https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88494
--- Comment #8 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tested mdbx before and after the revision Richard pointed out.
On My Ryzen box there is ~4% regression.
Although "vblenvps" is fast path instruction and can execute in pipe 0/1. It
competes w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89156
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to PR 51930 and PR 35688.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71029
--- Comment #3 from Alisdair Meredith ---
And for reference, -ftime-report on the same file without -Wall:
time g++ -std=c++2a main.cpp -ftime-report
Time variable usr sys wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71029
--- Comment #2 from Alisdair Meredith ---
Having just discovered -ftime-report due to recent blog posts, I thought I
would repeat the experiment, and can confirm it is still an issue in the latest
development gcc available to me through MacPorts,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #11 from Feng Xue ---
Actually, I am working on adding optimizations to enable this opportunity,
which can be discomposed to two sub-problems: breaking-loop transformation
mentioned above, and empty-loop elimination. I have worked out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88761
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Feb 2 04:21:06 2019
New Revision: 268471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268471&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88761 - ICE with reference capture of constant.
Here, we c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89071
--- Comment #15 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> I assume that memory inputs are not problematic for SSE/AVX {R,}SQRT, RCP
> and ROUND instructions. Contrary to CVTSI2S{S,D}, CVTSS2SD and CVTSD2SS, we
> currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89158
Bug ID: 89158
Summary: [8/9 Regression] by-value capture of ICE variable
isn't an lvalue?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Summary|Fortran tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52564
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54302
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69646
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55099
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67936
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63153
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55762
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59069
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58307
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87887
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 2 00:04:39 2019
New Revision: 268466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/87887
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_simd_clone_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82009
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||valeryweber at hotmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88127
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johannespfau at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89157
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||SztfG at yandex dot ru
--- Comment #31 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89157
Bug ID: 89157
Summary: Pointers comparison do not correspond to the standard
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89112
--- Comment #5 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch fixes the issue on trunk:
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
===
--- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md (revision 268403)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43565
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
My interpretation of that footnote is that it's observing that there is no
way within the standard to *create* linkage between different identifiers
- not that it constrains how such linka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83246
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 22:54:05 2019
New Revision: 268462
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268462&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/83246
PR fortran/89084
* trans-decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83246
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 22:54:05 2019
New Revision: 268462
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268462&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/83246
PR fortran/89084
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89156
Bug ID: 89156
Summary: Templated member function has DEFAULT visibility
although instantiating class has not
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Tobler ---
where ever we place it, it'll be an improvement. Make sense to place it in
config/freebsd.c, then it is FreeBSD only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89155
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Trying 7 -> 9:
7: r87:V4SF=vec_merge(unspec[r86:V4SF] 45,r86:V4SF,0x1)
REG_DEAD r86:V4SF
9: r88:SF=vec_select(r87:V4SF,parallel)
REG_DEAD r87:V4SF
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52084
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:50:55PM +, andreast at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
>
> --- Comment #10 from Andreas Tobler ---
> I can confirm this finding with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89155
Bug ID: 89155
Summary: Suboptimal code generation for SSE intrinsics based
rsqrt
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Tobler ---
I can confirm this finding with the attached patch.
There is an improvement in the gcc results but no improvement/degradation in
the other results. Tested on yesterday's trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:10:25PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
>
> Yes, it seems to be a target issue. It's i585-*-freebsd
> and x86_64-*-fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89112
--- Comment #4 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well I can't blame this one on the linker or optimization. The splitting for
the case where the branch destination is too far is wrong in tf_:
static char seq[96];
char *bcs = output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89154
Bug ID: 89154
Summary: 5% degradation of CPU2006 473.astar starting with
r266305
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89153
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
my bet the problem is related to f being an incomplete type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58142
Ev Drikos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drikosev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52084
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
That seems like a new problem, not sure why you are reopening this bug report
from seven years ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88979
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Oh, so basically this should compile in C++2a:
template
struct A {
using type = T::type;
A(type);
};
template
A::A(T::type a) {}
but it doesn't. It does when I add 'typename' to the out-of-line ctor
p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
--- Comment #32 from David Malcolm ---
Using:
RUN_UNDER_VALGRIND= \
make check-jit \
RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v -v jit.exp=test-factorial.c"
trunk currently shows this:
LEAK SUMMARY:
definitely lost: 55,908 bytes in 654 blocks
indirectly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89112
--- Comment #3 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that gcc decided to split the bdnzt generated by the memcmp
expansion because the destination was out of range, and produced this:
bdz $+12
beq 0,$+8
b $+8;b .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89153
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88325
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88325
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Feb 1 19:58:44 2019
New Revision: 268455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88325 - ICE with invalid out-of-line template member def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52084
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 07:25:31PM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
>
> --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I'll include the PR83246 testcase (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Segher on IRC says that removing REG_DEAD notes that aren't valid is the
> right thing, so paging others what they think.
