https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> Or maybe just
>
> @@ -1879,6 +1888,9 @@ iterative_hash_template_arg (tree arg, hashval_t val)
> return val;
>}
>
> +case TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> Line #5 is marked as not executed. I understand that this function might be
> optimized as an inline function. However, since Line #7 and Line #8 is
> marked as executed and Line #5 is marked as not executed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
--- Comment #6 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > $ gcc -O3 -g --coverage small.c; ./a.out; gcov small.c; cat small.c.gcov
> > File 'small.c'
> > Lines executed:78.57% of 14
> > Creating 'small.c.gcov'
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri May 10 06:32:31 2019
New Revision: 271053
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271053&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add params for jump-table expansion params (PR middle-end/90340).
2019-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
--- Comment #4 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > >
> > Sorry. It should be Line #23
>
> Which is fine in what I see.
I was wondering this line should executed only once as it is not nested in a
loop. ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> >
> Sorry. It should be Line #23
Which is fine in what I see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > $ gcc -O3 -g --coverage small.c; ./a.out; gcov small.c; cat small.c.gcov
> > File 'small.c'
> > Lines executed:78.57% of 14
> > Creating 'small.c.gcov'
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #21)
> Hi,
>
> for me the patch seems to solve the problem only for some of the Fortran
> files.
>
> I applied the patch in my GCC 9.1.0 build and I still h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90387
JunMa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
Bug ID: 90420
Summary: [GCOV] wrong coverage with "-O3" or "-O2"
optimizations for function call
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90419
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
I talked to Palmer. Apparently what you want to do is build multilibs for lp64
and lp64d, to test the linux multilib support. That isn't currently supported.
I would suggest applying a local patch to change t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90419
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395
--- Comment #8 from Nicholas Krause ---
Created attachment 46334
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46334&action=edit
Proposed Proper Bug Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395
--- Comment #9 from Nicholas Krause ---
(In reply to Nicholas Krause from comment #8)
> Created attachment 46334 [details]
> Proposed Proper Bug Fix
This is the proper bug fix after tracing it seems and looking at other callers
in that file. I t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90419
Bug ID: 90419
Summary: RISCV --with-multilib-list support is somewhat
incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Most likely similar problem to the one analyzed in PR59813, after all, it is
the same function. Previously, in that function there were no tail calls and
most likely no tailcalls in any function with __built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-apple-darwin9
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
Bug ID: 90418
Summary: [10 Regression] powerpc-darwin9 bootstrap fails after
r271013
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #22 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Created attachment 46333
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46333&action=edit
Fortran module -fdump-tree-original
Hi again,
I also generated the -fdump-tree-origina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Or maybe just
@@ -1879,6 +1888,9 @@ iterative_hash_template_arg (tree arg, hashval_t val)
return val;
}
+case TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM:
+ return val;
+
default:
break;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
If we compare the testcase to a modified version using __decltype, for the
latter by the time we reach the place in cp_parser_init_declarator which I
changed in r213952 we have already issued an "expected pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #21 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Hi,
for me the patch seems to solve the problem only for some of the Fortran files.
I applied the patch in my GCC 9.1.0 build and I still have 4 files where gcov
does not seem to ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #36 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #20 from Victor ---
Hi Martin,
these are great news!
Indeed we are using 9.1.0 till today for the CI process, and since monday for
testing purposes before production.
The coverage issue is still present in GCC 9.1.0. The great thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
--- Comment #6 from Vladislav Ivanishin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Vlad, likely caused by your change - can you investigate please?
Sure, I'll investigate and report back next week (we're on national holidays
until Monday
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90417
Bug ID: 90417
Summary: OpenACC 'loop' construct's implicit/explicit 'auto'
vs. 'independent' clauses
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #18)
> Created attachment 46330 [details]
> -fdump-tree-original?
>
> Martin,
>
> this is the first time I use this flag. Is the attached file the one you are
> asking for?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88152
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46309|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu May 9 18:13:28 2019
New Revision: 271039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: allow negative insn priority (PR 88879)
PR rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46332
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46332&action=edit
gcc10-pr59813-aarch64.patch
Untested fix. The problem is that after adding sp addition back to the
caller's s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #18 from Victor ---
Created attachment 46330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46330&action=edit
-fdump-tree-original?
Martin,
this is the first time I use this flag. Is the attached file the one you are
asking fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 46329
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46329&action=edit
Use __tls_get_addr indirectly on 64-bit Solaris/x86
This patch addresses the execution failures on 64-bit Solaris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
> However, 64-bit testing on Solaris 10/x86 only works with gld since ld doesn't
> support -z relax=transtls. What's worse, due to some packagaing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu May 9 17:40:30 2019
New Revision: 271038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-09 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/903
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90351
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu May 9 17:40:30 2019
New Revision: 271038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-09 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/9035
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Bug ID: 90416
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in dump_generic_node at
tree-pretty-print.c:1383 since r271006
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Same happens for e.g. Haswell:
$ ./xgcc -B. /tmp/ice.f90 -c -O3 -ffast-math -fdump-tree-vect-details
-march=haswell
during GIMPLE pass: vect
dump file: ice.f90.158t.vect
/tmp/ice.f90:9:0:
9 | subroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The only difference the patch makes that matters for those tests is in
unwind-dw2.c, where in _Unwind_Resume_or_Rethrow function there is:
- _20 = _Unwind_RaiseException (exc_4(D));
+ _20 = _Unwind_RaiseEx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, seems it is libgcc_s.so.1 rather than libstdc++. Bisecting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu May 9 16:35:56 2019
New Revision: 271037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/90405 New test.
