, do you see if-conversio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88488
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Compiles and runs without attribute "parameter" :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
integer :: n = 789
end type
type(t) :: a(2) = t()
type(t) :: b(2)
b = [a]
print *, size(b), b
end
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88488
Bug ID: 88488
Summary: ICE in gfc_trans_array_constructor_subarray, at
fortran/trans-array.c:1646
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67288
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea, I was pretty sure our current structure wasn't well suited for doing
combinations in an EBB, but I was much less sure about the analysis side.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88487
Bug ID: 88487
Summary: union prevents autovectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88486
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Compiles and runs when wrapped in a program :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
character(:), allocatable :: x(:)
x = ['bcd']
x = ['a'//x//'e']
print *, size(x), len(x), x
end
$ gfortran-9-20181209 z2.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88486
Bug ID: 88486
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref, at
fortran/trans-array.c:3401
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88464
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 13 17:01:50 2018
New Revision: 267097
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267097&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88464
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vect_build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #8 from Heinrich Seebauer ---
Sorry, my comment was lost completely after uploading the attachment.
Try again...
So I hope, I got this right.
-fdbg-cnt=if_conversion:xx,if_after_combine:yy
xx yy result
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82294
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||headch at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #7 from Heinrich Seebauer ---
Created attachment 45232
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45232&action=edit
zipped asm files for three cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88485
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88457
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> ira-max-conflict-table-size=0 might be an impossible value - Vlad?
Any size is possible. Simply in this case conflict table is not built and
simple RA (ki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88485
Bug ID: 88485
Summary: [9 regression] parse error on explicitly specialized
assignment call
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88425
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88425
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks! Should this be closed as fixed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88399
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88469
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
And just to be sure, can you confirm that -fno-if-conversion changes program
behavior (the testcase is not executable so I cannot check), and the issue is
not about debug info quality (i.e. that single-st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Dec 13 15:57:24 2018
New Revision: 267096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87531] Fix second bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
The code shown in the opening comment looks fine to me, so please isolate the
issue further using debug counters.
Add -fdbg-cnt=if_conversion:99,if_after_combine:99 to -O1. This should lead to
broken cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87853
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87824
--- Comment #17 from Rainer Orth ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #6)
[...]
> > Running target unix
> > FAIL: runnable/cppa.d execution test
> > FAIL: runnable/cppa.d -g execution test
> > FAIL: runnable/cppa.d -g -shared-libphobos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87824
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048
--- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
I've attached the execution traces from PR25829 here for clarity.
Looking at them, I've noticed a different execution path in
build.4947.constprop.0, starting at line 5477 in the "OK" file, and line 5483
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 45229
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45229&action=edit
execution trace of KO static binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 45228
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45228&action=edit
execution trace of OK static binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88478
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Code seems ok in a valgrind version of gcc trunk revision 266400
from date Nov 25, so problem looks relatively recent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88484
Bug ID: 88484
Summary: OpenACC wait directive without wait argument but with
async clause
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87924
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60035
--- Comment #12 from Jeff Hammond ---
I apologize for stupidly misinterpreting the automated message as something
else. My email client did not show the true sender address.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88483
Bug ID: 88483
Summary: Unnecessary stack alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60035
--- Comment #11 from Jeff Hammond ---
Thanks for sharing. I’ve seen that bug or closely related ones before. This
is definitely one of the motivating examples for this feature set.
The only question is how many years before it gets adopted (whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88041
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> However, quite honestly, as a volunteer contributor to an open-source project,
> I guess I'm free to choose whether I want to contribute at all, and when
> and how to contribute. I'm sure my priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #4 from Heinrich Seebauer ---
To isolate the cause, I suppressed several optimization options from thge -O1
group. Adding -fno-if-conversion to the options got the code correct, other -O1
options didn't change anything.
I think, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87853
--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Dec 13 14:42:43 2018
New Revision: 267095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
x86: Fix _mm_cmpgt_epi8 with -funsigned-char
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88041
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Dec 13 14:41:34 2018
New Revision: 267094
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267094&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Include gdc.test prefix in test names (PR testsuite/88041)
PR testsuit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
Looks like there was a misunderstanding, I was probably not clear.
r263082 actually removed the regression I reported, because that commit reverts
the offending one. So current trunk is OK.
I'm looking ag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Stepping through the backtrace, I see the following at Thread.initLocks
> (core/thread.d around line 1719).
[...]
> So there are two things. Firs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88464
--- Comment #8 from Moritz Kreutzer ---
Thanks for the input and for confirming that "for conditional ones (both
MASK_LOAD and MASK_STORE) the support for the cases when using a mask register
rather than a vector register with mask either hasn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #3 from Heinrich Seebauer ---
Thanks, Alexander, for your advice, I will try to isolate this symptom further.
Added the attachment ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #2 from Heinrich Seebauer ---
Created attachment 45227
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45227&action=edit
precompiled source of fsch.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88479
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Note, it is no longer implementation-defined behavior in C++20, but well
> defined:
>
> "Otherwise, the result is the unique value of the destination type that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88311
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to trashyankes from comment #12)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > (In reply to trashyankes from comment #10)
> >
> > Which GCC are you using? GCC 8.2 generates:
>
> GCC Explorer :D
>
> g++
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
