https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Kretz ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> Your "reference" number seems strange. Why not do the computation with
> double (or long double or mpfr) or use __builtin_hypotf? Note that it
> changes the value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #39 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
>
> --- Comment #34 from Wilco ---
> With just the expr.c patch the gcc regression tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88774
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, that's consistent with how C++ handles top-level cv-qualifiers in function
parameters.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
>
> rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88782
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's wrong in exactly the cases r266380 was meant to solve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88782
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think I might need to rename _S_ti() so that old callers will get an old
definition of it that matches what they expect, and new callers of the new
function won't care what _S_ti() does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #41 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
>
> --- Comment #38 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> ---
> Created attachmen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Probably not. I don't think sanitizers flag the unspecified comparisons, so we
could just always do the uintptr_t comparisons for C++98/11. The patch looks
good to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88786
Bug ID: 88786
Summary: Expand vector copysign (and xorsign) operations in the
vectoriser
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
Bug ID: 88787
Summary: [9 regression] C++ constexpr seems to not get expanded
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
--- Comment #8 from jon_y <10walls at gmail dot com> ---
I've used a linux hosted mingw toolchain to build a mingw toolchain from the
same sources, it seems to be working fine.
I've only enabled C and C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So the
if (__x.7_6 < __y.8_7)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count: 38463891]:
if (__x.7_6 > __y.8_7)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
fails to merge to != beca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88782
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
Bug ID: 88788
Summary: [9 Regression] Infinite loop in malloc_candidate_p_1
since r264838
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789
Bug ID: 88789
Summary: epiphany: memory_resource.cc:235:62: error: static
assertion failed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88790
Bug ID: 88790
Summary: No warning for misleading indentation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88790
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(I couldn't add that cc:, Daniel doesn't have a bugzilla account yet).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45401
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45401&action=edit
VN patch
Turns f() into just
[local count: 1073741824]:
_3 = &MEM[(struct basic_string *)s_2(D)].D.18989
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 10:44:46 2019
New Revision: 267799
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267799&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/88568
* attribs.c (handle_dll_attribute): Clear TREE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 10:56:56 2019
New Revision: 267800
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267800&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88775
* include/bits/stl_function.h (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88772
--- Comment #4 from Andoni ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> > I just wiped the build to start a clean build from scratch, but I remember
> > checking this and it was "no". I can confirm it in ~1 hour
>
> Can you confirm that we'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88777
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88782
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] |[7/8 Regression]
|'dll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88786
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think it's a bit too low-level and having the higher-level op benefits
later optimizations (match.pd patterns, etc.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #0)
> The following testcases from libstdc++ have started failing in the past few
> days on trunk:
>
> FAIL: 27_io/filesystem/operations/last_write_time.cc executi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
Bug ID: 88791
Summary: ASAN deadlocks in threaded application
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So after the patch we have
__x.5_4 = (long unsigned int) "hello";
__y.6_5 = (long unsigned int) _3;
if (__x.5_4 != __y.6_5)
goto ; [75.00%]
else
goto ; [25.00%]
[local count: 805306369]:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88648
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Jan 10 11:36:42 2019
New Revision: 267804
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267804&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ARM: fix -masm-syntax-unified (PR88648)
This allows to us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88648
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
"hello" string literal surely can be followed by anything else, but don't we
consider it UB?
int
foo (void)
{
int a = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 32; i++)
a += "hello"[i];
return a;
}
warning: iteration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
Bug ID: 88792
Summary: [9 Regression] wrong-code in RPO VN since r263875
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 10 11:54:26 2019
New Revision: 267805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267805&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85574
Modified:
branches/gcc-8-branch/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for the breakage, I will take a look.
Regards,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess latent since r214091.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45402
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45402&action=edit
gcc9-pr88785.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
I am not an epiphany expert. I just noticed this while testing the GCC builds
for RTEMS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
OK, I see what goes wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71959
--- Comment #11 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jules
Date: Thu Jan 10 12:32:03 2019
New Revision: 267806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267806&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add testcase from PR71959
libgomp/
PR lto/719
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #2)
> Sorry for the breakage, I will take a look.
>
> Regards,
> Prathamesh
Wait, I have almost reduced test-case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750
--- Comment #34 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #33)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #32)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #31)
> > > Then I get tons of duplicate symbol lines.
> >
> > ah well, not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45403
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45403&action=edit
reduced test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88772
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> For 64bits the result is "no":
> 643 configure:4751: checking whether the compiler is configured for
> setjmp/longjmp exceptions
> 644 configure:4769: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc
> -L/home/andoni/mingw/windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Created attachment 45403 [details]
> reduced test-case
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45404
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45404&action=edit
VRP patch
This makes VRP register asserts for the pointer variants. This doesn't help
until after ifcombine b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88702
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Just for the record, when rewriting the code with switch:
int IsHTMLWhitespace(int aChar) {
switch (aChar) {
case 0x0009:
case 0x000A:
case 0x000C:
case 0x000D:
case 0x002
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I get pretty much the same thing with:
--- gcc/match.pd.jj 2019-01-07 17:59:24.100931144 +0100
+++ gcc/match.pd2019-01-10 14:45:31.870509916 +0100
@@ -1660,6 +1660,19 @@ (define_operator_list CON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
Marian changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marian.buschsieweke at ovgu
dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88772
--- Comment #6 from Andoni ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
>
> But you said above that the result is "yes" for 32-bit, so how come the test:
>
> x$ac_cv_sjlj_exceptions = xyes;
>
> is false? Does it help to rewrite it into j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
--- Comment #58 from Andreas Schwab ---
-Wstrict-overflow=1 is enabled by -Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45405&action=edit
gcc9-pr88775.patch
Full patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
Bug ID: 88793
Summary: Document that __attribute__ ((cold)) is not equivalent
to __builtin_except because of optimization for size
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
Bug ID: 88794
Summary: fixupimm intrinsics are unusable [9.0 regression]
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
Дилян Палаузов changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #32 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Some of the tests in this PR are fixed by the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg00065.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450
--- Comment #21 from Bence Szabó ---
Bootstrap succeeds with trunk + gcc9-pr88450.patch. Ran gcc testsuite, all
stackalignment tests pass and so does the test added by r266345. The CPU was an
Intel Coffee Lake so avx and avx2 is supported but avx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The profile_estimate difference is a bug introduced in r191883 and later
extended in r193821 I have a fix for, but it can be ignored, it should have
went into the combine dump instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, that's exactly right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #0)
> > The following testcases from libstdc++ have started failing in the past few
> > days on trunk:
> >
> > FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
Bug ID: 88795
Summary: ICE on class-template argument deduction if non-type
parameter has indirection
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84877
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 15:44:16 2019
New Revision: 267812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/84877
PR bootstrap/88450
* function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 15:44:16 2019
New Revision: 267812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/84877
PR bootstrap/88450
* function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
--- Comment #59 from Marian ---
Thanks for the fast replay
wget http://ptrace.fefe.de/int.c
gcc -Wstrict-overflow=1 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -o int int.c
does not produce a warning (except for the missing `#include `) on gcc
8.2.0 on Alp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81452
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> There is -Walloc-zero. If we want a separate knob for just it then maybe
> -Wrealloc-zero.
Oh right, -Walloc-zero, I forgot about that one. It triggers so rarely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 10 16:06:49 2019
New Revision: 267815
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267815&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80762 avoid ambiguous __constructible_from
Ensure we don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #0)
> > However, optimizing for size is a very big hammer and causes substantial
> > performance issues on i386 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87007
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
The current patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg00298.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 10 16:53:39 2019
New Revision: 267817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-01-02 Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 45406
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45406&action=edit
Followup patch to try to dump why a condition can't be unswitched within a loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for the testcase.
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10)
> Created attachment 45406 [details]
> Followup patch to try to dump why a condition can't be unswitched within a
> loop
This is a foll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2)
> The startup overhead isn't the problem. The asymptotic performance is
> really bad, too. (I hope I didn't botch my test, though. It's vaguely
> based on w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88774
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What does this do?
auto __hi_exp =
__hi & simd<_T, _Abi>(std::numeric_limits<_T>::infinity()); // no error
Sorry, I have no simd knowlege yet.
Anyway, doesn't the large scale risk overflow i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #12 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
I think this messages look really good!
I believe that this contains everything required to actually work on improving
automatic unswitching, thank you very much!
Do you think that there is a chance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, the stage1-gcc compiled tree-ssa-sccvn.o is identical no matter whether
-fno-checking or -fchecking=1 was used, and doesn't fail -fcompare-debug with
either, so it is simply that something is miscompile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Yeah, on GCC users' side I think there's a demand for both: treating UB as
unreachable (e.g. on tiny systems with heavy program size constraints) and
transforming UB to a trap briefly annotated with sourc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Bug ID: 88796
Summary: -fstack-protector* kills RTL DSE opportunities
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
