https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
I reproduced that locally..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-31
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
All right, so please provide pre-processed source file (-E option). I can then
try to reproduce it..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96397
Bug ID: 96397
Summary: GCC Fails to exploit ranges from overflow tests
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96393
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11,|i386-pc-solaris2.11,
|sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96396
Bug ID: 96396
Summary: initializer_list in `-fconcepts -std=c++11` reports
internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c00059ce058ea2aec2933319e270f5443b8b909
commit r11-2445-g8c00059ce058ea2aec2933319e270f5443b8b909
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96395
Bug ID: 96395
Summary: gcc.dg/analyzer/explode-2.c fails when compiled as C++
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96369
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Summary|W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94826
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 48967
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48967&action=edit
gcc-tauthon-734006-PR96394.tar.gz
gcc-tauthon-734006-PR96394.tar.gz is seemingly self-contained example.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
My guess is it's somehow related to the fact that inliner did 'termvalid'
inline (twice probably?):
"""
static int
validate_chain_two_ops(node *tree, int (*termvalid)(node *), int op1, int op2)
{
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 48966
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48966&action=edit
all.tar.gz
all.tar.gz is a preprocessed file, corresponding .gcda file and a few ipa
dumps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
Bug ID: 96394
Summary: internal compiler error: in add_new_edges_to_heap, at
ipa-inline.c:1746 (-O3 PGO)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96393
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
) and 20200730
(561a19c3011f7bde3a41f2a27ea979118e3a2dff), all 32-bit D execution tests began
to FAIL on (at least) Solaris/SPARC and Solaris/x86, all with the same error:
object.Error@(0): internal error printing module cycle
The 64-bit tests seem to be unchanged.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96152
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7508a7e958ea06eb311a4a106312634eaf6d40c3
commit r11-2443-g7508a7e958ea06eb311a4a106312634eaf6d40c3
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sat Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96154
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:873b45d39c14fee6b68032b83ea6bfbc023e3379
commit r11-2442-g873b45d39c14fee6b68032b83ea6bfbc023e3379
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Thu Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96140
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dfc420f8d4492dbf5f45df4fecf93cb9645c0d7b
commit r11-2441-gdfc420f8d4492dbf5f45df4fecf93cb9645c0d7b
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Thu Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96392
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-30
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90234
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|503.bwaves_r is 6% slower |503.bwaves_r is 6% slower
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94051
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81967
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> IMO process_init_element shouldn't recurse into vector types
> if the initialisation value is also a vector type. We should
> trea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
The problem sometimes is still there, sometimes it isn't:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=37.100.0&plot.1=27.100.0&;
I wonder whether we should keep this bug opened, the benchmark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
I can once again confirm the slowdown on a zen1-based machine (commit
6e1e0decc9e vs gcc 7.5) but it is not present on a zen2-based one. I wonder
whether the bug should me marked as WONTFIX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96327
--- Comment #6 from Paul McKenney ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> I don't think bug 3506 has been fixed (its status seems wrong to me). But
> don't worry, there are several other duplicates that still have status NEW
> (bug 50677
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96392
Bug ID: 96392
Summary: Optimize x+0.0 if x is an integer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96327
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
I don't think bug 3506 has been fixed (its status seems wrong to me). But don't
worry, there are several other duplicates that still have status NEW (bug 50677
for instance).
This is a sensible enhancement requ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87625
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Bonsoir Dominique,
Je t'en remercie! A petits pas je recommence. Comme Steve Kargl je trouve
le git complètement incompréhensible
mais je retrouve des recettes avec l'aide de Thomas.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92191
--- Comment #12 from John Watts ---
Thank you - compiles clean now.
Regards,
John Watts
john_wa...@isoparix.com
Skype: JS.Watts
Tel:+44 (0)20 8549 6501
Mob:+44 (0)774 694 9715
Everything that is Proveable is True.
But not everythi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95670
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITIN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 48964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48964&action=edit
Patch for the initialisation problem
I'm testing this patch to fix the initialisation side of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92191
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85575
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> I guess that is reasonable thing to do, if the two vector types aren't
> really compatible one will get an error.
> But then, for trunk, won't the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #1 from Michael Cronenworth ---
Created attachment 48963
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48963&action=edit
g++ command and output of error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
Bug ID: 96391
Summary: internal compiler error: in linemap_compare_locations,
at libcpp/line-map.c:1359
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94440
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess that is reasonable thing to do, if the two vector types aren't really
compatible one will get an error.
But then, for trunk, won't the stripping of the attributes from vector types
still mean that com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53940
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87625
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94925
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51591
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
OpenMP just says that a structured block
"may contain STOP or ERROR STOP statements."
and nothing else, what the particular behavior for STOP is is covered in the
base language or is up to the implementation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51591
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96379
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96380
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91902
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITIN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90237
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60144
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 92358, which changed state.
