https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90551
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90551
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 21 06:55:07 2019
New Revision: 271454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Move a test-case (PR testsuite/90551).
2019-05-21 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koeni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90252
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Rodgers ---
Author: rodgertq
Date: Tue May 21 04:37:45 2019
New Revision: 271451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271451&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
tbb-backend effective target should check ability to link TBB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90549
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90525
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The part of -Warray-bounds that checks offsets in calls to built-ins (as
opposed to the subscript operator) is a part of the -Wrestrict implementation.
It exists mainly to avoid some pathological instances of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90545
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90549
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90552
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63545
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.anglin at bell dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90553
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(JFTR the cutnpaste got tangled with paste and tape everywhere; the newlib
function in newlib/libc/misc/init.c is named __libc_init_array)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90553
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90553
Bug ID: 90553
Summary: Register allocation allocates post-incremented
address-load of call to call-clobbered register
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80502
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Evan Nemerson from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > _OPENMP_SIMD is a bad idea, that namespace is reserved for OpenMP, so unless
> > it shows up in the OpenMP standar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80592
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90503
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon May 20 22:24:38 2019
New Revision: 271445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/90503
* gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c (dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90503
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i?86, x86_64|x86_64
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90503
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon May 20 22:01:32 2019
New Revision: 271442
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271442&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/90503
* gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c (dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The copy attribute is intended to copy attributes that are properties of
the function itself (e.g. "pure"), but not those that are properties of a
particular symbol for the function (e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90547
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55442
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 20 21:33:46 2019
New Revision: 271440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59813
PR target/90418
* function.h (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 20 21:33:46 2019
New Revision: 271440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59813
PR target/90418
* function.h (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90527
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 20 21:29:49 2019
New Revision: 271439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271439&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/90527
* alloc.c (_GNU_SOURCE): Define.
Modifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89424
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90527
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 20 21:29:17 2019
New Revision: 271438
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271438&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/90527
* alloc.c (_GNU_SOURCE): Define.
Modifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90548
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90548
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
We ended up with an empty call_args vec because the pack expanded here:
18842 /* Expand the pack expansion and push each entry onto
18843CALL_ARGS. */
18844
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
--- Comment #15 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Mon May 20 20:07:12 2019
New Revision: 271436
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-05-20 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90525
--- Comment #2 from Miguel Ojeda ---
I see. About offset 1: even if it is not (formally) out of bounds, memset will
end up dereferencing it. In the end, what users care about is that b and c are
being overwritten (even users that know about the o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85679
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85679
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon May 20 19:10:57 2019
New Revision: 271435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
CWG 2094 - volatile scalars are trivially copyable.
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83431
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90552
Bug ID: 90552
Summary: attribute((optimize(3))) not overriding -Os
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
I think I have an idea what might be the problem.
Does the code do something like
call foo(a)
...
subroutine foo(a)
real, dimension(:) :: a
call bar(a,size(n))
...
subroutine bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90551
Bug ID: 90551
Summary: New test case gcc.c-torture/compile/pr90263.c from
r271400 reports unresolved
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83431
--- Comment #3 from Matteo Croce ---
I can reproduce it with this snippet:
void f()
{
const char *dir = "a";
const char file[50] = "b";
char buf[4];
snprintf(buf, si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #17 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-05-20 8:37 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> AFAICS pa is using LRA now.
I wish.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #11 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon May 20 17:43:05 2019
New Revision: 271427
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271427&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libfortran/90038 Use posix_spawn, reap dead children when wait=.false.
Ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 46387
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46387&action=edit
patch to ignore type_canonical for TTP
Does this work better?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61663
Nick Krempel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndkrempel at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89371
--- Comment #3 from Arnaud Desitter ---
Considering:
#include
#include
#include
void ff(double* res, double const* a, double const* b, int n1, int n2)
{
#pragma omp simd collapse(2)
for(int i1=0; i1 < n1; ++i1)
{
for(int i2=0; i2 < n2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 03:06:32PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
>
> --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90550
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r145440. Before that:
90550.C: In function ‘void f() [with = int]’:
90550.C:9: instantiated from here
90550.C:5: error: ‘b’ has incomplete type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90550
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90548
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
(gdb) p (*call_args).is_empty()
$5 = true
so
tree arg = (*call_args)[i];
where i == 0 won't work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
--- Comment #2 from Nick Krempel ---
However it's also worth noting that if you take the original snippet and change
the declaration of "test" to accept a const rvalue reference instead: "void
test(const Foo&&);", then gcc 9.1 (and all other gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90548
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90550
Bug ID: 90550
Summary: ICE in determine_visibility, at cp/decl2.c:2567
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90549
Bug ID: 90549
Summary: missing -Wreturn-local-addr maybe returning an address
of a local array plus offset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90548
Bug ID: 90548
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy_and_build, at
cp/pt.c:18877
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
--- Comment #1 from Nick Krempel ---
My interpretation of the standard didn't take into account the reference to
http://eel.is/c++draft/over.match.ref when determining the type A.
