https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
This is probably due to logic issue in PR 78120 fix. Its Changelog said,
(noce_process_if_block): Compute an estimate for the original cost when
optimizing for speed, using the minimum of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87056
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
not able to reproduce, (both build using 7.3.0 and bootstrapping)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87015
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Starke ---
Sure, but it will take some days as I am currently reducing a testcase for
another bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
--- Comment #12 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
I've investigated foo3, foo4 and foo5, and came to the following
conclusions:
When foo3 is compiled with -march=z10 or later, cprop1 pass propagates
global's SYMBOL_REF value into UNSPECV_CAS. On previo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87060
Bug ID: 87060
Summary: Condition check is optimized out for volatile unsigned
char / short
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87060
--- Comment #1 from Yevheniy Soloshenko ---
Ok, my fault. Integer promotion in action.
The code below is fine.
```
void test_u8 (void)
{
if ((unsigned char)(u8 + 1)) { u8 = 1; }
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86973
--- Comment #1 from Michael Matz ---
I can reproduce the same error without any va-args:
% cat bug.i
extern void foo(void *);
__attribute__((sysv_abi))
void a(__attribute__((__vector_size__(8 * sizeof(double double b){
foo(0);
}
% ./cc1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86973
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|5.4.0 |
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87003
--- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey ---
I don't really know the best thing to do.
I see your point about graceful failure being a useful
feature, in cases where the result of some gcc-jit function
is passed as an argument to another one.
Maybe there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
I can't reproduce with a cross to powerpc64le-linux.
I'm trying this:
void d(void);
char *a, *b;
void c(void) {
if (b == a)
return;
if (__builtin_strncmp(a, "", b - a))
d();
}
I also tried us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Aug 22 16:04:09 2018
New Revision: 263780
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263780&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ fix changelog ]
2018-08-22 Segher Boessenkool
PR rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86983
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87052
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87052
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64949
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86973
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz ---
A testcase that doesn't need -mabi cmdline args:
extern __attribute__((ms_abi)) void foo(void);
__attribute__((sysv_abi))
void a(__attribute__((__vector_size__(8 * sizeof(double double b){
foo();
}
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86888
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Aug 22 17:10:00 2018
New Revision: 263782
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263782&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fix PR 86888
2018-08-22 Janus Weil
PR fortran/86888
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87061
Bug ID: 87061
Summary: [9 Regression] regex cannot be compiled with
-std=c++1z -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Bug 39627 depends on bug 86888, which changed state.
Bug 86888 Summary: [F08] allocatable components of indirectly recursive type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86888
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86888
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86837
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87062
Bug ID: 87062
Summary: mis-optimized code with -O3 and std::pair
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87062
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey ---
Analysis in the comments there puts the blame on -ftree-slp-vectorize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
... and avoiding the wrong branch fixes this bug without regressing pr78120.c
testcase:
--- a/gcc/ifcvt.c
+++ b/gcc/ifcvt.c
@@ -3413,7 +3413,7 @@ noce_process_if_block (struct noce_if_info *if_info)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87062
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87060
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87050
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87063
Bug ID: 87063
Summary: Const subobject with const assignment operator, but
operator anyway deleted
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87061
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68222
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Aug 22 18:51:25 2018
New Revision: 263786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-22 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/68222
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87057
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > That would require a lot of special-casing just for std::variant.
>
> Well, I think, in place of std::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68222
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87057
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > > That would require a lot of special-casing just for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86935
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Aug 22 19:31:40 2018
New Revision: 263787
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263787&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fix PR 86935
2018-08-22 Janus Weil
PR fortran/86935
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79342
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01389.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86935
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86957
--- Comment #3 from Indu Bhagat ---
Currently, GCC dumps some information in the dump files regarding functions not
being executed in the training run (And, I agree its not satisfactorily
direct).
First, in the "Symbol table:" dump section in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87031
--- Comment #4 from Michael_S ---
It's fine that you moved the 2nd case to 'tree-optimization'. I suppose that's
where it belongs.
But I just saw the second case by chance in the process of reduction of the
first case to bare minimum. For me it (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87021
--- Comment #1 from Will Schmidt ---
These should clear up once the gimple-folding for vec_splat() code goes in.
If that patch is held up much longer (relatively), i will probably disable the
scan-assembler counts for those tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87031
--- Comment #5 from Michael_S ---
It's fine that you moved the 2nd case to 'tree-optimization'. I suppose that's
where it belongs.
But I just saw the second case by chance in the process of reduction of the
first case to bare minimum. For me it (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87057
--- Comment #6 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #2)
> > As far as such trivial optimizations concerned, I'd prefer to rely on the
> > compiler figuring th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
Bug ID: 87064
Summary: [9 regression] libgomp.oacc-fortran/reduction-3.f90
fails starting with r263751
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
Bug ID: 87065
Summary: ice in trunc_int_for_mode
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is this:
a, b, c, d, e;
f() {
short *g = b;
int h = 1;
for (; h <= 1; h++)
g = &c;
unsigned i;
for (; c; c++) {
for (; i <= 1; i++)
;
a ^= (a > 0 <= i) + ((e += d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
It also seems to have been going wrong since sometime before
revision 262835.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87057
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87066
Bug ID: 87066
Summary: new expression and potential destructor invokation
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78448
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Aug 22 22:22:40 2018
New Revision: 263789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263789&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/78448 limit vector::max_size and deque::max_size
The contai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78448
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87066
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87061
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87061
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Aug 22 22:54:33 2018
New Revision: 263791
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263791&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87061 remove pmr type aliases for COW strings
The pmr alias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77684
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Andi, we keep seeing intermittent failures in these tests. Can you help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87022
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87067
Bug ID: 87067
Summary: [8.1, 8.2] LTO-related ICE when running armv7 binutils
test suite
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87066
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
I am not convinced that rejecting new B[1] is a good idea, you could also
change the standard to say that it is ok. The destructor is only useful here
if, for new B[2], the first B is constructed ok but the con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86863
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Aug 23 06:27:54 2018
New Revision: 263799
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263799&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/86863
* resolve.c (res
101 - 162 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