This time really add the test.
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90415
Bug ID: 90415
Summary: std::is_copy_constructible> is
incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89249
--- Comment #6 from Liviu Ionescu ---
I upgraded my mingw to 5.0.4 and I can no longer reproduce the problem, so I
suggest we close this ticket for now and reopen if necessary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
And in the testcase that prompted Ramana's original patch it clearly wanted to
ask something else.
We can't have it both ways.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Are you sure about the bisection btw? I've just reverted those changes,
rebuilt cc1plus and rebuilt libstdc++ with that, but get still the same
failures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu May 9 16:00:23 2019
New Revision: 271036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/90405 fix regression for thumb1 with -mtpcs-leaf-fra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90414
Bug ID: 90414
Summary: [Feature] Implementing HWASAN (and eventually MTE)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90413
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
clang also doesn't do this well: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41819
#include
struct X {
X(X const&) = delete;
};
using Map = std::unordered_map;
void copy_func(Map) {}
void map_error(Map& m) {
copy_func(m);
}
The 9.1 error is as follows (note that the line copy_func(m) appears nowhere in
this trace, despite being the proximal cause of offense):
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
>
> this is weird, line 688 is an "end module" statement.
I see. Can you please use -fdump-tree-original and attach the dump file it
generates?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #16 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> (In reply to Victor from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > > Created attachment 46320 [details]
> > > Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #13)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 46320 [details]
> > Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
> >
> > Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> Martin -- r270660 is Vlad's change :-) I committed it for him.
Heh, got it ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #13 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Created attachment 46320 [details]
> Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
>
> Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 source line contains enormous number
> of basic block (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90409
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90412
Bug ID: 90412
Summary: g++ suggest did you mean for namespace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
--- Comment #4 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> (In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > > Confirmed, again an empty label, thus we generate not precise results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #24 from Than McIntosh ---
Did another run with the patch from comment 21. For the offending routine I
get:
phi-translate cache statistics: size 2097143, 1171808 elements, 0.465610
collisions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In this and many other testcases it wants to ask is STRICT_ALIGNMENT non-zero?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> > I've noticed that the new test store_merging_29.c fails on
> > arm-none-eabi --with-cpu cortex-a9
> > FAIL: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90411
Bug ID: 90411
Summary: Colored diagnostics can omit characters
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46327
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46327&action=edit
gcc10-pr88709-test.patch
Untested patch for the testsuite (well, I've tested it on x86_64-linux,
together with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #23 from Than McIntosh ---
Created attachment 46326
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46326&action=edit
dump from -fdump-statistics-stats
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #22 from Than McIntosh ---
Apologies for the delayed response (busy with other bugs yesterday).
Testcase: hard to share the original... it has hundreds if not
thousands of imported packages (it's an auto-generated Go file), and
I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Confirmed, again an empty label, thus we generate not precise results.
>
> I am not sure whether this is really a bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
--- Comment #3 from David Brown ---
Yes, false positives are always a risk with warnings. We already have a
warning here that would catch pretty much any case, but with a big risk of
false positives - "-Wcast-qual". My hope is for a warning wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> I've noticed that the new test store_merging_29.c fails on
> arm-none-eabi --with-cpu cortex-a9
> FAIL: gcc.dg/store_merging_29.c scan-tree-dump store-merging "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, again an empty label, thus we generate not precise results.
I am not sure whether this is really a bug or only default behavior of gcov.
Since these tw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is something in libstdc++ miscompiled or something in the tests?
Like, can you try those tests against libstdc++ built with that change
reverted, but test with gcc with that revision in?
If it is in libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90410
Bug ID: 90410
Summary: [feature request] -fdiagnostics-show-template-tree
should expand mismatched reference parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #10 from Christophe Lyon ---
And some regressions in g++ too:
g++.dg/compat/eh/unexpected1 cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-eh2.C -std=gnu++14 execution test
g++.dg/cpp0x/nullptr35.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82625
--- Comment #8 from Shawn Landden ---
Included in gcc 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
6.22% 80774 wrf_r_peak.pgo __module_mp_wsm5_MOD_nislfv_rain_plm
5.50% 71494 wrf_r_peak.pgo __module_mp_wsm5_MOD_wsm52d
vs.
4.04% 49253 wrf_r_peak.std__module_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90409
Bug ID: 90409
Summary: std::move[_backward] could be more optimized for deque
iterators
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90408
Bug ID: 90408
Summary: >= -O2 suddenly generates code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90402
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
All are similar, the VN in if-conversion removes a PHI - this is something we
cannot really deal with when doing peeling. In all cases this is a missed
optimization on the non-if-converted body of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90407
Bug ID: 90407
Summary: Compilation error of a C function generated from
Simulink
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #8 from Marius Maraloi ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> Created attachment 46317 [details]
> Don't provide test_text for wrap fixes.
>
> The problem here is that the version I applied still had "test_text" set to
> a n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu May 9 10:18:23 2019
New Revision: 271032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-05-09 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/90382
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|9.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 9 10:09:30 2019
New Revision: 271031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90395
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
