https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
>
> probably also a missed-optimization for the new doloop stuff?
Thanks for the information!
This looks a good case with zero doloop_cost_for_address, but the dolo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91796
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Maxim Egorushkin from comment #3)
> It seems to me that register allocation has been a weak spot in gcc for
> years.
Most such testcases show issues with arguments/return in very small functions,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90052
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Warning for (x == 1 && x == |Warning for (x == 1 && x ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81512
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regression] None |[7/8/9 Regression] None of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92074
Bug ID: 92074
Summary: [10 regression] 26% performance regression on Spec2017
548.exchange2_r
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90297
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> svn blame says:
>
> 182796 pault for (args= e->value.function.actual; args; args =
> args->next)
> 182796 pault {
> 18279
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92073
Bug ID: 92073
Summary: references/pointers to thread_local are not constant
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90998
Dan Stahlke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dan at stahlke dot org
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92069
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 11 20:53:26 2019
New Revision: 276907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92070 - bogus error with -fchecking=2.
* g++.dg/expr/co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 11 20:44:02 2019
New Revision: 276906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276906&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92049 - extra error with -fchecking=2.
The concepts merge broug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE also disappears if the include file starts with an empty line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE also disappears if an empty line is added between the PUBLIC
statement and the INCLUDE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92018
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92019
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91715
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91715
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 11 20:19:28 2019
New Revision: 276905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91715
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE disappears if the include line and the PUBLIC declaration are
interchanged.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91649
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91649
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 11 20:06:15 2019
New Revision: 276904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91649
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072
Bug ID: 92072
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE on include from other directory
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92071
Bug ID: 92071
Summary: ice in gen_movsi, at config/arm/arm.md:5378
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Candidate fix:
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -6542,6 +6542,7 @@ check_valid_ptrmem_cst_expr (tree type, tree expr,
static bool
has_value_dependent_address (tree op)
{
+ STRIP_ANY_LOCATION_WRAPPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Yes, essentially, but I don't want to lose the new test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Will be fixed by my patch
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg00782.html
> but the testcase is useful.
dup PR92049?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Looks like the issue is that the condition of the static_assert
(&VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(x)) is no longer considered
instantiation_dependent_expression_p, because of the location wrapper. Before
r267272 the condi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070
Bug ID: 92070
Summary: [10 regression] -fchecking=2 error: taking address of
rvalue
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91860
--- Comment #10 from Jim Wilson ---
Author: wilson
Date: Fri Oct 11 18:41:35 2019
New Revision: 276901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Extend subst to simplify CONST_INT inside SIGN_EXTEND.
This addresses PR 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
After much slow reduction, the reduced C++ source code seems
to be
class b;
struct c {
using aj = b *;
};
struct d {
using aj = c::aj;
};
struct f {
using aj = d::aj;
};
template f::aj ap(ao);
templ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91649
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 11 18:05:35 2019
New Revision: 276900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276900&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91649
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91715
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 11 17:59:09 2019
New Revision: 276899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91715
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92018
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 11 17:52:27 2019
New Revision: 276898
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276898&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/92018
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92019
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 11 17:41:29 2019
New Revision: 276897
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/92019
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
--- Comment #15 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
---
(In reply to John Marshall from comment #14)
> [In reply to Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia in comment #12]
>
> In the future, please file radars for these problems and ping me directly if
> you want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92069
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced source code is
a, c, d;
double b;
e() {
for (; d; d++) {
double f;
a = 2;
for (; a; a++) {
c = b;
b = f;
f = c;
}
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|WAITI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92069
Bug ID: 92069
Summary: ice in vect_analyze_scalar_cycles_1, at
tree-vect-loop.c:560
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The current two jump passes we have after reload are there for a reason.
Some targets will be very unhappy if you delete them.
Like Jakub says, you need to avoid doing stuff with crossing edges in
many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
How can we do this here?
When we make a decision to eliminate bb 5, all the "nearby" edges are
hot.
Having eliminated bb 5, we cannot avoid making bb 6 cold, since this
would violate CFG integrity: as fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We can also just punt on crossing edges where needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
+1 regarding renaming, I just wanted to keep it simple here.
Landing pad issue aside, I'm beginning to wonder if we can have a jump
pass after reload at all? For example, if hotness of a basic block
chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92064
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Well it should at least be renamed then ;-)
But is that good anyway? We then do not have a jump pass after reload
(and before split2 and pro/epi, i.e. shrink-wrapping) any more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063
Ilya Leoshkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iii at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92068
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Jump threading has converted this:
+-- 2/HOT +
| |
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92053
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks for the reduction. There's something wacky going on with inlining, with
-O -fno-inline this compiles.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks for the report, the dynamic_bitset is now less broken than it was.
