https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97171
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97171
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97171
Bug ID: 97171
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in symtab_node::get_for_asmname at
gcc/symtab.c:1023 since r11-3192-ge9fdb9a73249f95f
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97170
Bug ID: 97170
Summary: Wrong optimization in fwprop pass
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80456
Dmitry Lebed changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lebed.dmitry at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Michael_S from comment #6)
> Why do you see it as addition of peephole pattern?
> I see it as removal. Like, "do what's written in the source and don't try to
> be tricky".
> Probably, I am too rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah.
Is there no better way to detect GCC impostors? Oh well.
Since we require 4.5 as bootstrap compiler, this makes no difference
at all for compilers that truthfully claim to be GCC, so it has my
ble
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It can be anything > 4.2 (because clang pretends to be GCC 4.2).
4.5 was just because the other altivec section was >= 4.5.
PR45381 contains some details about that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, good point.
So either we can convert to the normal intrinsics, or (much easier)
check we are building with GCC at all. But why 4.5? Do earlier
versions not work?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Root cause analysis here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/554549.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96652
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97156
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96652
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4e4e163c79ca3fca265b85f44b869cb54e802b3
commit r11-3371-gc4e4e163c79ca3fca265b85f44b869cb54e802b3
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7285587186bac5692171d7493e29e16c729281d
commit r9-8932-ge7285587186bac5692171d7493e29e16c729281d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Recursion is handled in normal compilation (we analyze the function and
while hitting the recursive call we skip the summary). I suppose here
the problem is missing LTO and offloading.
With LTO lto summaries (that include types) are streamed out while they
are turned into non-lto summaries at ltr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97159
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Recursion is handled in normal compilation (we analyze the function and
while hitting the recursive call we skip the summary). I suppose here
the problem is missing LTO and offloading.
With LTO lto summaries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Having looked at the tree-dump, I am not sure if it is a FE or a library issue.
I appears that the negative stride miscalculates the base or offset of
the array probably by one:
program p
impli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96745
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebf259b243069e77dc7199072304b455e8fcb865
commit r10-8789-gebf259b243069e77dc7199072304b455e8fcb865
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169
Bug ID: 97169
Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL:
jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97168
Bug ID: 97168
Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c,
diagnostic-test-paths-2.c, location-overflow-test-1.c
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97145
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc13106e0414b86af8f6878e7681e6a959921b9e
commit r11-3368-gbc13106e0414b86af8f6878e7681e6a959921b9e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49ff88bd0d8a36a9e903f01ce05685cfe07dee5d
commit r11-3367-g49ff88bd0d8a36a9e903f01ce05685cfe07dee5d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97166
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.4.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97167
Bug ID: 97167
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] string_view bounds error in
filesystem::path
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97166
Bug ID: 97166
Summary: libffi build issue when compiling with -mcpu=power10
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61551
cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95654
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f74c87f85f510248874cb90ad0b0527b015034b9
commit r11-3363-gf74c87f85f510248874cb90ad0b0527b015034b9
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, libcpp isn't using the standard Altivec intrinsics, but their gcc
underlying implementation. Looking at clang altivec.h, I see they use vector
keyword everywhere and not sure what exactly they map it t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Guess we need something like:
> -#elif defined(_ARCH_PWR8) && defined(__ALTIVEC__)
> +#elif (GCC_VERSION >= 4005) && defined(_ARCH_PWR8) && defined(__ALTIVEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94695
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97165
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Similar case:
template
class p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, if in the above testcase one uses b[40] instead of b[64], then it is
rejected with that error message.
Note, this isn't a FE diagnostics, but stor-layout.c one.
We won't be able to diagnose this if th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97165
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-22
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97165
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Summary|Infinite error st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97165
Bug ID: 97165
Summary: Infinite error stream on invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> So just in case the following fixes it we've nailed it (somewhere I have a
> verifier written...)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-predcom.c b/gcc/tree-predcom.c
> inde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So just in case the following fixes it we've nailed it (somewhere I have a
verifier written...)
