https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92788
Bug ID: 92788
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in redirect_eh_edge_1, at
tree-eh.c:2313
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92599
--- Comment #4 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to Xiong Hu XS Luo from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > So we ICE at the end of cgraph_edge::speculative_call_info:
> > (gdb) p ref
> > $4 =
> >
> > (gdb) p e
> > $5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92772
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92773
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92599
--- Comment #3 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> So we ICE at the end of cgraph_edge::speculative_call_info:
> (gdb) p ref
> $4 =
>
> (gdb) p e
> $5 = "ConvertASEToModelSurfaces.constprop"/113> -> "NumSurfa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92784
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92787
Bug ID: 92787
Summary: P0634R3 is not implemented correctly if
parameter-declaration appears in a default argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92786
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92786
--- Comment #1 from Xavier B ---
additional info:
- getting the array out of the struct works,
- using 'namespace' instead of 'struct' also works fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92652
--- Comment #2 from Ryou Ezoe ---
Yes. this is C++20 concepts .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92786
Bug ID: 92786
Summary: [c++11] static constexpr member link error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92760
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92760
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Author: linkw
Date: Wed Dec 4 05:10:46 2019
New Revision: 278955
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278955&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[rs6000] Fix PR92760 by checking VECTOR_MEM_NONE_P instead
PR92760 exposed on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92785
Bug ID: 92785
Summary: expressions passed as real arguments to a dummy
polymorphic argument fail with indexing error
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92735
--- Comment #4 from Marc Pawlowsky ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> For the case reported here, Clang and EDG do reject it, but I'm not yet
> convinced GCC is wrong to accept it.
>
> The implicit instantiation of is_Foo causes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec 3 23:57:46 2019
New Revision: 278951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++: Implement spaceship for std::pair (P1614R2)
This defines oper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92784
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92783
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92783
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Dec 3 23:10:46 2019
New Revision: 278948
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278948&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/92783
* gcc-interface/utils.c (rest_of_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92761
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92784
Bug ID: 92784
Summary: [10 regression] ICE when compiling
g++.dg/torture/pr59226.C after r278944
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92783
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92783
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92783
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
> No patch in that range is immediately obvious, so I'll have to run a reghunt.
Probably r278930 though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92783
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.11
Between 20191202 (r278904) and 20191203 (r278942), Solaris/SPARC Ada bootstrap
got broken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92661
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
I have a patch I'm testing for the second problem. Basically, it verifies that
the builtin we are overloading has already been defined or not. If it hasn't
(ie, it wasn't supported for some reason, like df
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92767
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
A local native bootstrap went through without problems, so maybe it's a problem
with the Debian buildds. I'll try to track it down and if I can reproduce it
locally, I will provide the preprocesse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92782
Bug ID: 92782
Summary: ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2431
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92781
Bug ID: 92781
Summary: ICE in convert_nonlocal_reference_op, at
tree-nested.c:1065
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92778
--- Comment #4 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Thanks for the quick reply, Jonathan!
I am familiar with the error in general, but I am using vanilla packages by the
vendor (FreeBSD) which should not have any funky optimisations. Also, my
colleague ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92780
Bug ID: 92780
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_class_from_expr, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:484
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92778
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because "illegal instruction" happens if the executable contains an instruction
that your CPU doesn't support. And that should never happen if you built GCC
correctly.
When I try to compile with gcc-9-bran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92779
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92779
Bug ID: 92779
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_intrinsic_funcall,
at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:4225
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55735
--- Comment #14 from G. Steinmetz ---
$ cat z3.f90
program p
character(:), pointer :: c
common c
n = len(c)
end
$ gfortran-10-20191201 -c z3.f90
z3.f90:4:0:
4 |n = len(c)
|
internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_intrinsic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92778
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This usually means you built GCC (or one of the libraries it uses, like libgmp)
on a different machine with a different CPU.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55735
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #13 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92778
--- Comment #1 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Here is the intermediate code:
https://hauswedell.net/lambda.ii.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92778
Bug ID: 92778
Summary: ICE: Illegal instruction signal terminated program
cc1plus
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92767
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Schmidt ---
People will be more likely to look at it if there's a preprocessed .i file that
reproduces the issue, ideally with a cross compiler rather than a native
bootstrap.
If it only occurs when bootstrapping, narrow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92735
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Related to http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1396
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 91369, which changed state.
Bug 91369 Summary: Implement P0784R7: constexpr new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 91369, which changed state.
Bug 91369 Summary: Implement P0784R7: constexpr new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92777
Bug ID: 92777
Summary: ICE on concept containing lambda with auto variable
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 3 19:27:47 2019
New Revision: 278945
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278945&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91369
* constexpr.c (struct constexpr_global_ctx):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92756
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47412
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47412&action=edit
gcc10-pr92756.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92756
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92776
Bug ID: 92776
Summary: Can't define member function out of line with non-type
template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
--- Comment #16 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
BTW this bug combines nicely with pr71460. Possible effects:
- padding in a long double inside a struct is lost on x86-64;
- sNaN is converted to qNaN in a double inside a struct on x86-32.
Both are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92775
Bug ID: 92775
Summary: Incorrect expression in DW_AT_byte_stride on an array
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #19 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can we please fix this for GCC 10? It's an important compatibility issue, and
> becoming more important. Bumping to P1 to raise visib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91971
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On December 3, 2019 4:09:12 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
>
>--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>(In reply to rguent...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #12)
> The __builtin_strcmp(ptr->header.magic, "x") call in comment #0 is undefined
> because the two-element array ptr->header.magic is not a nul-terminated
> string.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
The __builtin_strcmp(ptr->header.magic, "x") call in comment #0 is undefined
because the two-element array ptr->header.magic is not a nul-terminated string.
The warning was designed to point that out.
Remov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested patch to fix all these wrong-code issues would be something like:
--- gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c.jj2019-11-28 09:35:32.443298424 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c 2019-12-03 17:02:32.131658020 +0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 91363, which changed state.
Bug 91363 Summary: Implement P0960R3: Parenthesized initialization of aggregates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 3 15:59:40 2019
New Revision: 278939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91363 - P0960R3: Parenthesized initialization of aggrega
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92774
Bug ID: 92774
Summary: ICE with defaulted three-way comparison function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47857
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92758
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, thanks.
BTW, for reference this also affected a couple other test cases on LE power 8
and power 9.
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-p8-16.c scan-assembler vspltw
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92773
--- Comment #2 from Charles-Antoine Couret
---
Created attachment 47410
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47410&action=edit
one big header which raises the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92773
--- Comment #1 from Charles-Antoine Couret
---
Created attachment 47409
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47409&action=edit
module driver header
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92773
Bug ID: 92773
Summary: GCC compilation with big array / header is infinite
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92762
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
It looks to me like the whole else block with the BROKEN_VALUE_INITIALIZATION
guard is incorrect. The following test case aborts:
typedef int_hash IntHash;
hash_map > x;
static void test_hash_table ()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92772
Bug ID: 92772
Summary: wrong code vectorizing masked max
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> Alternatively add another flag to operand_equal_p to say whether
> exact literal equality is asked for.
That is fine with me. Though, as I said on IRC, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testcase showing wrong-code with the __builtin_strcmp_eq stuff (assuming the
testcase is considered valid):
/* { dg-do run { target mmap } } */
/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
#include
#include
#ifndef MAP_ANO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92758
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 3 14:47:24 2019
New Revision: 278938
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278938&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92758
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92758
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #8)
> Perhaps related to:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01874.html
Yes, that is pretty much the same thing. One thing is whether it is safe or
u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-11-19 00:00:00 |2019-12-3
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92771, which changed state.
Bug 92771 Summary: [9/10 Regression] Concept won't use default template argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92770
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92754
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 47407
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47407&action=edit
Lightly tested patch
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, started with r218068, it was rejec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> trunk accepts with -fconcepts (?!?)
At r276764 it started to be accepted with -std=gnu++14 -fconcepts but is still
rejected with -std=gnu++17 -fconcepts or -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template
concept one_or_two = true;
template
concept one = one_or_two;
template
constexpr void
foo()
{
if (one) // OK
{ }
if (one_or_two) // ERROR
{ }
}
gcc-8-branch accepts this with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92771
Bug ID: 92771
Summary: [9/10 Regression] Concept won't use default template
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92770
Bug ID: 92770
Summary: std::unordered_map requires both T and U to be
fully declared
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81202
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92214
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even more reduced:
#include
__m128
foo (__m128 x)
{
int f[4] __attribute__((aligned (16)))
= { 0x, 0x8000, 0x, 0x8000 };
return _mm_xor_ps (x, *(__m128 *) f);
}
int
main ()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly the ->equal_p () use in vector-builder elides the -0.0 since it
may appear "equal" to 0.0?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Even more reduced:
> #include
>
> __m128
> foo (__m128 x)
> {
> int f[4] __attribute__((aligned (16)))
> = { 0x, 0x8000, 0x, 0x80
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92769
Bug ID: 92769
Summary: No way to set CR0[SO] on function return
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly cleaned up testcase:
#include
struct S { int f[4]; };
__m128
foo (__m128 x)
{
const struct S a = { {0x, 0x8000, 0x, 0x8000}};
return _mm_xor_ps (x, _mm_load_ps ((float
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
