https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-solaris
--- Comment #2 from Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71504
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 4 06:56:02 2019
New Revision: 276563
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276563&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71504
* constexpr.c (cxx_fold_indirect_ref_1): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91974
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 4 06:54:05 2019
New Revision: 276562
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276562&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91974
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_gimplify_expr) : For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91982
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Probably started with r276299 ?
We segfault in vect_transform_stmt in call to dominated_by_p:
if (!slp_node && STMT_VINFO_REDUC_DEF (orig_stmt_info)
&& STMT_VINFO_REDUC_TYPE (orig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #27 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #26)
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, stsp at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
>
> > Ah, I am starting to understand.
> > So basically you mean something like this:
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81334
Dávid Bolvanský changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #26 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, stsp at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
> Ah, I am starting to understand.
> So basically you mean something like this:
> --with-sysroot=$prefix/$target --with-build-sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91977
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91986
Bug ID: 91986
Summary: missed loop unrolling optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #25 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #24)
> > But isn't there always a possibility to add
> > one more stage? Say, in the example above where
> > at stage1 we only have a static-only compiler,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87243
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
*** Bug 57753 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57753
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #24 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, stsp at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
>
> --- Comment #23 from Stas Sergeev ---
> (In reply to jos...@codesourc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91769
--- Comment #7 from Aurelien Jarno ---
Thanks a lot for the fix. Would it be possible to backport it to the GCC 9
branch? Note that it requires backporting r273174 first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91985
Bug ID: 91985
Summary: Unsupported DFP not diagnosed with constants or
built-in functions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-inval
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #23 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #22)
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, stsp at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
> And overriding like that is fundamentally unsafe, because in general in a
> multi-stage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, stsp at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
> - The stage2 compiler is built with --prefix=/usr and
> installed with the DESTDIR set to the build dir. As the
> result, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
--- Comment #20 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Oct 3 20:46:26 2019
New Revision: 276532
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276532&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-03 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91497
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87243
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #21 from Stas Sergeev ---
Hi Joseph, thanks for your assistance!
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #20)
> The only case where the newly built GCC should be overridden is the
> Canadian cross case,
Since today, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87243
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Oct 3 20:19:18 2019
New Revision: 276530
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276530&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Darwin] Pick up SDKROOT as the sysroot fallback.
For compatibility with xc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91983
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91983
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91982
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91769
--- Comment #6 from draganm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: draganm
Date: Thu Oct 3 19:17:20 2019
New Revision: 276525
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276525&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/91769
This fixes the issue by checking that a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Arm only uses soft-fp for Thumb-1; otherwise it uses Arm-specific assembly
code.
A natural fix might be, for these particular functions, in the hard-float
case, to use the libgcc2.c versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91984
Bug ID: 91984
Summary: Handling of __def_init_*
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91982
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91983
Bug ID: 91983
Summary: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr61034.C regression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91982
Bug ID: 91982
Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/clastb_*.c tests failing with
segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #28 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 46995
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46995&action=edit
[c] Update mem_operand_gpr
I started tracing through mem_operand_gpr at this point and discovered that
(a) it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 46994
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46994&action=edit
[b] Provide a function that checks the DS conditions for Darwin
.. so this provides a routine that checks the ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35039|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
I'm going to attach 3 patches, with some comments on how the analysis and
testing arrived there - but some background;
(for the record) Mach-O/Darwin, on PPC generates code in three different
flavours:
1. -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6)
> Somewhat reduced:
>
> program main
> integer, dimension(2), parameter :: n=[1,4]
> logical, parameter :: a = logical(.true.,minval([(n(i),i=1,4)]))
> end pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #25 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Oct 3 12:39:42 2019
New Revision: 276506
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276506&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-03 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/84487
* trans-de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91928
--- Comment #1 from akrl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: akrl
Date: Thu Oct 3 12:39:55 2019
New Revision: 276507
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276507&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/91928
* ipa-cp.c (ipa_cp_c_finalize): Release ipcp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Bisection shows that on the trunk before r264897 we emit:
> casalx30, x1, [x0]
> starting with r264897 we ICE and finally starting with r265
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you are looking for a workaround, perhaps replacing
register long x0 asm ("x0") = (long)v;
with
register long x0 asm ("x0");
asm ("" : "=r" (x0) : "0" (v));
(i.e. affectively hiding from the compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
--- Comment #5 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ok so the real problem is that libgcc does not define
FP_INIT_ROUNDMODE and FP_HANDLE_EXCEPTIONS etc for
hardfloat arm targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91981
Bug ID: 91981
Summary: Speed degradation because of inlining a register
clobbering function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91980
--- Comment #3 from Keith Thompson ---
Not surprisingly, when I modify my "complex-bug.c" changing
#include
to
#include "complex.h"
and add a "complex.h file containing only
#define complex _Complex
the problem goes away (i.e., the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #2 from Will Deacon ---
Sorry to nag, but there's a discussion on LKML [1] about reducing the use of
the __always_inline attribute in favour of deferring inlining decisions to the
compiler. However, without an understanding of the roo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91974
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91979
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91979
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91976
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91976
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r276503 PASS for me
Thank you, Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89695
--- Comment #4 from Matthijs van Duin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> I believe this is required by the ABI for trivially copyable types.
I don't see how that's possible, the callee can't tell the difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91980
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||71613
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
54 matches
Mail list logo