diff --git a/gcc/tree-predcom.c b/gcc/tree-predcom.c
index b1d6e63559c..2f41ad222a0 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-pred
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97146
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|incorrect offset on |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90337
--- Comment #11 from WHR ---
Created attachment 49259
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49259&action=edit
gcc-10.2.0-sanitizer-madvise-fix.diff
Replace non-standard madvise(2) with posix_madvise(3).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90337
--- Comment #10 from WHR ---
Created attachment 49258
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49258&action=edit
gcc-10.2.0-sanitizer-solaris-libelf-h-without-file-offset-bits-64.diff
Solaris libelf.h doesn't work with _FILE_OFFSET_B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90337
--- Comment #9 from WHR ---
Created attachment 49257
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49257&action=edit
gcc-10.2.0-sanitizer-linux-procfs-fix.diff
Limit this Linux procfs code to Linux only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90337
WHR changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msl023508 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
Hmm it compiles for me with GCC 10.2 built from
e939674db6fda62a98675d20b95175ec4ba81140
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase for -O2:
typedef struct { int *a; char b[64]; } A __attribute__((aligned (64)));
struct B { A d[4]; } b;
void foo (void);
int *
bar (void)
{
struct B *h = &b;
if (h->d[1].a)
foo ();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97146
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96979
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression] Switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96979
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6df6039e9180c580945266302ec14047d358364
commit r11-3357-gc6df6039e9180c580945266302ec14047d358364
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95777
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=97164
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96245
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164
Bug ID: 97164
Summary: incorrect offset on structure member where type of
that member has aligned attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Hm, is it really a GCC 11 regression? I see another ICE with the oldest
revision I have:
9d55066c88b4c276(09 Oct 2014 07:40)(fxcoud...@gcc.gnu.org)
scflib.fppized.f: In function 'symh.constprop':
scflib.fppi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96814
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c b/gcc/fold-const.c
> index 1f861630225..0cc80adf632 100644
> --- a/gcc/fold-const.c
> +++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
> @@ -12581,7 +12581,9 @@ fold_ternary_loc (location_t loc, enum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Kubaj ---
This is on FreeBSD head, which uses ELFv2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
Bug ID: 97163
Summary: Build error with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97162
Bug ID: 97162
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE when building SPECCPU 2006 Gamess
benchmark
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
--- Comment #25 from 康 珊 ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #24)
> On September 22, 2020 1:14:48 PM GMT+02:00, kangshan0910 at hotmail dot com
> wrote:
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
> >
> >--- Comment #23 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #32 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:874bdcd54b53283a82418649ea7457c1d6804562
commit r8-10526-g874bdcd54b53283a82418649ea7457c1d6804562
Author: Vlad Lazar
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On September 22, 2020 1:14:48 PM GMT+02:00, kangshan0910 at hotmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
>
>--- Comment #23 from 康 珊 ---
>It seems that gcc will use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
--- Comment #23 from 康 珊 ---
It seems that gcc will use "_ZGVeN8vl8l8_sincos" which doesn't exit in libmvec.
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccTYyEZM.o: in function `main':
/home/pnp/ks/test_sincos.c:38: undefined reference to `_ZGVeN8vl8l8_sincos'
/usr/bin/ld
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #30 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4703be185b422f637deebd3bb9222a41c8023d6
commit r11-3353-gd4703be185b422f637deebd3bb9222a41c8023d6
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #29 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa9ad35dae03dcb20c4ccb50ba1b351a8ab77970
commit r11-3352-gfa9ad35dae03dcb20c4ccb50ba1b351a8ab77970
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #31 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30957092db46d8798e632feefb5df634488dbb33
commit r11-3354-g30957092db46d8798e632feefb5df634488dbb33
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97161
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Ah, apologies for the noise - thanks for clarifying.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97159
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97160
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97161
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97161
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96913
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 regression] gcov |[10 regression] gcov TOPN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to 康 珊 from comment #21)
> $ gcc -m64 -g -O2 -fopenmp-simd -fPIC -Wall test_sincos.c -o test_sincos -lm
> -march=skylake-avx512 -ffast-math -ftree-loop-vectorize
Try adding -fno-builtin-sincos he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96913
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sergei Trofimovich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ecf368f4b4223fb2df4f3887429dfbb48852e38
commit r11-3351-g4ecf368f4b4223fb2df4f3887429dfbb48852e38
Author: Sergei Trofimovich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
--- Comment #21 from 康 珊 ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> OpenMP has a way to express this,
> #pragma omp declare simd notinbranch linear(y,z)
> double sincos (double x, double *y, double *z);
> As can be seen on -O2 -fopenmp-si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
--- Comment #20 from 康 珊 ---
Created attachment 49255
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49255&action=edit
test source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
--- Comment #6 from Michael_S ---
Why do you see it as addition of peephole pattern?
I see it as removal. Like, "do what's written in the source and don't try to be
tricky".
Probably, I am too removed from how compilers work :(
Or, may be, handl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> Can one actually define multiple OMP SIMD variants for a single function?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> > Unfortunately, I think glibc currently defines sincos in math-vector.h the
> > unuseful way with just simd ("n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97151
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (IIRC there's
> only ever a single argument to operator delete).
That's not always true. See -fsized-deallocation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
IIRC cepxi has the complication that we have to define the mangling for vector
_Complex double. But cexpi is what the vectorizer currently sees, of course
(we can of course vectorize it as sincos with argu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97159
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Fib is a recursive function, and the problem occurs while handling a recursion
call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97161
Bug ID: 97161
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code at -O2/-O3
since r8-4308-g13494fcb3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97151
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96803
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96803
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:132ddcc78c118a6ab52063193462bf2a6dbdae32
commit r9-8931-g132ddcc78c118a6ab52063193462bf2a6dbdae32
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96803
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e86f0926f8de014cb0b0218442812e9f3ea8e95
commit r8-10525-g6e86f0926f8de014cb0b0218442812e9f3ea8e95
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96803
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a981195bd80ad64475bbc24b7a4d222a6a6eff5
commit r10-8787-g5a981195bd80ad64475bbc24b7a4d222a6a6eff5
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97160
Bug ID: 97160
Summary: Regression from GCC 8 optimizing to sincos on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97159
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Segfaults because tt is NULL:
...
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x012b1a69 in modref_may_conflict (tt=0x0, ref=0x7fffd8d0,
tbaa_p=true)
at /home/vries/oacc/trunk/source-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97159
Bug ID: 97159
Summary: segfault in modref_may_conflict
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo