https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84086
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84088
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Hmm. Probably this failure would have been picked up by
libgomp-plugin-host_nonshm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106
Bug ID: 84106
Summary: gcc is not able to vectorize code for 1D array, but
does so for 2D array of the same size
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84107
Bug ID: 84107
Summary: indirect call profiling broken with multiple DSOs
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: visibility, wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84108
Bug ID: 84108
Summary: incorrect -Wattributes warning for packed/aligned
conflict
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84077
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
-march=native is ambiguous, please run g++ with the given options with
additional -v and attach what it emits as cc1plus command line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84098
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84109
Bug ID: 84109
Summary: ICE in adjustl on allocatable array of strings
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84110
Bug ID: 84110
Summary: Null character in regex
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84066
--- Comment #1 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
Created attachment 43274
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43274&action=edit
x32 patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84066
--- Comment #2 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
updated __builtin_setjmp and __builtin_longjmp to use 64bit instructions and
registers. The patch is attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICAT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84110
--- Comment #1 from AbigailBuccaneer ---
From what I can tell, this isn't intentional behavior in libstdc++.
regex_scanner.h defines:
const char* _M_ecma_spec_char = "^$\\.*+?()[]{}|";
and regex_scanner.tcc tries to interpret any character
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #49 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jan 29 16:03:17 2018
New Revision: 257154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-01-26 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84066
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81122
--- Comment #15 from Ben Woodard ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to Ben Woodard from comment #10)
> > Also note:
> > https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/742775
> >
> > My reading of:
> > ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
Bug ID: 84111
Summary: [8 Regression] Compile time hog w/ -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #0)
> % timeout 5 gcc-8.0.0-alpha20180128 -O2 -c utfcfeh4.c
> zsh: exit 124 timeout 5 gcc-8.0.0-alpha20180128 -O2 -c utfcfeh4.c
gcc-8.0.0-alpha20180128 is also aff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
David Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at westcontrol dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 43275
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43275&action=edit
starting point
e.g. this which would then call into a version of diag_attr_exclusions that
removes the conflict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Code in comment #0 is also valid, it's just rather questionable (the octal
literal is \00) and most likely unintended (or intentionally misleading).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84077
--- Comment #4 from Flössie ---
Created attachment 43276
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43276&action=edit
cc1 command line
Here it is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84109
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83942
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jan 29 16:56:28 2018
New Revision: 257155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257155&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83942 - wrong unused warning with static_cast.
* c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84078
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84112
Bug ID: 84112
Summary: [8 Regression] powerpc64le ICE in LRA on openjdk
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84112
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81122
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ben Woodard from comment #15)
> IMHO you have not yet effectively made the case this is related to 2381.
Read comment 14 again.
> Your assertions are not at all consistent with the text of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84104
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
The conflict between const and pure is in the expectations at the call site and
guarantees provided by the function. A caller that assumes the function is
pure (e.g., based on its declaration immediately prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
First of all, I was talking about a function first declared pure and later made
const, your invalid example has it the other way around, but the invalid thing
on it isn't any kind of attribute conflict, but r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83942
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84108
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
The purpose of the warning is to detect coding mistakes. There is no valid use
case for declaring the same function const and pure so it must be a mistake.
As the test case shows, the mistake can lead to sub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84112
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> The following testcase ICEs with -mcpu=power8 -O3 -fstack-protector-strong
> -fpic on powerpc64le-linux with:
> rh1539812.i: In function ‘foo’:
> rh1539812.i:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82965
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think there is inconsistent semantics between call in vect_do_peeling:
scale_loop_profile (prolog, prob_prolog, bound_prolog);
and implementation of scale_loop_profile.
When the loop is predi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80867
--- Comment #11 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Mon Jan 29 18:00:49 2018
New Revision: 257158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257158&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-01-29 Richard Biener
Kelvi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
Bug ID: 84113
Summary: gcc-7.3.0/libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: internal compiler
error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems during cunroll we end up with:
y_8 = PHI
...
y_29 = PHI
...
y_37 = PHI
where all 3 PHIs are degenerate and thus:
1539static tree
1540follow_copies_to_constant (tree var)
1541{
1542
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83966
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jan 29 18:20:01 2018
New Revision: 257159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257159&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/83966
* c-format.c (check_function_format): Check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84088
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> Hmm. Probably this failure would have been picked up by
> libgomp-plugin-host_nonshm.
Hi Tom,
Although my patch caused it, I am not in a position to pick this one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
What do the m68k maintainers think about the suggestion of backporting to
GCC 7 (and for that matter GCC 6)? This is a regression in the sense of
"libgcc used to build for ColdFire, then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83966
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84108
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #23 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I've got no objection Joseph. But I think you need to make your case to Richi
and Jakub -- I doubt they're on CC for this BZ :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #1 from Douglas Mencken ---
ah yep, it’s at first stage
$ cat stage_current
stage1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81122
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For the avoidance of doubt:
C++98 did not support reading hex floats from an istream.
