https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85545
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 27 07:09:51 2018
New Revision: 259696
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259696&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85529
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (optimize_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 27 07:11:44 2018
New Revision: 259697
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259697&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85529
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (optimize_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85546
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think this is a misconception of what a volatile asm is. Volatile says
there may be additional side-effects the asm performs - it does _not_ mean
the output depends on more than the inputs.
Note I can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85540
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85540
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Apr 27 08:05:44 2018
New Revision: 259698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259698&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/85540
* init.c (__gnat_handle_vms_condition): A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85540
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85547
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85548
Bug ID: 85548
Summary: Zero-initialization of padding bits of an aggregate
class (class A) member of a non-aggregate class (class
B) is not performed when B is value-initialized.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85512
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Apr 27 08:48:49 2018
New Revision: 259699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/85512: Tighten SIMD right shift immed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85538
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz ---
Some more observations:
1. The instruction sequence:
kmovq %k1,-0x8(%rsp)
vmovq -0x8(%rsp),%xmm1
vmovq %xmm1,%rax
kmovq %rax,%k0
should be a simple `kmovq %k1,%k0` instead.
2. Adding `
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #59 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Apr 27 08:56:02 2018
New Revision: 259700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/82518: Return false in ARRAY_MODE_SUPPORT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85532
Bug ID: 85532
Summary: crtend.o built without --enable-initfini-array has bad
.eh_frame
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85532
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Apr 27 09:17:49 2018
New Revision: 259703
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259703&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR85532, crtend.o built without --enable-initfini-array has bad .eh_frame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85532
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
Bug ID: 85549
Summary: [8/9 Regression] Infinite loop in ilmbase package
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 44028
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44028&action=edit
Small self-contained test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44028|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85546
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85550
Bug ID: 85550
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] -fdebug-types-section broken with
DW_OP_addr in DW_AT_location
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85550
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85550
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85550
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Huh, I never expected types to have "locations" ;) I don't think we can use
DW_OP_GNU_variable_value because the refered to DIE would be in another
section.
We could simply avoid splitting out those types,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.3.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85532
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-linux
Status|AS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85548
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Why do you think padding should be initialized in any way?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85551
Bug ID: 85551
Summary: No strength reduction of modulo and integer vision
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85551
--- Comment #1 from Allan Jensen ---
I also stumbled on this old motivating article when I tried googling the
concept: http://publications.csail.mit.edu/lcs/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TM-600.pdf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85551
--- Comment #2 from Allan Jensen ---
Hmm.. I appear to have made unsafe assumptions in the mod_opt cases.
The first safe optimization version would then be:
void mod_opt(int *a, int count, int stride, unsigned width)
{
int pos_opt = 0;
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
This is another stupid omission, I forgot that for by-reference aggregate
values, one has to check the agg_preserved of the jump function.
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-cp.c b/gcc/ipa-cp.c
index 1b8f335fd32..4f28a55b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4)
> This is another stupid omission, I forgot that for by-reference aggregate
> values, one has to check the agg_preserved of the jump function.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85548
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55185
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
This also breaks building libgcc with -mabi=ilp32, and the patch in #c8 fixes
that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84362
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85545
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 27 15:00:53 2018
New Revision: 259712
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259712&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85545 - ICE with noexcept PMF conversion.
* cvt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85552
Bug ID: 85552
Summary: Adding curly braces to the declaration of a
std::unique_ptr to a forward declared class breaks
compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85545
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 27 15:06:14 2018
New Revision: 259713
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259713&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85545 - ICE with noexcept PMF conversion.
* cvt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53345
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43797
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted the fix to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg01236.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85552
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85552
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Any default member initializer has the same problem, not just a
braced-init-list, i.e. all of these cause an error:
class DoesntCompile
{
std::unique_ptr s{};
std::unique_ptr s = std::unique_ptr();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85552
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC and EDG both reject this reduced version but Clang accepts it:
template
struct uptr {
uptr() { }
~uptr() { static_assert(sizeof(T), "complete type"); }
};
class S;
class Compiles
{
uptr s;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35511
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23087
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, documentation
--- Comment #1
Hello there,
I would like to know if you are interested in acquiring NetApp Users List.
