https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93214
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
hread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.0 20200109 (experimental)
51ad584fdbea7291b52f8b93d351ab3b51d405c9 (GCC)
$ /usr/bin/powerpc64le-suse-linux-as --version
GNU assembler (GNU Binutils; openSUSE Tumbleweed) 2.33.1.20191023-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93220
Bug ID: 93220
Summary: DWARF line info file name table "incomplete"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93212
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Patch pushed to the dmalcolm/analyzer branch on the GCC git mirror:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00514.html
Will close this if/once the analyzer is on trunk and this fix is committed
there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93219
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
In similar bulk builds on NetBSD 8, NetBSD 9, Darwin 10.15, the code either
compiled fine or must have been skipped.
Current pkgsrc bulk build results for various platforms are available from
https://mail-ind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93219
Bug ID: 93219
Summary: unused return value in affinity-fmt.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93165
--- Comment #7 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> > > So perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I'd say a
> >
_ ___
https://is.gd/EdQot8
697099 153911 56
vywg 5gehc5j 1v3 o6 b r1 55vtem ebioz 2mhv6
j7jg a2 ukccs 3t3 y9iabgs l8u5i ke 2b9wb7q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=3b2b821c3f1bac2ac6dd2481f461ec33a13eac9b
commit 3b2b821c3f1bac2ac6dd2481f461ec33a13eac9b
Author: Joseph Myer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
Bug ID: 93218
Summary: Test bug for testing git email integration
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93217
Bug ID: 93217
Summary: [10 regression] 29_atomics/atomic_ref/float.cc fails
after r280040
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90295
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81091
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93205
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far, but I plan to backport it to gcc-8 and gcc-9 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65428
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Jan 9 20:57:33 2020
New Revision: 280063
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280063&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Save typespec for empty array constructor.
2020-01-09 Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93216
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93216
Bug ID: 93216
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/optimize-bswaphi-1.c fails
starting with r280034
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93206
--- Comment #11 from Carl Love ---
Created attachment 47626
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47626&action=edit
311r.dwarf2 file for v4si and the v2di test case
The attached file was generated with the #if in the test program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93206
--- Comment #10 from Carl Love ---
Created attachment 47625
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47625&action=edit
310r.nothrow for both tests v4si and v2di
The attached file was generated with the #if in the test program set to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93206
--- Comment #9 from Carl Love ---
Created attachment 47624
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47624&action=edit
311r.dwarf2 file for just the v2di test case
The attached file was generated with the #if in the test program set t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93206
--- Comment #8 from Carl Love ---
Created attachment 47623
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47623&action=edit
310r.nothrow for just the __builtin_vec_foo_v2di test case
The attached file was generated with the #if in the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||elronnd at elronnd dot net
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93215
Bug ID: 93215
Summary: If a label is created in an asm block in a templated
function, then an error is reported if the function is
instantiated multiple times
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88580
--- Comment #3 from Zavadovsky Yan ---
(In reply to Petr Filipsky from comment #0)
> Sorry if this kind of error has been reported already (I know that there are
> already several bugs reported regarding variadic template parameter
> expansion bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88580
--- Comment #2 from Zavadovsky Yan ---
Created attachment 47622
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47622&action=edit
test.ii
gcc --save-temps output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88580
--- Comment #1 from Zavadovsky Yan ---
Got same bug with all GCC version since (at least, doesn't check older
versions) 6.3.0 and newer.
Code:
struct Base
{
Base(void*) { }
virtual ~Base() { }
};
template< typename... Ts > stru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87163
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > Yep, I can still reproduce it with the current master in a cross compiler.
>
> Ok, thanks. I'll see if I can recr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56593
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93206
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Please attach RTL dumps then, at least the one from right before var-tracking
and the var-tracking one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93206
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> There is no error, it is a note and if some variable at some point, even
> short one, can't be described using just registers or memory, but needs the
> value of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93214
Bug ID: 93214
Summary: Ada LTO bootstrap fails with undefined reference to
__gnat_debug_raise_assert_failure
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93205
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 9 16:50:51 2020
New Revision: 280061
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280061&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++: Fix undefined behaviour in random dist serialization (PR93205)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93166
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93151
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
POSIX doesn't allow that. If such systems exist, they should provide their own
config/os/*/error_constants.h header with the correct set of constants.
The generic/error_constants.h file should assume POSIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
@Honza: Are you planning to backport it to GCC 8 or may I close it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89762
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92600
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47621
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47621&action=edit
Clean up test-case
So the now the diff of the source file is minimal:
$ diff -u 1.ii 2.ii
--- 1.ii2020-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93206
--- Comment #5 from Carl Love ---
I am puzzled. When we have both test cases included which are identical other
then the data size, the notes are correct for second test case but not the
first test case. When we remove the first test case, then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93151
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I don't know what the advantage of testing for them at configure time is.
Strange systems that define them as enum values and not macros?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93206
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is no error, it is a note and if some variable at some point, even short
one, can't be described using just registers or memory, but needs the value of
the UNSPEC to describe it, there is no var-trackin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58334
--- Comment #3 from markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks like macro expansion is performed in libcpp/traditional.c by the routine
_cpp_scan_out_logical_line called by _cpp_read_logical_line_trad.
