https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111053
Bug 111053 depends on bug 111055, which changed state.
Bug 111055 Summary: [C++23] Implement P1206R7, Conversions from ranges to
containers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111055
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
For reference, current output of the test case from comment #0 with trunk is
https://godbolt.org/z/8hYY3eaoa
: In function 'f':
:5:8: error: assignment to 'int *' from incompatible pointer type 'char
*' [-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111053
Peter Dimov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pdimov at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111053
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alfredo.correa at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111053
Bug ID: 111053
Summary: std::ranges::copy is missing important optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> > Fixed. Further improvements are possible.
>
> Uh... reopening for the possible further improvements;
> -Wdiscard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110026
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110023
--- Comment #2 from d_vampile ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is almost definitely an aarch64 cost model issue ...
Do you mean that the vectorized cost_model of the underlying hardware causes
the policy of not peeling the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110026
--- Comment #2 from d_vampile ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Note, any benchmarking for speed with -O rather than -O2/-O3 is
> intentionally missing various optimizations which can greatly improve
> performance.
O0 does miss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110024
--- Comment #3 from d_vampile ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Which core is showing the difference here?
> Because some cores I know of, loading/storing using the FP registers is
> actually one cycle slower than using GPRs.
Yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110026
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110026
Bug ID: 110026
Summary: [Bug] 5% performance drop on important benchmark after
r260951.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110024
d_vampile changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110024
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110024
--- Comment #1 from d_vampile ---
It can be seen that the vector register (D0) is used before the modification,
and the common register (X0) is used after the modification.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110024
Bug ID: 110024
Summary: [Bug] 5% performance drop on important benchmark after
r260951.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
|performance drop on |important benchmark after
|important benchmark after |r247544.
|r247544.|
Target||aarch64
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110023
Bug ID: 110023
Summary: [10.3 Regression] 10% performance drop on important
benchmark after r247544.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
Hello G95!
I hope you are doing well
I am Mashood Ali
The domain name (g95.org) has expired and going to be deleted soon. I want
to buy this domain name from you so that I can make a programming website
out of it.
I am offering you USD$400(negotiable) for the domain name.
If you agree with my of
|--Wdiscarded-qualifiers and |-Wdiscarded-qualifiers and
|Wincompatible-pointer-types |Wincompatible-pointer-types
|missing important detail|missing important detail
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|FIXED
NEW Update for the XYO Strategy for January 2021.
Hiya, I hope you don't mind but I saw that you were involved in with XYO
and the Coin App. I wanted to let you know that since COIN BOSS is now
available to everyone I designed a strategy which helps people reach their
targets in their journey qu
Hello,
Did you receive my previous email?
Pls inform.
Best regards,
T. K Acharya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:42:21 2017
New Revision: 252354
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252354&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81233
* c-typeck.c (pedwarn_init): Make the function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Aug 9 11:28:22 2017
New Revision: 250985
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250985&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81233
* c-typeck.c (pedwarn_init): Make the functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
Bug ID: 81233
Summary: --Wdiscarded-qualifiers and
Wincompatible-pointer-types missing important detail
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 9 08:19:05 2016
New Revision: 241992
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241992&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78007
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #39827|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Probably handling should be moved after
targetm.vectorize.builtin_vectorized_function handling to allow arms
builtin-bswap vectorization via vrev to apply (not sure if its permutation
handling selects vrev f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 39827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39827&action=edit
untested patch
Mostly untested prototype. For -mavx2 we get from the testcase innermost loop
.L6:
vm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 39821
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39821&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
It is sufficient to compiler it with -Ofast option on x86 platform.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
Bug ID: 78007
Summary: Important loop from 482.sphinx3 is not vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69079
--- Comment #9 from Denis Sherstennikov ---
Perhaps, this was a distro compilation inaccuracy of ubuntu package maintainer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69079
--- Comment #8 from Denis Sherstennikov ---
I doubt that ccache changes g++ flags somehow: without it the discussed
behavior still was present - under g++ 5.2.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69079
--- Comment #7 from Denis Sherstennikov ---
I used default bundled g++ update from ubuntu 14.04.02 repo, however it works
through ccache.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69079
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69079
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Did you compile GCC yourself or using different distro's compilers?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69079
--- Comment #4 from Denis Sherstennikov ---
Yes, it does. That clearly ain't an obvious fix. If you hadn't told me, I don't
know how I would figure this out in short time.
