https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90315
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #3)
> (I was looking into local autotester regressions, finding this PR.
> Just a gentle reminder...)
>
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > I've got a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > So there's somebody who is having the file in a public git repository.
> > That's probably violating SPEC rules :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed May 22 07:42:52 2019
New Revision: 271502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271502&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
c-family/
Backport from mainline
2018-05-10 Eric Bot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 22 07:44:24 2019
New Revision: 271503
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271503&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90450
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed May 22 07:45:17 2019
New Revision: 271504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Strip target_clones in copy attribute (PR lto/90500).
2019-05-22 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27221
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Wed May 22 07:51:59 2019
New Revision: 271505
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271505&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin, testsuite fix PR27221
The test can't succeed on 32b powerpc Darwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener ---
The IFN_ way may be a possibility indeed. I believe a volunteer should first
tackle -ftrapv in this way then to see how painful an exercise this is.
Note that the issue with FENV access is not so much the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90564
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90565
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
--- Comment #3 from Florian Bauer ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Patch has been sent:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg01460.html
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
There's a temporary created by the FE that is not in the BIND_EXPR vars list.
Or rather, it is in the wrong BIND or the assign is in the wrong place:
p ()
{
...
{
character(kind=1)[0:][1:.z] * restric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86288
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56253
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88918
Bug 88918 depends on bug 56253, which changed state.
Bug 56253 Summary: fp-contract does not work with SSE and AVX FMAs (neither
FMA4 nor FMA3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56253
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #4 from Qi Feng ---
The fourth to the last should be:
x < y || x != INT_MAX --> x != UINT_MAX
sorry for the typo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #5 from Qi Feng ---
(In reply to Qi Feng from comment #4)
> The fourth to the last should be:
>
> x < y || x != INT_MAX --> x != UINT_MAX
>
> sorry for the typo.
x < y || x != INT_MAX --> x != INT_MAX
ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90564
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed May 22 08:25:07 2019
New Revision: 271508
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271508&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix wrong escaping of brackets (PR testsuite/90564).
2019-05-22 Martin L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90564
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46393
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46393&action=edit
SPEC2006 and SPEC2017 report
The report presents difference between master (first gray column) and the
Richi's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46395
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46395&action=edit
527.cam4_r valgrind report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46394
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46394&action=edit
521.wrf_r valgrind report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #36 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46396
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46396&action=edit
poor mans solution^Whack
So this is what a hack looks like, basically sprinkling those asm()s throughout
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #6 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Created attachment 46397
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46397&action=edit
Some more patterns
Looking into this I found some more places where it seems to be non-optimal
code, ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
--- Comment #5 from Florian Bauer ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> So apparently it does not have an easy fix:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg01463.html
Ah I see. The problem is that (only windows?) defines long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 22 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #7 from Qi Feng ---
I add some patterns in match.pd which handles the original 5 transformations.
But I don't the language used in match.pd well, the patterns I wrote are very
similar.
And I haven't found predicates for constant valu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90564
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed May 22 09:35:39 2019
New Revision: 271509
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271509&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do not use quotes in tests (PR testsuite/90564).
2019-05-22 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
I'm afraid the tree dumps will not help a lot - I know what they
look like before and after, but I don't know what is wrong with it.
I would therefore ask you to reduce the test case, maybe starting
with th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 22 May 2019, ffengqi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
>
> --- Comment #7 from Qi Feng ---
> I add some patterns in match.pd which handles th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90568
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, so I isolated that to a single file and one gfc_conv_subref_array_arg call.
Problematic file is netcdf/netcdf.f90 and the gfc_conv_subref_array_arg call
happens
for:
(gdb) p *expr
$3 = {
expr_type = EX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Resulting difference in original dump file is:
BEFORE:
D.20757 = _gfortran_internal_pack (&parm.2491);
__result_nf90_put_var_1d_eigh = nf_put_vara_double
((integer(kind=4) *) ncid, (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309
--- Comment #5 from Philipp Lucas ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> ...but first it'd be nice to find out *why* we're shifting by -4 and how
> that can be.
It's not shifting /by/ -4, the -4 is shifted by 1. The ARM ABI says in §3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hi Martin,
Is this for the slowdown or for the wrong-code issue?
To get another view, from a gdb seesion of the compiler:
call debug(expr)
call debug(fsym)
a look at expr->symtree->n.sym (I think call de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #16)
> Hi Martin,
>
> Is this for the slowdown or for the wrong-code issue?
It's the wrong code for cam4_r benchmark.
>
> To get another view, from a gdb seesion of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
$ cat -n netcdf/netcdf_expanded.f90:
...
1470 print *,shape(values)
1471 print *,size(values)
1472 print *,is_contiguous(values)
1473
1474 nf90_put_var_1D_EightByteReal = &
1475
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90569
Bug ID: 90569
Summary: __STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT__ is wrong for
i386-pc-solaris2.11
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90569
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(I'm starting to think that __float128 support should have been disabled on
targets where it requires greater alignment than malloc guarantees, instead of
making GCC's max_align_t lie).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
Ick.
static inline void
check_pseudos_live_through_calls (int regno,
HARD_REG_SET last_call_used_reg_set,
rtx_insn *call_insn)
{
...