Definitely not, passes are not required to maintain REG_DEAD/REG_UNUSED notes,
it'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89153
Bug ID: 89153
Summary: internal compiler error: in assign_stack_local_1, at
function.c:409
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70693
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69200
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43565
--- Comment #9 from Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen ---
Footnote 29) in section 6.2.2 of the latest draft (N2176) for C18 says: "There
is no linkage between different identifiers."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll include the PR83246 testcase (which is fixed with this patch too) in the
patch as well. PR82009 is indeed the same thing, but the testcase from this PR
and PR82009 is actually the same it seems. I'm n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 07:10:45PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> Jakub,
>
> Your patch may also fix PR83246
>
Add PR82009 as possibly related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 06:46:14PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
>
> --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43565
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 1, 2019 4:38:29 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43565
>
>Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89150
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 1, 2019 7:31:35 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89150
>
>Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
--- Comment #8 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 45590
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45590&action=edit
Sketch of patch
Thanks. That does make the problem obvious. I've attached a sketch of what a
patch should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 05:52:34PM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 45589
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45589&action=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89150
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88393
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #39 from Matthew Malcomson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #38)
> I don't mind if you take over, I don't really have good opportunities to
> test on arm anyway. Though, do you have copyright assignment on file (or
> cover
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87742
frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't mind if you take over, I don't really have good opportunities to test
on arm anyway. Though, do you have copyright assignment on file (or covered by
ARM or Linaro or similar assignments)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, to me this looks like a backend bug, using dead_or_set_p in a splitter when
the split passes don't really compute the note problem. Seems s390 is the only
backend that does this, other backends use dead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops, sorry, ignore the question, I see you in MAINTAINERS as well as in
several commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #37 from Matthew Malcomson ---
Good point (and interesting about the HOST_WIDE_INT_MIN exception -- I didn't
know that).
To avoid duplication of effort would you prefer I make the change or do you
want to handle it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I admit I have just a vague recollection of this, but I thought since df has
been added, usually if a pass wants REG_DEAD notes, it needs to
df_note_add_problem () and df_analyze should rebuild the REG_DEAD/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Furthermore, nothing really guarantees you it must match,
gen_operands_ldrd_strd doesn't call plus_constant, it calls
mem_ok_for_ldrd_strd on each mem and subtracts the offsets. So, probably a
helper that d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 45588
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45588&action=edit
experimental patch
That patch appears to fix the problem for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Krebbel ---
The r265193 patch was found via reghunt. However, it just reveals an underlying
issue.
The problem can also be seen with mainline.
The miscompile happens in the following loop:
do 110 j = 1, n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is a bad idea. plus_constant will create new RTL expressions any time it
is called.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel ---
gfortran -O3 -march=zEC12 -funroll-loops -fpie qrsolv-reduc.f -c
gcc qrsolv-caller.c -c
gcc qrsolv-caller.o qrsolv-reduc.o -o t
r265191
./t
1.359429
r265193
./t
0.00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89151
--- Comment #2 from Csaba Ráduly ---
Commenting out the non-optional operator GetWhat makes GCC 8.2.0 compile the
example as written. However, that operator is needed if struct R is changed to
struct R {
boost::optional password;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #34 from Matthew Malcomson ---
Yes, I needed to redo that check for an offset of 4 -- I compared the
expression of the first MEM with the result of `plus_constant` with 4 on the
expression of the second MEM in the condition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87863
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 45587
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45587&action=edit
A C wrapper to call the qrsolv function in the fortran snippet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 45586
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45586&action=edit
qrsolv-reduc.f the miscompiled fortran file autoreduced from scipy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
How could you avoid the arm.c changes from my patch if you are using rtx_equal
on the MEM's addr and first operand of PLUS? I believe either that arm.c
change is needed, or the predicate used on the new def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89152
Bug ID: 89152
Summary: Wrapping values in structures can make the optimizer
blind
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89151
--- Comment #1 from Csaba Ráduly ---
Created attachment 45585
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45585&action=edit
preprocessor output from -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89151
Bug ID: 89151
Summary: SFINAE-disabled member hides another
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43565
--- Comment #7 from Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen ---
I'm sorry, I wasn't precise what I meant. When I wrote that the optimization
wouldn't be possible I meant the case of two externally defined variables, e.g.
extern int p;
extern int q;
One can forc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #32 from Matthew Malcomson ---
Created attachment 45584
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45584&action=edit
Single define_insn version of above patch
FWIW I've attached the patch I'd made.
The only interesting dif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |fortran
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jeline
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