I plan to backport the fixes to the release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Oct 11 15:29:55 2019
New Revision: 276890
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276890&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/92059 fix several bugs in tr2::dynamic_bitset
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42575
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92033
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Claudiu Zissulescu from comment #17)
> Removing FLOAT_BIT_ORDER_MISMATCH seems it doesn't affect ARC backend as
> well.
Thanks for checking and confirming!
The patch in attachment 41982 has been t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92068
Bug ID: 92068
Summary: [8 regression] ICE on invalid in
process_partial_specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92050
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92050
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Oct 11 13:41:13 2019
New Revision: 276885
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276885&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR 92050 - fix ICE with -fcheck=all
gcc/fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 47023
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47023&action=edit
double63-3.diff: Patch including libgcc bits.
SSA name.
(eliminate_dom_walker::eliminate_stmt): Properly handle
non-size precision stores in redundant store elimination.
* gcc.dg/torture/20191011-1.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-82.c: Likewise.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-83.c: Likewise.
SSA name.
(eliminate_dom_walker::eliminate_stmt): Properly handle
non-size precision stores in redundant store elimination.
* gcc.dg/torture/20191011-1.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-82.c: Likewise.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-83.c: Likewise.
* gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
--- Comment #14 from John Marshall ---
[In reply to Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia in comment #12]
In the future, please file radars for these problems and ping me directly if
you want. Issues in macOS headers don't get fixed if we don't know about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #38 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
>
> --- Comment #37 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> -- If it is done in RTL it should re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ugh, this is a can of worms:
#include
#include
int main()
{
std::tr2::dynamic_bitset<> a(2, 4);
std::tr2::dynamic_bitset<> b(3, 4);
assert(a != b);
}
/usr/include/c++/8/tr2/dynamic_bitset:100:13:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #37 from Segher Boessenkool ---
-- If it is done in RTL it should really be done earlier, it doesn't get all
optimisations it should right now.
-- Unrolling small loops more aggressively (at -O2 even) perhaps needs to be
done at a di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47021|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #36 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
>
> --- Comment #32 from Wilco ---
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #31)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
>
> --- Comment #34 from Wilco ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #30)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92024
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
there is alos a valid test case where an ICE happens:
template
struct S {
S () {
struct c;
{
struct c {};
}
}
};
S s;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89308
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I was just looking at that. I think the code predates the rule that a
user-provided move constructor suppresses the implicit copy constructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
--- Comment #6 from John Harris ---
Thanks, JW. While you're in there, the base class needs a copy constructor, as
its absence prevents use of the derived class copy constructor (won't compile).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063
--- Comment #8 from Jan ---
Fix works for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #34 from Wilco ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #30)
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
> >
> > --- Comment #29 from Wilco ---
> > (In repl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88630
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri Oct 11 11:12:28 2019
New Revision: 276877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276877&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2019-10-10 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92066
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
-Wsystem-headers shows more undefined behaviour too:
In file included from dynbs.cc:1:
/usr/include/c++/8/tr2/dynamic_bitset: In instantiation of
‘std::tr2::dynamic_bitset<_WordT, _Alloc>& std::tr2::dynami
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
>
> --- Comment #31 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> Gimple passes know a lot about machi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #32 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #31)
> Gimple passes know a lot about machine details, too.
>
> Irrespective of if this is "low-level" or "high-level", it should be done
> earlier than it is now. It s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92066
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 11 10:45:48 2019
New Revision: 276876
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276876&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92066
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 11 10:45:48 2019
New Revision: 276876
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276876&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92066
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #31 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Gimple passes know a lot about machine details, too.
Irrespective of if this is "low-level" or "high-level", it should be done
earlier than it is now. It should either be done right after expand, or
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47021
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47021&action=edit
gcc10-pr92063.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
>
> --- Comment #29 from Wilco ---
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #28)
> > For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057
--- Comment #2 from pj at patrickjohnston dot org ---
Initialising a `variant` from an `int` should not be an error due to
p0608. Compared to before, p0608 only requires that `double x[] = {600};` is
well formed. See https://wandbox.org/permlink/I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92067
Bug ID: 92067
Summary: __is_constructible(incomplete_type) should make the
program ill-formed
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92053
Antony Polukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction,|accepts-invalid
|rej
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92066
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92066
Bug ID: 92066
Summary: [10 regression] Many vectorization tests FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #29 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #28)
> For these kind of small loops, it would be acceptable to unroll in GIMPLE,
> because register pressure and instruction cost may not be major concerns;
> just like "cunrol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
int
foo (int a, int b, int *c, short *d)
{
return (c[0] ? b : 0) == 'y' && ((a ? d[0] : c[0]) ? b : 0) == 'c';
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
Bug ID: 92065
Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