Libstdc++ still follows the C++98 spec, so does not read hex floats. "0x1" is
read as "0". "0x1p1" is also read as "0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84077
--- Comment #5 from Flössie ---
Created attachment 43278
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43278&action=edit
Complete -v output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
Bug ID: 84114
Summary: global reassociation pass prevents fma usage,
generates slower code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84090
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83975
--- Comment #7 from G. Steinmetz ---
Some additional testcases :
$ cat z2.f90
subroutine s(x)
character(*) :: x
associate (y => [x])
print *, size(y), len(y), y
end associate
end
$ cat z3.f90
subroutine s(x)
character(*) ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84108
--- Comment #3 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I vaguely remember the behavior of packed + aligned(N) kept changing in the
> past, some versions of GCC treated it just like packed, others as aligned.
> Is this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84115
Bug ID: 84115
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that
contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'indirect_ref'
in add_decl_as_local, at fortran/trans-decl.c:256
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84115
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
A few more testcases :
$ cat z2.f90
subroutine s(x)
character(:), allocatable :: x
associate (y => x)
print *, y
end associate
end
$ cat z3.f90
subroutine s(x)
character(:), allocatable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84116
Bug ID: 84116
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_omp_clauses, at
fortran/openmp.c:1354
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #28 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to acsawdey from comment #27)
> So, I think the problem is that the rtx given by
> crtl->args.internal_arg_pointer is not canonical as expected. So near the
> beginning of vt_add_fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84117
Bug ID: 84117
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in gimplify_modify_expr, at
gimplify.c:5798
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #3 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> (In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #0)
>
> Let me work on this.
>
> I tested the warning with the kernel but don't recall coming across this
> false positiv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems this is during
#0 follow_copies_to_constant (var=) at
../../gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c:1548
#1 0x010ce55e in analyze_scalar_evolution_1 (loop=0x7fffefb99550,
var=)
at ../../gcc/tree-scala
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #29 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problematic expression was:
(mem/c:QI (plus:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 187) (const_int 32 [0x20])) (const_int 72
[0x48]))
and internal_arg_pointer was (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 187) (const_int 32 [0x2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84066
--- Comment #4 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
Created attachment 43280
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43280&action=edit
updated patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84066
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to igor.v.tsimbalist from comment #4)
> Created attachment 43280 [details]
> updated patch
- mem = gen_rtx_MEM (Pmode, plus_constant (Pmode, operands[0],
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84105
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24928
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84103
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you mean it as a coding style warning (at least for const/pure), then it is
at least worded incorrectly, there is no conflict between those and if what you
do is that you ignore const attribute because ear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks.
Just for reference in case more of these should pop up, I see two -Wrestrict
instances in my build (below). The first one looks correct but the second one
could be an instance of the false positive r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84066
--- Comment #6 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> (In reply to igor.v.tsimbalist from comment #4)
> > Created attachment 43280 [details]
> > updated patch
>
> - mem = gen_rtx_MEM (Pmode, plus_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68810
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84066
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to igor.v.tsimbalist from comment #6)
> >
> > reg_ssp must be in word_mode, not in Pmode.
>
> reg_ssp is word_mode. It's reg_adj that is Pmode (it's increment to shadow
> stack).
OK.
> > Please show
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
This is not a style warning. Because there is no valid use case for having
both attribute const and pure on two declarations of the same function, in the
absence
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84105
--- Comment #2 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Created attachment 43281
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43281&action=edit
preprocessed simplified sm_sideeffect.c, compressed
I managed to get a standalone testcase now, manually reduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83996
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jan 29 20:54:12 2018
New Revision: 257160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83996
* constexpr.c (cxx_fold_indirect_ref): Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68810
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jan 29 20:56:00 2018
New Revision: 257161
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257161&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68810 - wrong location for reinterpret_cast error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68810
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83996
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8] Regression] ICE |[6/7] Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82461
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jan 29 20:58:36 2018
New Revision: 257164
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257164&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82461 - constexpr list-initialized member
* conste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #24 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Mon Jan 29 21:00:52 2018
New Revision: 257165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix m68k-linux-gnu libgcc build for ColdFire (PR target/68467).
PR tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |7.4
--- Comment #25 from Joseph S. Mye
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82461
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83835
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Perhaps we also want to set TARGET_EXPR_DIRECT_INIT_P here:
6785 /* If this is a constructor or a function returning an aggr type,
6786we need to build up a TARGET_EXPR. */
6787
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Here are some additional instances in the kernel. I'm currently trying to get a
reliable build first and haven't got a log of all the messages, but there are a
number of changes I did that are related, shutti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82086
--- Comment #8 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to jsberg from comment #7)
> As to why I think this is a bug (and why I think Intel's compiler is doing
> the right thing), referencing the 2008 standard (N1830):
In the F2018 DIS (N2146) the corre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is a valid use case, you have some public interface which you only want
to guarantee to be pure, the result depends on the arguments and e.g. on some
OSes or in some specific cases needs read-only acce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #30 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to acsawdey from comment #29)
> The problematic expression was:
>
> (mem/c:QI (plus:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 187) (const_int 32 [0x20])) (const_int
> 72 [0x48]))
>
> and internal_arg_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84098
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #31 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm not sure where the copy happens, I am just surmising that it must have been
added because the code clearly assumes it won't be copied.
101 - 200 of 238 matches
Mail list logo