Information fields: Names, Title, Email, Phone, Company Name, Company URL,
Company physical address, SIC Code, Industry, Company Size (Revenue and
Employee).
If you are interested, let me know your targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70808
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This causes a regression for:
using T = decltype(nullptr);
const constexpr T foo{};
np.cc:2:23: error: ‘(const T)nullptr’ is not a constant expression
const constexpr T foo{};
^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84691
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Apr 27 16:56:55 2018
New Revision: 259716
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259716&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-04-27 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/84691
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84691
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regression]|[6/7/8 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85545
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70808
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's now PR 85553
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85553
Bug ID: 85553
Summary: [8/9 Regression] cannot list-initialize a variable of
type std::nullptr_t
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85553
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85553
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85553
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks Jakub for looking into this. For sure, the whole fold and convert
machinery should not be necessary for something this simple, but, to be honest,
isn't immediately obvious to me why it does the wrong t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85553
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2)
> Thanks Jakub for looking into this. For sure, the whole fold and convert
> machinery should not be necessary for something this simple, but, to be
> honest, isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85553
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
I see. Then, my humble opinion (we got Jason in CC, anyway) is that if we are
still hoping to have this fixed in 8.1.0 we should just go ahead with something
rather straightforward like your tweak, otherwise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85429
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 27 18:01:00 2018
New Revision: 259719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259719&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/85429
cmd/go: add Solaris assembler syntax for gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85429
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85554
Bug ID: 85554
Summary: GCC does not instantiate template function when only
used as a function type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85515
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Apr 27 18:39:18 2018
New Revision: 259720
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259720&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't offer suggestions for compiler-generated variables (PR c++/85515)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85429
--- Comment #5 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 27 18:44:28 2018
New Revision: 259721
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259721&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/85429
cmd/go: add Solaris assembler syntax for gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84292
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Tobler ---
Author: andreast
Date: Fri Apr 27 19:14:05 2018
New Revision: 259722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259722&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-27 Andreas Tobler
Maryse Levavasseur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85492
--- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson ---
I figured out that I wasn't fully rebuilding and relinking all libraries while
trying to debug this with printf, and that sent me down the wrong path.
Trying this again, correctly, I see that we have a loop in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85492
--- Comment #4 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 44032
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44032&action=edit
proposed glibc patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85553
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 27 20:29:12 2018
New Revision: 259728
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259728&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85553
* init.c (build_zero_init_1): For zero initia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85492
--- Comment #5 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks Jim. This looks good to me, are you comfortable submitting glibc
patches? If so then I'll commit it, otherwise I can send it out myself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85553
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 27 20:30:56 2018
New Revision: 259729
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259729&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85553
* init.c (build_zero_init_1): For zero initia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 27 20:32:18 2018
New Revision: 259730
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259730&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/85549
* ipa-cp.c (find_aggregate_values_for_callers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85553
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 27 20:32:53 2018
New Revision: 259731
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259731&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/85549
* ipa-cp.c (find_aggregate_values_for_callers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85492
--- Comment #6 from Jim Wilson ---
I suggest you handle the glibc patch.
Note that you can probably also fix this by adding unwind direcives to _start
to say that the return address is in x0. This would avoid the minor code size
increase, but t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85554
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup of bug 64194.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85527
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Apr 27 22:11:12 2018
New Revision: 259733
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259733&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[openacc, testsuite] Fix undefined behaviour in atomic_capture-1.f90
2018-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85554
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||me at adhokshajmishraonline
dot in
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85138
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mail at pietrodelugas dot it
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85138
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #10)
> *** Bug 85526 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment #6 in the duplicate provides additional information.
Reprodcued here.
Well, I unders
This is our website for the 34oz plastic bowls:
please click it and see,
https://cwrsl.en.alibaba.com/product/60634767456-802693463/34oz_Beauty_rose_shape_crystal_plastic_packing_lid_dessert_bowl_for_take_away.html?spm=a2700.icbuShop.prewdfa4cf.4.4f5865c4Bw0Aix
Warm Regards，
Jim
86 matches
Mail list logo