I'd appreciate a compiler warning on this issue with direct designation o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69079
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can see if adding -Wl,--no-as-needed fixes the problem? If so then there is
no bug here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69079
--- Comment #2 from Denis Sherstennikov ---
Problem does not occure under:
g++ 5.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69079
--- Comment #1 from Denis Sherstennikov ---
Problem confirmed under:
g++ 5.3.0 20151204
g++ 5.2.1 20151031
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69079
Bug ID: 69079
Summary: shared library does not load for variable
initializations with important code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57468
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57468
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin ---
So following commit fixed the issue
commit 3620f4de1b49b0bfffe5f812b2d259e5c72c5c61
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Jun 6 21:12:06 2013 +
2013-06-06 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/574
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57468
--- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Patch is here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00357.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57468
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57468
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 30224
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30224&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
It should be compiled on x86 with "-O2 -m32" options.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57468
Bug ID: 57468
Summary: [4.9 Regression] 26% performance drop on important
benchmark after r199298.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-21 07:48 ---
FIXED in GCC 4.5
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-21 07:47 ---
Subject: Bug 16202
Author: manu
Date: Tue Apr 21 07:47:13 2009
New Revision: 146472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146472
Log:
2009-04-21 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR 16202
* c
ATTENTION,
Onetelnet has notice that your webmail account has been compromised by spammers
by gaining access to your webmail account and have been using it for illegal
internet activities. You are requested to provide your current login
credentials to enable us reset your webmail account passwor
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 17:21 ---
Patch for GCC 4.5 :
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg01066.html
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 19:12 ---
I am also new, my first patch was just a few months ago, so let me say that I
understand your situation. On the other hand, I got patches committed, so also
let me say that it is not as bad as you may think.
The secre
--- Comment #9 from trt at acm dot org 2007-01-17 18:15 ---
I made lvalue_p a global function in my personal gcc.
I've proposed a dozen different warnings-related things for gcc, and never made
headway on any of them. I'm just a random user and don't know the secret
handshake. The peo
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 22:35 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created an attachment (id=7299)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7299&action=view) [edit]
> proposed patch
>
> I've attached a more official-looking patch, with a testsuite
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 22:02 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created an attachment (id=7299)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7299&action=view) [edit]
> proposed patch
>
> I've attached a more official-looking patch, with a testsuite
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 14:57 ---
Another Wsequence-point bug is PR 17880.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Salut !
Royal Contact a maintenant décidé d'orienter sa clientèle dans la tranche d'âge
entre 18 et 40 ans.
Une publicité sera faite dans les CEGEPS et Universités pour recrutter du
nouveau monde.
Si vous êtes dans cette tranche d'âge, Faites-vous une fiche sur le site et une
fois entré, cliq
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-17 20:05 ---
Count is already in ecx so why should GCC move again count to the ecx register.
Your inline-asm does not tell GCC that ecx is touched which is why GCC is
removing the move.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org chan
: ../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++
--prefix=/home/dinar/tmp/gcc-i686-pc-linux-gnu/
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20051026 (experimental)
--
Summary: gcc -O2 removes important instruction for ASM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIR
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-06
13:35 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-06
11:32 ---
Subject: Bug 23113
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-06 11:31:49
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog c-typeck.c stmt.c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-03
02:21 ---
This is related to the C++ PR 11224 which had the same issue but has already
been fixed in 4.0.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23113
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-02
06:25 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I'm not familiar with objective C, does it share warning messages with C?
Yes but this is in C code, the problem with that code is that well it is not
turned on by default and I
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-02
06:14 ---
*** Bug 23193 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From trt at acm dot org 2005-08-01 16:48 ---
Thanks! I did a grep of the gcc sources:
find . -name '*.c' -print | xargs grep '^[ ]*\*[a-zA-Z_]*++;'
and found 3 harmless cases of *p++ (* superfluous, sizeof(*p)==1), but also:
./libobjc/gc.c: *curr
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-01 00:44
---
Working on a fix.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jsm2
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23113
computed|[3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] The
|is not used) option missed |-Wunused (value computed is
|an important case |not used) option missed an
||important case
Target Milestone
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-28 23:42
---
Confirmed. These are all regressions.
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-07-28
22:46 ---
Subject: Re: The -Wunused (value computed is not used) option missed an
important case
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-28
> 17:28 ---
> foo() has side effects.
> *p++ has the side effect of increasing p by 1.
>
> --
>What|Removed |Added
> --
--- Additional Comments From trt at acm dot org 2005-07-28 19:27 ---
In what sense is this bug "invalid"? The comment I noted in c-typeck.c does not
match the current implementation, so one or both of those must be incorrect.
Older versions of gcc issued a warning for "*p++;" and so sho
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-28
17:28 ---
foo() has side effects.
*p++ has the side effect of increasing p by 1.
--
What|Removed |Added
tmt.c needs yet more tweaking:
maybe_warn:
/* If this is an expression with side effects, don't warn. */
if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (exp))
return 0;
--
Summary: The -Wunused (value computed is not used) option missed
an important cas
Madame, Mademoiselle, Monsieur,
Nous vous remercions de votre courrier électronique.
Dans le souci de mieux correspondre à vos attentes, nous vous prions de bien
vouloir nous contacter désormais par le biais du nouveau "Portail des
Citoyens", mis à votre disposition à l'adresse Internet
http://
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Norman Virus Control a supprimé le message original qui contenait le virus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-04 12:44
---
Subject: Re: The -Wsequence-point warnng misses many important
instances
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
> JSM, can you have a look at this patch? It is said to be fu
85 matches
Mail list logo
