https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87598
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87598
>
> --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> rs6000.c print_operand_address does no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87598
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87598
>
> --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> GCC 7 fails for me like the rest, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Oct 22 07:25:51 2018
New Revision: 265368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Enable AVX512 memory broadcast for INT add
Many AVX512 vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
--- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Oct 22 07:29:03 2018
New Revision: 265369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Enable AVX512 memory broadcast for INT logic
Many AVX512 ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
--- Comment #14 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Oct 22 07:35:48 2018
New Revision: 265370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Enable AVX512 memory broadcast for INT andnot
Many AVX512 v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63351
Bug 63351 depends on bug 72782, which changed state.
Bug 72782 Summary: AVX512: No support for scalar broadcasts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|aldyh at gc
broadcastx, .-broadcastx
.section.rodata.cst16,"aM",@progbits,16
.align 16
.LC0:
.long 1084227584
.long 1084227584
.long 1084227584
.long 1084227584
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.0 20181022 (experimental)"
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87683
Bug ID: 87683
Summary: Inline asm input/output operand does not prevent
compiler optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87674
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87661
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87663
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87664
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87665
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87683
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber ---
It seems it has nothing to do with the non-null attribute. This function
void d(void)
{
int s;
void *p;
s = posix_memalign(&p, 16, 16);
if (s != 22) {
a();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86336
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87684
Bug ID: 87684
Summary: -Woverloaded-virtual is not documented
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87684
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Last paragraph should be "clang includes -Woverloaded-virtual in -Wall", I
noticed this too late to correct it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87672
--- Comment #11 from jamespharvey20 at gmail dot com ---
I can confirm applying Bernd Edlinger's "2018-10-21 18:16:41 UTC" patch on
current trunk prevents all 3 reported errors, and allows using
CPPFLAGS="-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" and the additions of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87670
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 22 08:47:52 2018
New Revision: 265374
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265374&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/79433 no #error for including TS headers with wrong -std
B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The template constructor allows s({1, 2, 3}) to mean s(S2{1,2,3}) which tries
to use the deleted copy constructor.
Without the template constructor it can only mean s(S1{1,2,3}) which uses the
move constru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87682
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> The template constructor allows s({1, 2, 3}) to mean s(S2{1,2,3}) which
> tries to use the deleted copy constructor.
Or more precisely, overload resolution m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87680
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, there are dups. IIRC the problem is that every element of the array
introduces a new try/finally block so that if one of the Foo objects throws an
exception, all the earlier elements in the array get d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87683
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #2 from Anton Barkovsky ---
No, without sanitizers also, although I'm getting a different value (1433833072
in my latest run) in the debugger instead of 16.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87680
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
PR 70277 is the one I was thinking of, and there's PR 55402 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68800
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you for working on that!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87672
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to jamespharvey20 from comment #11)
> I can confirm applying Bernd Edlinger's "2018-10-21 18:16:41 UTC" patch on
> current trunk prevents all 3 reported errors, and allows using
> CPPFLAGS="-D_FOR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87653
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
Hmm... I can not reproduce the problem if I build the libbacktrace from sources
(even without the patch).
The problem appears only if I use libbacktrace from Ubuntu. I'll double check
and will try to find
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87685
Bug ID: 87685
Summary: [Regression] Calling a static method from inside a
generic lambda requires to capture 'this'
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87624
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #12)
> (In reply to Dmitry G. Dyachenko from comment #0)
> > -fsanitize={address,undefined} unaffected
>
> FWIW, I've run into this with -fsanitize=address and gcc 7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Good then, maybe I'll do that in next weeks. It should not be so difficult from
implementation point of view.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60440
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Agree with Joseph, but it's a low priority on my list. It's kind of error
recovery and as soon you fix the first warning you should not see the second
one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85132
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Carl Eugen Hoyos from comment #12)
> Should be fixed:
> http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=commitdiff;h=10f46815
> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7491
>
> I wonder a little how the FFmpeg d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87684
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71283
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla@poradnik-webmaster
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87684
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Fruzynski from comment #0)
> BTW, clang includes -Woverloaded-virtual in -Werror. Consider doing the same
> for gcc.
