https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89822
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #0)
> 8.1 jump to ret removed, but self mov is still there
It's not a self move, but zero extend.
movl%edi, %edi # 6 [c=1 l=2] *zero_extendsidi2/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89809
--- Comment #3 from JunMa ---
the stmt generated by fe has some issue, in 004t.original dump file:
return = (uint16_t) ((signed short) *p | (signed short) ((int) *(p +
1) << 8));
However, the return stmt should be:
return = (uint16_t) (((int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89796
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 26 07:54:02 2019
New Revision: 269933
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269933&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89796
* semantics.c (finish_omp_atomic): Add warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89821
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The invalid exception is raised here:
Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
0x00400cde in demo_nan () at t.f90:17
17 if ( (r32<=0.0_real32) .or. (r32>=0.0_real32) )then
0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89819
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54779
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42158|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54779
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62181
--- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
A large patch will often get lost in comments and revisions unless the
submitter is very insistent and committed. If you want to get this moving,
my advice would be to split out the smallest piece poss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #58 from John Dong ---
Created attachment 46022
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46022&action=edit
fix the union bug on 7.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54779
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Do you have a GCC10 implementation that could be submitted in stage1, or has
> this been reviewed already earlier?
I should have one in a few weeks, but this indeed was reviewed and rejected
earlier. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #59 from John Dong ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #58)
> Created attachment 46022 [details]
> fix the union bug on 7.3.0
hi, I tried to fix the bug when expanding. is it OK?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89823
Bug ID: 89823
Summary: Composed message only partially translatable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #60 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
>
> --- Comment #59 from John Dong ---
> (In reply to John Dong from comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89823
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Göran Uddeborg from comment #0)
> In d/dmd/expressionsem.c there is this piece of code:
>
> > const char *s = exp->op == TOKplusplus ? "increment" : "decrement";
> > exp->error("cannot post-%s arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84598
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Mar 26 10:16:13 2019
New Revision: 269936
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269936&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-26 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/84598
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89824
Bug ID: 89824
Summary: Variant jump table reserves space for __variant_cookie
twice
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84598
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|vegard.nossum at gmail dot com |
Summary|[8/9 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vmakarov at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89824
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
Bug ID: 89825
Summary: Jump table for variant visitation could be shortened
for never empty variants
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: mis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
--- Comment #1 from Antony Polukhin ---
There's a typo in proposed solution: it should be `&& !_Never_empty` in
`_Multi_array`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740
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=81740
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 11:12:37 2019
New Revision: 269938
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269938&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-26 Bin Cheng
PR tree-optimization/81740
* t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|amker at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88105
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 11:18:26 2019
New Revision: 269939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 11:18:26 2019
New Revision: 269939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88240
Bug 88240 depends on bug 86554, which changed state.
Bug 86554 Summary: [7 Regression] Incorrect code generation with
signed/unsigned comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84552
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 11:18:26 2019
New Revision: 269939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61448
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrey Drobyshev from comment #26)
> > I would like to ask, has the idea of adding an artificial object linked with
> > -fsanitize=address early on the link line which would register artificial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89816
--- Comment #11 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Tue Mar 26 12:07:26 2019
New Revision: 269940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89816
Fix based on a suggestion by Antony Polukhi
d model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190326 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-269932-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-i686
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190326 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Would you be willing to complete a copyright assignment for contributions to
> GCC?
And then ideally, make lots more contributions :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
> Would you be willing to complete a copyright assignment for contributions to
> GCC?
Yes, I can do that. Please send the instructions to my email.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89824
--- Comment #1 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Tue Mar 26 12:41:59 2019
New Revision: 269941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89824
Fix based on a suggestion by Antony Polukhin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89827
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59528
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89812
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89828
Bug ID: 89828
Summary: Inernal compiler error on -fno-omit-frame-pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #61 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 13:18:23 2019
New Revision: 269942
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269942&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 13:18:23 2019
New Revision: 269942
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269942&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89253
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 26 13:18:23 2019
New Revision: 269942
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269942&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88386
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88389
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antonio.di.monaco at sap dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> For some reason, I can't reproduce that now on Haswell with both GCC 8 and
> 9. I'll retry with a Zen machine.