It says that A will be "lvalue reference to cv2 T2 ... where cv1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90547
Bug ID: 90547
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gen_lowpart_general, at
rtlhooks.c:63
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
Bug ID: 90546
Summary: [9.1 regression] Incorrect template argument deduction
for conversion functions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #32 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 89732 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89732
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90545
Bug ID: 90545
Summary: [10 regression]
gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splats-floatdouble.c fails
starting with r271022
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90525
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90541
--- Comment #2 from Andy Wingo ---
Thanks for the information. For what it's worth, clang issues a warning for
this code, and includes this warning under -Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:48:23AM +, egallager at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314
>
> --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
> is this an ice-on-valid or an ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90536
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 07:32:09AM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> what I meant is that
>
> Program main
> Integer(kind=1) :: n
> n = 1
> End
>
> should not warn with -fno-range-check -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #20 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Mon May 20 15:01:46 2019
New Revision: 271424
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271424&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[testsuite] PR90106 Fix cdce3.c testcase
2019-05-20 Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90522
Leo Sandoval changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90522
--- Comment #4 from Leo Sandoval ---
I cannot reproduced the problem on neither on 10.0.0 nor gcc-9-branch. This
time I made sure that I had a clean build folder and starting from this, I did
not see the issue (somehow, when sharing the same buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon May 20 14:53:29 2019
New Revision: 271422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[i386] Fold __builtin_ia32_shufpd to VEC_PERM_EXPR
2019-05-20 Marc Gliss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
I am a bit surprised at this, that the library version
of packing seems to be faster than the inlined one.
Or maybe some argument is now packed which should not be.
Increased code size is sort of expected,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-05-20 8:14 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>> My feeling is reload should respect pa_can_change_mode_class().
> Maybe it's asking wrong since you have
>
> if (GET_MODE_SIZE (f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90541
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
Yes, just like the function _ZN12Intermediate1vEv.
From here:
.set.LTHUNK0,_ZN12Intermediate1vEv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With a local entry offset? Do you mean it has non-zero top three bits of
st_other?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90544
--- Comment #1 from Florian Bauer ---
Created attachment 46386
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46386&action=edit
Occured error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90544
Bug ID: 90544
Summary: Build failure on MINGW for gcc-9.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Bug ID: 90543
Summary: Build failure on MINGW for gcc-9.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90542
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It looks like the std::e[a-q]* pattern can simply be removed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90542
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90542
Bug ID: 90542
Summary: Build with --enable-libstdcxx-debug fails on Solaris
due to symbol conflicts
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon May 20 13:04:39 2019
New Revision: 271418
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271418&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90532 Ensure __is_constructible(T[]) is false
An array of an unkn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90532
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon May 20 13:02:10 2019
New Revision: 271417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90532 Ensure __is_constructible(T[]) is false
An array of an unkn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> (In reply to dave.anglin from comment #13)
> > On 2019-05-20 6:26 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > > most definitely a reload as
> > >
> > > +(insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon May 20 12:28:18 2019
New Revision: 271415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin, testsuite - fix PR58321
Darwin doesn't emit a .file directive by de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90541
Bug ID: 90541
Summary: Warning not emitted on use of uninitialized variable
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90400
Pekka S changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@gcc-bugzilla.mail.kaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90530
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-05-20 6:26 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> most definitely a reload as
>
> +(insn 177 176 178 2 (set (reg:SI 52 %fr24)
> +(subreg:SI (reg:DI 51 %fr23) 4)) -1
> + (n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70378
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > Still present at r220301 (see
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-01/msg03581.html). Does the
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
Are you still working on this, Jonathan?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Haswell as well
(https://gcc.opensuse.org/gcc-old/SPEC/CFP/sb-czerny-head-64-2006/recent.html)
but only 10% and not bisected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
is this an ice-on-valid or an ice-on-invalid?
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