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Neither uintptr_t nor PRIxPTR (nor long long nor uint64_t) is part of C++98,
which GCC still requires. I do see existing uses of intptr_t and uintptr_t in
gcc/cp/*.c though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
--- Comment #12 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed May 22 11:56:01 2019
New Revision: 271511
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fortran/89100: Default widths with -fdec-format-defaults
gcc/fortran Chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90570
Bug ID: 90570
Summary: AddressSanitizer: stack-use-after-scope
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Neither uintptr_t nor PRIxPTR (nor long long nor uint64_t) is part of C++98,
> which GCC still requires. I do see existing uses of intptr_t and uintptr_t
> in g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90570
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #4)
> I'm not sure it's a good idea to do this. Often the goal is not to get the
> absolute smallest code, but to get code that minimizes cache line usage.
> This is import
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964
--- Comment #18 from Thomas De Schampheleire ---
Second version of patch, fixing testsuite failures, was posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg01403.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90571
Bug ID: 90571
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity when returning
function pointers based on run-time boolean
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
The code in question was originally added with r202721 by Vlad and likely
became more costly after making the target macro a hook (no inlining
anymore).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig ---
Thanks.
A bit more:
What are the declarations of the actual srgument,
of the dummy argument (on the callee side),
and what is the argument in the call list?
Ill try to construct a test case tonight then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90572
Bug ID: 90572
Summary: Wrong disambiguation in friend declaration as implicit
typename context
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #19)
> Thanks.
>
> A bit more:
>
> What are the declarations of the actual srgument,
> of the dummy argument (on the callee side),
> and what is the argument in the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #37 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #36)
> Created attachment 46396 [details]
> poor mans solution^Whack
>
> So this is what a hack looks like, basically sprinkling those asm()s
> throughout the code aut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90571
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90571
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #38 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #37)
> If you protect even constants, the current effects of -frounding-math become
> redundant.
Oops, forget that, the hack is too late for this sentence to be true, som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71124
Giulio Benetti changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giulio.benetti@micronovasrl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71124
--- Comment #4 from Giulio Benetti ---
Previous Comment was wrong.
This duplicates bug:
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 85180 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90572
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90571
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Turning indirect calls into direct ones might be important enough to also
handle
int x, y;
int f() { return x; }
int g() { return y; }
int t0(bool b) { int (*i)() = b ? &f : &g; x = 1; return i(); }
int mai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90570
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90570
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Given the TREE_STATIC on:
static const int C.0[2] = {1, 2};
I don't understand why there is ASAN_UNPOISON/ASAN_POISON for C.0, shouldn't
that be applied solely to automatic variables, not block scope locals
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90570
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Given the TREE_STATIC on:
> static const int C.0[2] = {1, 2};
> I don't understand why there is ASAN_UNPOISON/ASAN_POISON for C.0, shouldn't
> that be applied so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90570
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90573
Bug ID: 90573
Summary: Avoid unnecessary data transfer into OMP construct
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90569
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68476
Giulio Benetti changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giulio.benetti@micronovasrl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90573
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Probably some of these transformation should come with compiler diagnostics,
especially for explicit clauses.
For example, need to relate this to 'OMP_CLAUSE_FIRSTPRIVATE_IMPLICIT': PR70550
(r234779, r2348
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90574
Bug ID: 90574
Summary: [gdb] gdb wrongly stopped at a breakpoint in an
unexecuted line of code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
OK, if the callee is a C function... what is its declaration
on the Fortran side? Is there any interface, bind(c) or otherwise?
I suppose there must be something, otherwise nf_put_vara_double would
have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90569
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90575
Bug ID: 90575
Summary: -gsplit-dwarf leaves behind .dwo file in cwd
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90569
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Rainer, the change to gcc/cp/init.c would allow you to do:
#define MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT 8
in gcc/config/i386/sol2.h and that would cause std::allocator to know that it
can't rely on malloc for 16-byte ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #34 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #33)
> The correct fix is to adjust the value of __STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT__
> on targets where malloc doesn't agree with GCC's alignof(max_align_t).
That on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
Bug ID: 90576
Summary: [10 regression] SPEC CPU2006 450.soplex miscompiled
with -Os -flto after r271413
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #35 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-05-22 11:03 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
>
> --- Comment #34 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
Giulio Benetti changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giulio.benetti@micronovasrl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90569
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Rainer, the change to gcc/cp/init.c would allow you to do:
>
> #define MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT 8
Oops, it's in bits not bytes, so that should be
#define MALLO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 46398
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46398&action=edit
testsuite patch
Will post this later, tested on x86_64-linux and x86_64-darwin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90577
Bug ID: 90577
Summary: [9/10 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/lrshift_1.f90 with
-O(2|3) and -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90568
--- Comment #3 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> The xor there is intentional, for security reasons we do not want the stack
> canary to stay in the register afterwards, because then it could be later
> spilled o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
Bug ID: 90578
Summary: Wrong code with LSHIFT and optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90577
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90568
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90415
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90415
--- Comment #2 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
The bug is still present on trunk.
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
