https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78938
Bug ID: 78938
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in expand_vec_cond_expr, at
optabs.c:5636 w/ -mavx512bw -ftree-loop-vectorize -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78935
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78938
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
-enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto,objc --no-create --no-recursion :
(reconfigured) ../src/gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-trunk
--with-languages=c,cpp --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto,objc --no-create
--no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161228 (experimenta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78940
Bug ID: 78940
Summary: [missed optimization] Useless guard variable in
thread_local defaulted constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78939
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78931
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78931
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78931
--- Comment #4 from Björn Fahller ---
I can confirm that this works with my original program too, and not just the
condensed test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78941
Bug ID: 78941
Summary: Typo in maccumulate-args description
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78745
--- Comment #5 from Frederic Marchal ---
More truncated lines in gcc/config/s390/s390.opt at lines 116, 178, 195,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78942
Bug ID: 78942
Summary: Incorrect error message for preprocessed source
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904
--- Comment #13 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Dec 28 15:16:26 2016
New Revision: 243955
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243955&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78904
* config/i386/constraints.md (Bn)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78939
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this boils down if
#include
struct S { int s; };
std::tuple_size t;
is valid or not (with instead of it is invalid).
// _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS
// 2770. tuple_size specialization is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78939
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But that goes against
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#2446
So, I think GB 20 is in conflict with LWG2446, we can have just one of those.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78745
--- Comment #6 from Frederic Marchal ---
More truncated lines in gcc/config/arm/arm.opt at line 231 and 266,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78943
Bug ID: 78943
Summary: Generated assembler fails with symbol is already
defined
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78933
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78944
Bug ID: 78944
Summary: null pointer in demangler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77785
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78780
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78939
--- Comment #4 from Björn Fahller ---
It also only partially solves the problem. If the struct is made const, or the
decomposition declaration is changed to "auto const& [p] = s;", it still fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78945
Bug ID: 78945
Summary: [arm
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78945
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-*
--- Comment #1 from nsz at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71216
--- Comment #11 from Rin Okuyama ---
Thank you for your response, and sorry for the late reply.
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> > > That might or might not work; the user had better know what he is
> > > doing if he uses an a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78946
Bug ID: 78946
Summary: optimization throws internal compiler error for
uint64_t on AVR
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78947
Bug ID: 78947
Summary: sub-optimal code for (bool)(int ? int : int)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78947
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
29 matches
Mail list logo