I suggest a separate bug for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87674
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, there are differences in intrinsic prototypes for many intrinsics between
GCC and ICC and it isn't that big a deal e.g. in this case, it is unspecified
if the intrinsics are implemented using macros or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87666
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67843
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christian_hoff at gmx dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87667
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's a warning, why do you think either compiler is wrong?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87685
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87667
--- Comment #2 from Roman Lebedev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> It's a warning, why do you think either compiler is wrong?
Either it is incorrect to pass `enum class Enum : unsigned short`
when the format specifier is %hx (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem is that GDB sees a stack address for the int* member of the
unique_ptr, but it should be a pointer to the 'int' on the heap:
Breakpoint 1, A::A (this=0x7fffd2b7, ptr=std::unique_ptr = {...}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |REOPENED
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #9 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
Bug ID: 87686
Summary: [9 regression] internal error in expand, at
tree-switch-conversion.c:916
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
> >
> > Martin Liška changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87640
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 22 10:22:48 2018
New Revision: 265375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87640
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87682
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 22 10:25:28 2018
New Revision: 265376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-22 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/87682
* mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87682
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
--- Comment #3 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> The template constructor allows s({1, 2, 3}) to mean s(S2{1,2,3}) which
> tries to use the deleted copy constructor.
Thanks, I think you're right about that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87674
--- Comment #3 from Wenzel Jakob ---
Thanks -- this patch works for me.
With regards to the signature difference: I had already stumbled about the
(float *) vs (some value *) difference in some intrinsics.
In the best case differences cause wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87687
Bug ID: 87687
Summary: s390x gcc 9 ICE in value_range::check
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87684
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Thanks for the link. I have tried to google for "gcc Woverloaded-virtual" and
it did not show on the top, so I assumed that option is undocumented.
I will open new issue to add it to -Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87667
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think the warning is correct. A scoped enumeration type is not subject to
integral promotion, so the argument is not promoted to int. When the body of
printf tries to read an int from the argument the beh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87687
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iii at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Before the conversion sequence that binds a reference you need to initialize
the underlying temporary, which is a list-initialization sequence. You have
list-initialization sequence L1 from {1,2,3} to S1 an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's how I interpret it anyway, but I could be convinced otherwise. And maybe
the standard isn't clear enough here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87613
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Compiled with GCC 8 the debuginfo has:
DW_TAG_formal_parameter
DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x3cfb "ptr")
DW_AT_location(
[0x, 0x0010): DW_OP_reg4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
--- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Before the conversion sequence that binds a reference you need to initialize
> the underlying temporary, which is a list-initialization sequence. You have
> l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87688
Bug ID: 87688
Summary: [9.0 regression] ACATS cb1010a cb1010d failure
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87688
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86687
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anton at swarmer dot me
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Oct 22 13:09:33 2018
New Revision: 265388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert r263947.
2018-10-22 Martin Liska
PR tree-optimization/87686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #7 from Anton Barkovsky ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> That does seem to explain the difference. With GCC 8 GDB thinks that 'ptr'
> is passed in the register %rsi so the value in the register is the value of
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's no such thing as 8.2.2, the next release will be 8.3.0, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme
Tom, is it time to backport this from trunk to gcc-7-branch and gcc-8-branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
--- Comment #10 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Taking look at
> ../drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c file:
>
> The __builtin_popcount is generated from:
>
> static int brcmf_setup_wiphyband
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87665
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
Bug ID: 87689
Summary: Memory corruption on Power 8
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87665
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Confirmed that -fcheck-null fixes the miscompilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > Taking look at
> > ../drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c file:
> >
> > The __builtin_popcount is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > > Taking look at
> > > ../drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> There's no such thing as 8.2.2, the next release will be 8.3.0, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme
>
> Tom, is it time to backport this from tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #51 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 22 13:54:23 2018
New Revision: 265390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-22 Steven Bosscher
Richard Biener
* bitma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87688
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87598
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
No problem, and thanks for finding and reporting the bug :-) This bug is over
25 years old...
I'm committing a fix for the rs6000 part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87598
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Oct 22 14:03:22 2018
New Revision: 265392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Handle print_operand_address for unexpected RTL (PR87598)
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #2 from Judicaël Grasset ---
I have tried with gfortran 8.2.0
I have compiled with:
gfortran -g main.f doesntwork_p8.f -Wall -Wextra -o exe
When running I get:
1 2 3 4 5 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is a much more general problem in combine. In general it only tries once,
and it only tries the fully simplified form, including known bit values etc.
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