I'm pretty sure that C style continuations a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93206
--- Comment #3 from Carl Love ---
The initial bug report states that the bug moves around depending on the test
case. If the test case only consists of the test for the V2DI case, you get
the error that Bill was specifically stating, i.e. UNSPEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93210
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, we already do have native_encode_initializer, so perhaps we should move it
over from dwarf2out.c to fold-const.c and tweak to handle the 4 arguments
instead of 3 and possibly NULL ptr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93210
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93212
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David Malco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93212
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
--- Comment #7 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Apologies for delay. Kicked off SPEC2k6 builds, and will report results
tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92429
--- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Martin,
Sorry about that, forgot to check it after I got back from holidays. I wrote up
a patch, actually going with solution 2) (fixes both issues locally).
Just running more tests now to ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93159
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Still
tree eh: 509.70 ( 97%) 1.58 ( 69%) 511.32 ( 97%)
9776324 kB ( 98%)
bah. Something else ruins things. Will figure tomorrow.
trunk//binary-trunk-280046-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.0 20200109 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93058
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Suppressing the warning for the whole test should definitely work and seems to
me like a reasonable way to deal with the failure.
The alloc_size attribute the warning relies on doesn't provide for the roundin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93199
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 47619
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47619&action=edit
patch fixing the quadraticness
Like this for the quadraticness. Still runs into other slowness.
pass_lower_eh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93205
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93160
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Yes, I think this should be rejected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92956
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 92956, which changed state.
Bug 92956 Summary: [10 Regression]
'libgomp.fortran/examples-4/async_target-2.f90' fails with offloading due to
bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92600
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93208
--- Comment #7 from Marc Mutz ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93212
Bug ID: 93212
Summary: internal compiler error: in make_region_for_type, at
analyzer/region-model.cc:5961
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93151
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The config/os/generic/error_constants.h file already uses these macros
conditionally:
#ifdef _GLIBCXX_HAVE_ENOTRECOVERABLE
state_not_recoverable = ENOTRECOVERABLE,
#endif
The probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93211
Bug ID: 93211
Summary: equivalence of dependent function calls doesn't check
if the call is eligible for ADL
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58605
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93206
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86852
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93208
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93210
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84135
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jan 9 13:43:59 2020
New Revision: 280046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280046&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR84135 fix merging dimension into codimension array spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93208
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 9 13:18:37 2020
New Revision: 280045
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280045&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++: Define memory resource key functions non-inline (PR93208)
Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93208
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 9 13:18:20 2020
New Revision: 280044
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280044&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++: Define memory resource key functions non-inline (PR93208)
Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #17 from xiehongbiao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> I don't see anything wrong with strace of the -O2 case. In fact I see:
> [pid 10270] stat("a.out", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=8592, ...}) = 0
> [pid 10270] l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695
--- Comment #18 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
I am inclined to close all these PRs as invalid because there is still no valid
bug report, i.e. none of the reports enabled us to reproduce the issue AND it
is against a version no more supported (the 1s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93209
--- Comment #5 from John Adriaan ---
@RichardBiener,
By "it still happens", I meant that accesses to `s.i` still occur as described.
Changing `s.b` to be of type `unsigned` changes its accesses to match those of
`s.i` - in other words, the type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see anything wrong with strace of the -O2 case. In fact I see:
[pid 10270] stat("a.out", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=8592, ...}) = 0
[pid 10270] lstat("a.out", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=8592
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #15 from xiehongbiao ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> (In reply to xiehongbiao from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > > Can you please attach output for strace -f -s512 of the problematic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to xiehongbiao from comment #13)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > Can you please attach output for strace -f -s512 of the problematic
> > execution?
>
> Please help check the strace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #13 from xiehongbiao ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Can you please attach output for strace -f -s512 of the problematic
> execution?
Please help check the strace log (attached). Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #12 from xiehongbiao ---
Created attachment 47618
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47618&action=edit
strace log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> @Maxim: Can you please retest it?
PING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93159
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 90004, which changed state.
Bug 90004 Summary: [graphite] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
scop_get_dependences(scop*))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90004
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
--- Comment #11 from Arseny Solokha ---
*** Bug 90004 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90004
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to xiehongbiao from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > Can you also add -Wl,-v ; this will cause collect2 to print it runs?
>
> It reports error :"gcc: error: unrecogniz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92956
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
I would expect r280041 to suppress the warnings but I haven't tested it.
Thomas or Tobias, can one of you please verify they are gone and resolve the
bug if appropriate?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93196
--- Comment #10 from xiehongbiao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> Can you also add -Wl,-v ; this will cause collect2 to print it runs?
It reports error :"gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-Wl’".
Please let me know i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92429
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
@avieira: Any progress on this one please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93200
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93200
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 9 11:59:41 2020
New Revision: 280041
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280041&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/93200 - spurious -Wstringop-overflow due to assignment
vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 93200, which changed state.
Bug 93200 Summary: [10 Regression] spurious -Wstringop-overflow due to
assignment vectorization to multiple members
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93200
What|Remov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92956
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 9 11:59:41 2020
New Revision: 280041
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280041&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/93200 - spurious -Wstringop-overflow due to assignment
vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93144
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess best would be to go through the ranges from first to last, check for the
pattern we are interested in (ranges[i].exp being SSA_NAME with BIT_AND_EXPR
def with constant where ranges[i].low == ranges[i].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92606
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> or whether the backend "forgets" to set DECL_SECTION_NAME or the like.
That caused problems (don't remember which ones exactly, maybe to make
-fdata-sections
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
