https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98984
Bug ID: 98984
Summary: Failure to optinize out float conversion from long
long->float->char conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98537
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC11, not sure backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88735
--- Comment #6 from Ev Drikos ---
(In reply to martin from comment #5)
> Hi Ev,
>
> the testcase is actually derived from a smart pointer implementation (where
> i is the reference count, shared between all smart pointers [hence
> allocatable wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98860
--- Comment #26 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #25)
> Created attachment 50138 [details]
> do not default to dwarf5 on Windows
>
> I have the same problem with gcc-11 bootstrap failures due to Exec format
> errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98860
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88735
--- Comment #5 from martin ---
Hi Ev,
the testcase is actually derived from a smart pointer implementation (where i
is the reference count, shared between all smart pointers [hence allocatable
will not do], and incremented upon sharing). It woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98982
--- Comment #2 from Julian Andres Klode ---
clang works perfectly, fwiw. I was told it has a separate pass dedicated to
just recognizing loop idioms and optimizing them. I have no idea if gcc has
that, but it seems useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98983
Bug ID: 98983
Summary: SEGV during C++17 variadic template instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98979
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu, |powerpc64*-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98982
--- Comment #1 from Julian Andres Klode ---
Verified with gcc version 11.0.0 20210203 (experimental) [master revision
e8c87bc07b5:def4749fcba:84110515b93a6709de24240d6658ac207db5129f] (Ubuntu
11-20210203-0ubuntu1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98982
Bug ID: 98982
Summary: Optimizing loop variants of fixed-byte-order functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98978
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #3)
> Is there no way to improve standard components implementation? I'd imagine
> you could provide the new implementation in the new version inline namespace
> and still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
For reference, this is the change I used to test the MEM_REF formatting:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.c
index 0800f596ab1..0f47c0c286d 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.c
+++ b/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I had already dealt with this problem in the pretty printer in r11-6621 (the
same way as in comment #2) but it regressed with Jakub's subsequent changes in
r11-6729. It's also not the only regression that Jak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #48 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Submitted https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563638.html,
which addresses comments made when the work-in-progress version was submitted.
There are no regression failures (save fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85621
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85621
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88735
Ev Drikos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50129|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98979
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|powerpc64*-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98975
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> That is not what the UB in the testcase is, it is the out of bound accesses
> to the array - arr[2] and above.
> The bsort function has auto return type, but as t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98975
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is not what the UB in the testcase is, it is the out of bound accesses to
the array - arr[2] and above.
The bsort function has auto return type, but as there is no return, it is
deduced to be void. And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98232
--- Comment #8 from Hussam Al-Tayeb ---
(In reply to Hussam Al-Tayeb from comment #7)
> The patch in bug 95719 fixes the ICE. Can you please backport it to the
> gcc-9 branch?
> Also we need some methodology for followup patches so they are marke
22 matches
Mail list logo