0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../trunk/configure --prefix=/home/dcb/gcc/results.271150
--disable-multilib --disable-werror --enable-checking=df,extra,fold,rtl,yes
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 10.0.0 20190514 (experimental) (GCC)
$
I&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84916
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> I have a patch for this, queuing for gcc 10 stage 1.
It's gcc 10 stage 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90476
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> Where is it documented (in GCC). then? I can't find it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I dunno where they got that idea; just reporting it because I thought it seemed
like it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
Conrad S changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||conradsand.arma at gmail dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90476
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Where is it documented (in GCC). then? I can't find it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90476
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90477
Bug ID: 90477
Summary: negative line numbers should not be displayed
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90476
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Created attachment 46357
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46357&action=edit
test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90471
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Created attachment 46356
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46356&action=edit
Valgrind log
Here is Valgrind log. It found multiple cases when uninitialized value vas
used. However in all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89410
--- Comment #25 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #24)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #23)
> > Would it be better if I created a separate PR for this? #line 0 ?
>
> Yes please, it's a separate issue, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90476
Bug ID: 90476
Summary: prepossessor should error if #line 0
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68918
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 14 21:19:01 2019
New Revision: 271193
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271193&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68918
* g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype71.C: New test.
Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68918
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70156
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70156
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 14 21:10:58 2019
New Revision: 271192
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70156
* g++.dg/init/static5.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90466
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63296
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90474
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68918
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82920
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Tue May 14 20:36:18 2019
New Revision: 271190
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271190&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin, testsuite, fix more PR 82920
Darwin doesn't support mx32, and some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90471
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I am trying to understand, the semantics here.
HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS says -0.0 won't exist or that the sign of -0.0 and 0.0 don't
matter? and what are the semantics if -0.0 shows up?
If we treat -0.0 as 0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90471
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Created attachment 46355
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46355&action=edit
Source code which triggers crash
I added code which causes crash when compiling. Here is command which I use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90471
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
I was able to reproduce crash using MinGW crosscompiler build for CentOS 7,
configured in following way:
../gcc-7.4.0/configure --prefix=/root/gcc-7.4.0-mingw64
--build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --host=x86_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70077
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70156
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78615
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note that both ifort and xlc fortran have the hidden string length arguments as
well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62244
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-07-07 00:00:00 |2019-5-14
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50479
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It could even allow tailcalls in the character(len=*) cases because in those
cases if the caller omits the string length hidden argument, I see no reason to
try to workaround that, it will simply never work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #35 from Than McIntosh ---
I applied r271124 to the gcc-9 branch and re-ran the large testcase -- still
has the long compile time (2127 seconds), FWIW.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90475
Bug ID: 90475
Summary: Diagnostic for designated initializer could be a lot
better
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89410
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #23)
> Would it be better if I created a separate PR for this? #line 0 ?
Yes please, it's a separate issue, and will get lost here. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90472
--- Comment #2 from Pascal Cuoq ---
Thanks for this link.
So the bug report is that the file below is rejected by GCC 9.1 (and every GCC
version present on Compiler Explorer down to 4.1.2), whereas according to the
arguments in https://gcc.gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81058
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81058
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Tue May 14 17:41:36 2019
New Revision: 271186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin, testsuite, backport fixes for PR 81058
2019-05-14 Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ---
>> The patch consists primarily of additions to
>> DRUNTIME_LIBRARIES_DL_ITERATE_PHDR
>> to detect the situation, the mapfile and libdruntime/Make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90474
Bug ID: 90474
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P set on a variable with address
taken; error: invalid address operand in MEM_REF)
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90472
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
See PR 14366.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90473
Bug ID: 90473
Summary: gcc does not call function in comma operator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90472
Bug ID: 90472
Summary: “extern int i;” declaration inside function is allowed
to shadow “static int i;” at file scope
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90471
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Created attachment 46354
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46354&action=edit
MinGW package versions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90471
Bug ID: 90471
Summary: ICE Segmentation fault when compiling with debug info
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90470
Bug ID: 90470
Summary: internal compiler error after multiple declaration of
alias in a custom section
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89410
--- Comment #23 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #22)
> #line 0 isn't valid C code. If it causes problems we should just
> error on it (and perhaps even when it doesn't (yet) cause problems).
Would it be bette
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 20:11, ro at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
>
> Rainer Orth changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
Stephan Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbergman at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90460
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz ---
PR85048 and PR77399 are related
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90462
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The example reported here is fixed in 9.1.0, if you have a different example
maybe there's a different problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
--- Comment #10 from Hedayat Vatankhah ---
Isn't it expected to be fixed in Gcc 9.1.1? It seems to still affect GCC 9.1.1
(Fedora 30)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90469
Bug ID: 90469
Summary: -ftree-vrp optimizaion causes 'signed overflow' and
'unreachable code' assumptions without warning.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90454
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please leave it open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90459
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90468
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is correct as written.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to krux from comment #18)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> > current trunk (27), manual regeneration of the
> > firmware.elf.ltrans0.ltrans.o ->
> >
> > (it's kinda frustrating tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
--- Comment #18 from krux ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> current trunk (27), manual regeneration of the
> firmware.elf.ltrans0.ltrans.o ->
>
> (it's kinda frustrating that one can't see the link line, more tweaks are
> stil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90454
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Moran ---
I just did a clean build of gcc with the change linked from ViewVC and
confirmed that my reproduction is fixed. Thank you.
I admit I'm uncertain of the etiquette regarding this ticket itself - I'm not
changi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86215
--- Comment #5 from simon at pushface dot org ---
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/gcc-9.1.0/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin15/9.1.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin15
Configured with: /Volumes/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90468
Bug ID: 90468
Summary: Documentation: typo in the part that tells whether the
positive or the negative form of an option is
documented
Product: gcc
Version: unkno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90467
Bug ID: 90467
Summary: Documentation: many warning options that are enabled
by default are documented in the -Woption form, not
-Wno-option
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90466
Bug ID: 90466
Summary: Documentation: -Wconversion-extra not documented
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90465
Bug ID: 90465
Summary: Documentation: one of the meanings of -Q not described
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90464
Bug ID: 90464
Summary: Documentation: incorrect description of -Wunused
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90463
Bug ID: 90463
Summary: Documentation: -Wunused not listed among the options
enabled by -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at engestrom dot ch
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90457
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90462
Bug ID: 90462
Summary: Internal compiler error with deprecated-copy and json
diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 regression] |[8/9 regression]
|Solari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90440
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> We just use the AC_PROG_LN_S test from autoconf, see
> https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.69/html_node/Particular-Progra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90461
Bug ID: 90461
Summary: [F18] Allow opening same file on separate units
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69724
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm leaving this open until std::async is changed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69724
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 14 12:01:15 2019
New Revision: 271166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/69724 avoid temporary in std::thread construction
The std::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #34 from Than McIntosh ---
GCC 8 and 9 branches -- I'll do that experiment later this morning. It's worth
noting that if the code in questing uses more modern Go constructs (things
introduced in Go 1.11/1.12) it may not compile proper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 14 11:43:55 2019
New Revision: 271164
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271164&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Reapply r270597.
2019-05-14 Paolo Carlini
PR preprocessor/90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 14 11:41:40 2019
New Revision: 271162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271162&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do a refactoring in linemap (PR preprocessor/90382).
2019-05-14 Martin L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 14 11:41:53 2019
New Revision: 271163
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271163&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix min_location usage in line-map.c (PR preprocessor/90382).
2019-05-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90460
Bug ID: 90460
Summary: Inefficient vector construction from pieces
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90424
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #2)
> I can't read the SSA code with certainty, but bit-inserting sounds like what
> I want to have. Alternatively, the partial vector load could be implemented
> lik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90459
Bug ID: 90459
Summary: gcc-arm-none-eabi-8-2018-q4-major
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90424
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
One complication is that V2SFmode isn't valid on the target so at least
lowpart sets of V4SFmode are not easily possible (stupid MMX?), for
V8QImode we get a corresponding integer mode which works in the end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #22 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Was "max_ratio_for_size = 2" as default changed?
Also changing this to "1" did not by far reach size of gcc-8.2 unfortunately,
I guess we are assuming this code growth depends on other regression fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #22)
> Was "max_ratio_for_size = 2" as default changed?
No.
> Also changing this to "1" did not by far reach size of gcc-8.2 unfortunately,
Note that the grow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458
Bug ID: 90458
Summary: mingw64: ICE in i386_pe_seh_unwind_emit, at
config/i386/winnt.c:1258 with -fstack-clash-protection
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86215
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86215
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90457
Bug ID: 90457
Summary: -Wimplicit-fallthrough seems confused by #ifdef
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90378
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90424
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so the "easier" way to allow aligned sub-vector inserts produces for
typedef unsigned char v16qi __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
v16qi load (const void *p)
{
v16qi r;
__builtin_memcpy (&r, p, 8);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 14 10:00:53 2019
New Revision: 271156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271156&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix a test-case in PR middle-end/90340.
2019-05-14 marxin
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #18)
> The new test fails on aarch64:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr90340-2.c scan-tree-dump switchlower1 ";; GIMPLE
> switch case clusters: 37 88 99 100 105 110 111 115
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
