Hi,
Did you ever get the mobile battery that is not full capacity, or fake capacity.
so that you need charge it several times within a day.
now I can solve this problme for you.We specialized in mobile phone battery for
11 years with CE FCC ROHS certifications,fit for iPhone,Samsung,Tecno and othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88559
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88556
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
glibc does this because its __expm1l implementation happens to be fast? That
is,
the question would be whether this falls under "canonicalization" and thus
appropriate for a match.pd pattern?
Of course if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #15 from Arseny Solokha ---
In build_atomic_assign() we have
4222 /* Create the expressions for floating-point environment
4223 manipulation, if required. */
4224 bool need_fenv = (flag_trapping_math
4225
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018, asolokha at gmx dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
>
> --- Comment #15 from Arseny Solokha ---
> In build_atomic_assign() we have
>
> 422
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88193
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88296
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88423
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88296
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce it w/ gcc-9.0.0-alpha20181216 snapshot (r267191), so it
either was fixed or went latent in the meantime.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83443
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88197
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
It ICEs only w/ -m32, apparently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
Bug ID: 88560
Summary: armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c and related regressions after
r260385
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
--- Comment #1 from Sam Tebbs ---
Created attachment 45267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45267&action=edit
Code generated for armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c without r260385
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84050
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 84051, which changed state.
Bug 84051 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an
out-of-bounds access via an array pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84053
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 84053, which changed state.
Bug 84053 Summary: [7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds accessing a local
array across inlined function boundaries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84053
What|Rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
what's the state on trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85459
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> What's the state on trunk?
I should have my own measurements only in January but according to
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/spec_report/branch the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Like this:
===
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
index 5120202..429eac5 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
@@ -38865,7 +38865,9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
I should have my own numbers only in January, but according to
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/spec_report/branch there
is a 7% regression at -Ofast and generic march/mtune on Zen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Or, if you want your compiler to build:
===
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
index 5120202..c041f15 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88561
Bug ID: 88561
Summary: [8/9 Regression] PGO devirtualization miscompilation
of firefox
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88561
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84362
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84362
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 20 11:39:59 2018
New Revision: 267296
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267296&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-20 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/84362
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #4)
>> The patch broke Solaris/SPARC bootstrap:
>
> Sorry about that. Does the patch posted here:
> htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88134
--- Comment #19 from Arseny Solokha ---
Patch from comment 17 fixes the second ICE (the one filed in comment 5).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88557
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Romeo ---
The "ice-on-invalid-code" tag was added, but I thought this was valid C++2a
code. Am I mistaken?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88562
Bug ID: 88562
Summary: Incorrect pointer incrementing on ST-SH4
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88562
--- Comment #1 from Zavadovsky Yan ---
Created attachment 45269
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45269&action=edit
ReadQm_Os.s
Add full assembler output with buggy code.
Command to compile: 'sh4-unknown-linux-gnu-g++ -Os -S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88562
--- Comment #2 from Zavadovsky Yan ---
Created attachment 45270
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45270&action=edit
ReadQm_Os_no_expensive_optimizations.s
Add full assembler output with NON-buggy code.
Command to compile: 'sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88562
--- Comment #3 from Zavadovsky Yan ---
Created attachment 45271
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45271&action=edit
main.cpp
Add some testing code.
Command to compile: './820/bin/sh4-unknown-linux-gnu-g++
--sysroot=./820/sh4-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88562
--- Comment #4 from Zavadovsky Yan ---
Some additional note.
Test code is placed in separate file from 'Read32' function implementation
because inlining of 'Read32' will avoid bug.
Full source file on which bug was observed has about 300 lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88554
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88563
Bug ID: 88563
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] wrong code with -O2
-fno-code-hoisting -fno-tree-ccp
-fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-forwprop
-fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85663
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86019
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86020
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Honza?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86218
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86524
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86567
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86648
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86685
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86688
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |---
Summary|[9 Regression] m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
Sam Tebbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86827
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86891
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86932
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86943
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88009
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In fact, after getting rid of a few ICEs, the test case also shows a new
(bogus) error with trunk:
Error: PRIVATE attribute not allowed in BLOCK DATA program unit at (1)
This is certainly bogus, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88559
--- Comment #3 from James Almer ---
This code has compiled and the resulting assembly worked without issues for
like a dozen major GCC releases, and now it's suddenly invalid?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
--- Comment #4 from Sam Tebbs ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #3)
> Is the revision number (r260385) really correct?
Sorry it was r266385, fixed that now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88544
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
One of these traces says 'illegal instruction' the other 'segmentation fault';
so *if* they are compiler bugs, then they are not the same.
However, this smells more like a system problem than a compiler p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43944
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87008
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41482
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-05-01 00:00:00 |2018-12-20
--- Comment #7 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44557
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45727
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88559
--- Comment #4 from James Almer ---
To expand, as i mentioned and showed in the OP this code has compiled without
issues up to some point between December 10 and December 17 with gcc trunk. I'm
not arguing about clobbering the stack pointer being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56115
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56116
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57911
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58490
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65325
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess it would be nice to add the testcase into the testsuite in that case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68100
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Dec 20 14:14:22 2018
New Revision: 267298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 88214] Assert that ptr is a pointer
2018-12-20 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68494
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Dec 20 14:18:48 2018
New Revision: 267299
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267299&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
-Wtautological-compare: fix comparison of macro expansions
gcc/c-famil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70030
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Did the need for this patch go away?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70223
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77662
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77996
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo