https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-03 12:03 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> (gdb) p/x __hi - __lo
> $6 = 0x
(gdb) frame 3
#3 std::num_put > >::_M_insert_float
(this=0x83fffdde37a0, __s=...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85137
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85065
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87189
--- Comment #9 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Thanks, H.J.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5784 has a few references, and
in particular https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-09/msg00192.html is
important to consider.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87207
Bug ID: 87207
Summary: ODR issue with static functions and lambda templates
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87207
--- Comment #1 from blastrock at free dot fr ---
Created attachment 44653
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44653&action=edit
output of gcc -v when compiling the test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Created attachment 44655
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44655&action=edit
S.cpp.035t.esra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
It looks like the function pointers disappear in the esra pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87182
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87208
Bug ID: 87208
Summary: dependent name resolution selects a function it should
have NEVER considered
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87182
--- Comment #5 from Stefan Vigerske ---
The AC_CHECK_LIB([z], [compress], []) adds -lz to the LIBS variable in the
Makefile, if successful. This results in calling the libtool that builds
libbacktrace.la with -lz, which then results in having dep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87177
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 3 17:41:05 2018
New Revision: 264069
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264069&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87177
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 44656
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44656&action=edit
gcc9-pr82853-wip.patch
Untested WIP patch which does this during expansion if it is cheaper according
to targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testcase I've been eyeballing so far:
unsigned f1 (unsigned x) { return (x % 679U) == 0; }
unsigned f2 (unsigned x, unsigned *y) { *y = x / 679U; return (x % 679U) == 0;
}
unsigned f3 (unsigned x) { return (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34500
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #5 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47425
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #5 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
Glen Joseph Fernandes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glenjofe at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87182
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
In my testing I don't see any reference to -lz in libbacktrace.la.
It is not the case that using
AC_CHECK_LIB([z], [compress],
[AC_DEFINE(HAVE_ZLIB, 1, [Define if -lz is available.])])
in libbacktra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85065
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Probably should punt early if integer_onep (treeop1), that case should have
been optimized earlier, but if it isn't, we shouldn't miscompile.
Another thing is if *arg1 is < 0 or >= treeop1, again, I'd hope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87208
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Dup of PR 51577 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87209
Bug ID: 87209
Summary: Wuninitialized or Wmaybe-uninitialized doesn't warn
when malloc's return value is used without being
initialized
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87210
Bug ID: 87210
Summary: [RFE] introduce build time options to zero initialize
automatic stack variables
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87210
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
http://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThompsonHack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87210
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, pjp at fedoraproject dot org wrote:
> As from the reply, it would be nice to have four options/features available
> from the compiler, from least to most performance impa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, while it isn't correct to replace x % 3U == 1 by (x - 1) % 3U == 0, because
for x == 0 the test will yield a different value, as 0xU % 3U is 0 and
0 % 3U is also 0, x % 3U == 1 is equivalent to (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #23 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #23)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #22)
> > So, while it isn't correct to replace x % 3U == 1 by (x - 1) % 3U == 0,
> > because
> > for x == 0 the test will yield
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66203
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> By the way I will doing some bare metal aarch64 work soon but will be using
> a different triplet for this env as it supports a few things the standard
> bare met
101 - 132 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