The reason is that I had adjusted tolerance for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89827
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89826
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89827
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
We need something like this patch:
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index b5f20f1597ed..3ea545732dfd 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89829
Bug ID: 89829
Summary: incorrect profile data is used during
profiledbootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81757
Patrick Moran changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
--- Comment #4 from Nikita Kniazev ---
So the warning triggers intentionally in copy/move even if the value actually
not read anywhere in the user code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89825
--- Comment #5 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Tue Mar 26 15:00:05 2019
New Revision: 269947
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269947&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89825
Fix based on a suggestion by Antony Polukhin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The warning triggers when the warning pass sees uninitialized uses in the IL
(and quite complex code doesn't prove that it is not actually impossible at
runtime (predicate aware analysis).
You are using -O1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89826
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89826
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, started with r269896:
+deferring deletion of insn with uid = 50.
+deferring rescan insn with uid = 54.
insn 55: replaced reg 3 with 0
+deferring rescan insn with uid = 55.
+deferring rescan insn with ui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89826
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89829
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
--- Comment #6 from Nikita Kniazev ---
I understand. I though that -Wuninitialized should not produce false positives
and that's a main difference between it and -Wno-maybe-uninitialized.
The warning does not go away and does not change to -Wno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89812
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 26 15:28:48 2019
New Revision: 269949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269949&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85965 delay static assertions until types are complete
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 26 15:28:48 2019
New Revision: 269949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269949&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85965 delay static assertions until types are complete
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
Bug ID: 89830
Summary: intrinsic repeat() is completely broken
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86429
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 26 16:02:19 2019
New Revision: 269951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86429 - constexpr variable in lambda.
When we refer to a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 26 16:02:19 2019
New Revision: 269951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86429 - constexpr variable in lambda.
When we refer to a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87327
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 26 16:02:19 2019
New Revision: 269951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86429 - constexpr variable in lambda.
When we refer to a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86429
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] lambda |[8 Regression] lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87327
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Calling|[8 Regression] Calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 82643, which changed state.
Bug 82643 Summary: lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const
constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86932
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38177
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89831
Bug ID: 89831
Summary: passing 'const ...' as 'this' argument discards
qualifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89499
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30810
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Zaak from comment #0)
> When compiled, even with the `-fno-working-directory` flag, the object file
> still contains references to the full path to the source file:
>
> ```
> $ strin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89832
Bug ID: 89832
Summary: confusing error message when there is a problem with
ASAN_OPTIONS "ERROR: expected '='"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89785
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Another option, slightly more involved, is say cp_walk_tree on
> SWITCH_STMT_BODY, looking for any RETURN_EXPRs or CONTINUE_STMTs (the latter
> only when not nest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89833
Bug ID: 89833
Summary: [9 Regression] sorry, unimplemented: string literal in
function template signature
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:59:08PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to Zaak from comment #0)
>
> > Furthermore, there is an error message embedde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89833
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89421
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> Jason, should we also return NULL_TREE for lambdas inside template parameter
> list (in retrieve_specialization)?
That's not sufficient, even if it probably make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89830
--- Comment #5 from Zaak ---
Sorry about the bad reproducer code (name conflict).
To create reproducible builds one must be able to strip or at least map source
file references from the source/build directory to something more generic or
univers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89821
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89821
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89827
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Mar 26 18:59:14 2019
New Revision: 269953
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269953&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89827
* config/i386/i386.c (dimode_scala
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89834
Bug ID: 89834
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr81740-2.c introduced in
r269938 fails on power 7
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89829
--- Comment #2 from Serge Belyshev ---
On the other hand, benchmarking shows that better training brings no advantage.
Or rather, slight measurable regression is apparent:
option| training dataset| benchmark | compiler
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