Bug 92358 Summary: libgfortran/io/async.c:548:37: warning: unused parameter
'cmp'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92358
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92358
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96387
cents2823 at yahoo dot co.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
The patch I posted two weeks ago is only now being reviewed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95949
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
Julian Sikorski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
I think this is bound up with the question whether:
typedef int v4si __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
typedef short v8hi __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
struct s {
v8hi x;
v4si y;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
> struct string
> {
> #if __cplusplus == 201703L
> [[deprecated("use shrink_to_fit() instead")]]
> #elif __cplusplus > 201703L
> private:
> #endif
> void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48962
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48962&action=edit
Partially reduced test-case
The reduction is quite stuck at this point.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #8)
> One thing we should do is to
>
> --- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
> @@ -12643,7 +12643,7 @@ grokparms (tree parmlist, tree *parms)
> if (deprec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96390
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 48961
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48961&action=edit
Test case from https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43771 (basis for sollve_vv
test case, by Jonas Hahnfeld)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96366
--- Comment #2 from Bu Le ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #1)
> (In reply to Bu Le from comment #0)
> Hmm. In general, the lack of a vector pattern shouldn't case ICEs,
> but I suppose the add/sub pairing is somewhat special b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96202
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96202
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4712bde3cabed644884a52386404765fca3b0ac2
commit r11-2430-g4712bde3cabed644884a52386404765fca3b0ac2
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed Jul 15 06:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96390
Bug ID: 96390
Summary: [OpenMP] Link errors on the offload side for C++ code
with templates
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48960
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48960&action=edit
updated patch
Avoid aliases and thunks, avoid not declared builtins w/o body. Updates
stats for cc1 to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Please get users/hjl/pr26314/test branch at
https://gitlab.com/x86-binutils/binutils-gdb/-/tree/users/hjl/pr26314/test
and build binutils with GCC 10:
CC="/usr/gcc-10.1.1-x32/bin/gcc -flto -ffat-lto-objects -Wl,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96376
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
Bisect identified commit g30fdaead5b7880c4e9f140618e26ad1c545642d5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
>
> --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, hjl.tools at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
>
> H.J. Lu changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
A testcas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96389
--- Comment #2 from Brecht Sanders
---
Am I in uncharted territory?
Or is it worth it exploring LTO versions of libgcc_s.a and libstdc++.a?
What about the error message "symbol wrong type (4 vs 3)"? What does it mean
exactly and how dos the LTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96389
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
You also want -O2 and maybe -g in your CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARGET, I'm not sure if
LTO IL in libgcc_s.a or libstdc++.a "works" for consumers or if there's
unintended side-effects of LTOing those system pieces.
I t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96370
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with -ffast-math since |[8/9/10 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90928
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/550140.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96370
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c558d2655cb22f472c83e8296b5cd2a92365cd3
commit r11-2424-g2c558d2655cb22f472c83e8296b5cd2a92365cd3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
cc1 debug info increases like the following
VM SIZE FILE SIZE
++ GROWING ++
[ = ] 0 .debug_info +1.63Mi +1.3%
[ = ] 0 .debug_str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53298
--- Comment #12 from markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed the ICE in comment 5. I completely missed the "a different ICE"...
More investigation required.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Agreed, and we do want the prototypes of used functions even when it costs some
increase in debug info size, because without that one say can't easily call in
a debugger those functions unless debug info for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96389
Bug ID: 96389
Summary: Compiling MinGW-w64 GCC with LTO results in error:
symbol wrong type (4 vs 3)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95435
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95435
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc65aba7a4725d1b464c8c64a5f739ee910e8943
commit r11-2422-gdc65aba7a4725d1b464c8c64a5f739ee910e8943
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95435
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:809b4d226c7f5ded392a88ffafe8d652f911b473
commit r10-8554-g809b4d226c7f5ded392a88ffafe8d652f911b473
Author: Martin Liska
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
> /usr/bin/time ./cc1 -quiet t.c 2>&1 | head -1 | awk '{ print $6 * 1 }'
35975
is the max RSS in kB. Guess subtracting the value for an empty compile
makes sense as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > Started with r9-2469-gc6067437d314f803.
>
> Hmm, it probably makes a latent scheduler issue appear. Guess for bet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-30
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Started with r9-2469-gc6067437d314f803.
Hmm, it probably makes a latent scheduler issue appear. Guess for better
analysis we have to trim down the source. Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Note one reason to omit the info might be that it should be available in the
debug information of the callee. The following simple patch makes the
desired debug information appear at both -O0 -g and -O -g f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96370
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so rewrite_expr_tree isn't prepared to see ops with a three component
"leaf" as try_special_add_to_ops produces which turns { -b, b } into
{ b, b, -1 }. Instead it recurses into the apperant non-leaf _1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96370
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
More "complete" testcase:
void c(_Decimal128);
void a(_Decimal128 b)
{
c(-b * b);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96386
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-30
Ever confirmed|0
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
