https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94412
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 48149 [details]
> gcc10-pr94412.patch
>
> Patch I'm going to test momentarily.
Thank you for checking this. I am sorry for the wrong testcase;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94392
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94392
>
> --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com> ---
> I'm not sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94401
--- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 48150
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48150&action=edit
untested patch
This can fix the REG failures on aarch64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
Bug ID: 94420
Summary: ICE error: insn does not satisfy its constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94411
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 04:47:04AM +, longb at cray dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94411
>
> --- Comment #2 from Bill Long ---
> Thanks for the quick reply. Is there a predi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94401
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94394
--- Comment #5 from ammy.yi ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> (In reply to ammy.yi from comment #3)
> > Actually, there is some random kernel panic here.
> >
> > The following steps may reproduce this issue:
> >
> > 1. Enable gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94417
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94417
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-fcf-protection |-fcf-protection
|-mcmodel=la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94307
--- Comment #5 from Kees Cook ---
Hi! I recently learned that Clang has -fsanitizer-minimal-runtime that is very
close to what I was expecting to use:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45295
That is close to what you're already suggesting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94419
Bug ID: 94419
Summary: accepting wrong programs because compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94411
--- Comment #2 from Bill Long ---
Thanks for the quick reply. Is there a predicted release date for 10.1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89990
Andrew D'Addesio changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||modchipv12 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94418
--- Comment #1 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
For what it is worth, libc++ implements this. Given
static_assert(std::is_nothrow_copy_constructible_v::reverse_iterator>);
With libstdc++:
$ clang -S test3.cc -std=c++17
test3.cc:3:1: error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94386
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94375
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> > > Try -mprefer-vector-width=128,256-bit vectorization is not helpful for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94375
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> > Try -mprefer-vector-width=128,256-bit vectorization is not helpful for 548
> > according to our experience.
>
> I hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94391
--- Comment #23 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> (In reply to Yuxuan Shui from comment #17)
> > Sorry, I am here to report a bug, not to find a workaround for my use case.
>
> I gave you the correct usage for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94418
Bug ID: 94418
Summary: Please make reverse_iterator nothrow constructible
when possible
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94391
Yuxuan Shui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #22 from Yuxuan Shui --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94417
Bug ID: 94417
Summary: -fcf-protection -mcmodel=large is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94392
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'm not sure the existing infinite loop removal is valid for any C
standard version. The C (C11 and later) rule against infinite loops only
applies when the loop is written as an iteration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93431
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Does this test need -fcommon option?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94391
--- Comment #20 from Yuxuan Shui ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> (In reply to Yuxuan Shui from comment #17)
> > Sorry, I am here to report a bug, not to find a workaround for my use case.
>
> I gave you the correct usage for y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94391
Yuxuan Shui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94391
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Yuxuan Shui from comment #17)
> Sorry, I am here to report a bug, not to find a workaround for my use case.
I gave you the correct usage for your use case. If you don't like it is not my
fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94391
--- Comment #17 from Yuxuan Shui ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16)
> (In reply to Yuxuan Shui from comment #15)
> > Your code is going to dereference the value stored in the ABS symbol as an
> > address (e.g. if the symbol has value 10,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94389
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to felix from comment #6)
> I don’t mind the transformation being applied.
That is not what I said. I said the **language frontend** should not
do this. A language frontend should give an as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Passing a variable-size struct or union by value to a non-nested function
seems very questionable (the function couldn't be declared with a matching
prototype), but perhaps that doesn't ans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94416
Bug ID: 94416
Summary: passing a restricted pointer to a function can be
assumed not to modify an accessed object
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94415
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94415
Bug ID: 94415
Summary: Implement DR 2237: Can a template-id name a
constructor?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94411
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94414
Bug ID: 94414
Summary: only `--` gives constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94408
--- Comment #3 from michalak at ucar dot edu ---
Thank you, I've verified that removing the interface definitions works for this
test program and provides a workaround for the original code from which this
example was pulled. I'm not sure that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5830f753559f25a5dabcc3507bffa611c6b575a6
commit r10-7465-g5830f753559f25a5dabcc3507bffa611c6b575a6
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94406
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
For the record, on AMD Zen2 at least, SPEC 2006 410.bwaves also runs
about 12% faster with --param vect-epilogues-nomask=0 (and otherwise
with -Ofast -march=native -mtune=native).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94385
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94385
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1cb1986cb596336e688c079b821205ec212a46a3
commit r10-7464-g1cb1986cb596336e688c079b821205ec212a46a3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94275
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94413
Bug ID: 94413
Summary: auto-vectorization of isfinite raises FP exception
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94412
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94386
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #6)
> These were both clean builds run on a powerpc64 power8 LE machine.
I can confirm this on x86-64-gnu-linux; if I use the current trunk and undo
this commit, it work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94230
--- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> If you have a huge workload, one possible workaround would be to disable
> range tracking, perhaps tweaking line_table->default_range_bits, which wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90151
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
This year's numbers:
- on AMD Zen1, we are still 7.2% worse than GCC 7
- on AMD Zen2, the reegression is 4.6%
- in Intel Cascade Lake server CPU, it is 5.4%
This is all -O2, so perhaps not that important fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94410
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
For the record, SPEC 2006 453.povray is similarly affected, the commit
makes it run 26% slower.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94391
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Yuxuan Shui from comment #15)
> Your code is going to dereference the value stored in the ABS symbol as an
> address (e.g. if the symbol has value 10, your code will access (*(char
> *)10), barring th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90283
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
The numbers from this year are:
- on Intel Cascade Lake server CPU the regression disappeared, if
there ever was one, I don't have Skylake numbers this year.
- On AMD Zen1 CPU, the measured regression is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94412
Bug ID: 94412
Summary: wrong code with -fsanitize=undefined and vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94411
Bug ID: 94411
Summary: E0.d not supported
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94386
--- Comment #6 from Bill Seurer ---
git g:3fb7f2fbd5f109786922deb5af8fd8dd594a7ba6, r10-7443
make -k check-gcc-fortran RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=gfortran.dg/pr93600_1.f90
# of expected passes3
git g:7d57570b0658b8c1b8a97dafa53dfd4ab4bd3f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94389
--- Comment #6 from felix ---
I don’t mind the transformation being applied. I think it is entirely sound and
may be beneficial; I imagine it may be harder to allocate registers for the
naïve translation of (foo() ? X : X) than it is for (foo(),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-05-06 00:00:00 |2020-3-30
Summary|521.wrf_r i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94386
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #4)
> The problem is definitely caused by
>
> g:7d57570b0658b8c1b8a97dafa53dfd4ab4bd3f65, r10-7444
>
> I built it before and no problems, errors after.
I am utterly perp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94360
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
PR94410 is another O2 PGO+LTO bug where g:2925cad2151 caused a slowdown.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94410
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94410
Bug ID: 94410
Summary: 511.povray_r is 11% slower built at -O2 PGO+LTO than
with GCC 9 and same options
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94408
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94403
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48147
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48147&action=edit
gcc10-pr94403.patch
Untested fix for the std::byte part. Not a regression, so will have to wait
for GCC11. Al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94397
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:23:11PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Confirmed, started with r10-7369-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94403
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |tree-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94406
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
One more data point, binary compiled for cascadelake does not run on
Zen2, but one for znver2 runs on Cascade Lake and it makes no
difference in run-time.
If disapling epilogues helps on Intel, the differenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94409
--- Comment #4 from gcc-bugzilla at vlasiu dot net ---
That's really bad news for us. Well, we'll wait for a patch and maybe we are
going to backport-it. If it's going to be too complicated we are probably going
to switch to one of the supported v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94408
--- Comment #1 from michalak at ucar dot edu ---
Here is a slightly more simplified version of the test.F90 program that still
demonstrates the error with gcc 9.1.0 (below). The namelist_t type from the
previous reproducer code turns out not to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94409
--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugzilla at vlasiu dot net ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> N.B. GCC 7 is no longer supported and will not be fixed (but the bug is also
> present in supported releases).
We are going to switch soon to G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94409
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.0.0
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94397
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94409
Bug ID: 94409
Summary: std::regexp (std::collate?) with GCC 7.3.1 on AIX,
Japanese
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94391
--- Comment #15 from Yuxuan Shui ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> (In reply to Yuxuan Shui from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > > Also it is wrong for a person to assume a normal C variable could be
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5abbfd3cd36342df530410033844584d8b85e187
commit r10-7460-g5abbfd3cd36342df530410033844584d8b85e187
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94408
Bug ID: 94408
Summary: Spurious error: ‘rw_nl_grid’ must be a module
procedure or an external procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94407
Bug ID: 94407
Summary: Spurious Error: ‘rw_nl_grid’ must be a module
procedure or an external procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94406
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
And for completeness, LNT sees this too and has just managed to catch the
regression:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=276.427.0&plot.1=295.427.0&;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94406
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
For the record, the collected profiles both for the traditional
"cycles:u" event and (originally unintended) "ls_stlf:u" event are
below:
-Ofast -march=native -mtune=native
# Samples: 894K of event 'cycles:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94405
Bug ID: 94405
Summary: [temp.names]p4 not fully implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94406
Bug ID: 94406
Summary: 503.bwaves_r is 11% slower on Zen2 CPUs than GCC 9
with -Ofast -march=native
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94401
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87716
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:291aa50a63194245ad3ab8bd584f9c0286c5b44c
commit r10-7459-g291aa50a63194245ad3ab8bd584f9c0286c5b44c
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94402
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a9db91bee496712656e0f8aecf55f39cffd8413
commit r10-7458-g3a9db91bee496712656e0f8aecf55f39cffd8413
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94402
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93328
--- Comment #5 from Boris ---
full code:
https://godbolt.org/z/zjNqYV
template
auto reverse(T num) {
// misses optimization when num is int32_t OK for int64_t
auto* bytes = reinterpret_cast(&num);
// misses optimization for both 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93328
Boris changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boris_oncev at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94403
Boris changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94404
Bug ID: 94404
Summary: [meta-bug] C++ core issues
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93069
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Smaller fix applied to GCC 10, larger one queued for GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93069
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec919cfcef8d7fcbaab24d0e0d472c65e5329ca6
commit r10-7457-gec919cfcef8d7fcbaab24d0e0d472c65e5329ca6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94403
Bug ID: 94403
Summary: Missed optimization bswap
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93465
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I have acked the patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2020-03/msg00247.html, are you going
to commit it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94344
--- Comment #5 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 48145 [details]
> gcc10-pr94344.patch
LGTM. I did some tests (including the initial one) which all succeeded in
detecting a sig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] g++:|[8/9 Regression] g++:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94298
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I think that the root of the problem is that IRA on register cost calculation
sub-pass chooses memory for the pseudo.
It happens because the current algorithm (which is just an adoption of old
recglass.c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94383
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c.jj 2020-03-18 12:51:41.051640609 +0100
+++ gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c2020-03-30 16:28:29.133717645 +0200
@@ -16030,6 +16030,16 @@ aapcs_vfp_sub_candidate (const_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94389
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The language frontend shouldn't do this kind of code transformations, whether
you think the warning should warn or not here, imo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
