https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90954
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 25 07:00:34 2019
New Revision: 272635
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272635&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/90954
* c-omp.c (c_finish_omp_atomic): Allow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47819
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019, egallager at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47819
>
> Eric Gallager changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64958
--- Comment #5 from MarkEggleston ---
Warning is output by gfortran 6.3.0.
program test
implicit none
integer :: b
integer :: c
b = 0
c = 7
call sub(b)
call sub(c)
write(*,*) b, c
contains
subroutine sub(x)
integer, inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90982
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90981
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90982
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 25 07:30:44 2019
New Revision: 272636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90930
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.1.1
--- Comment #14 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64958
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Warning is output by gfortran 6.3.0.
> ...
Not a warning, but an error as it shall. This PR is different: it is about the
case where the INTENT(IN) is obfuscated by a subroutine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
Bug ID: 90990
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: error: ‘component_ref’ LHS in
clobber statement
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-vali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90991
Bug ID: 90991
Summary: _mm_loadu_ps instrinsic translates to vmovaps in
combination with _mm512_insertf32x4
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90985
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
Michel Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mimomorin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks. I however do not know why we do not like component refs in
clobbers. It simply says that we are killing part of a structure?
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90973
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jun 25 08:17:39 2019
New Revision: 272638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly sum costs in tree-vect-loop.c (PR tree-optimization/90973).
2019
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90973
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 90973, which changed state.
Bug 90973 Summary: A suspicious code in tree-vect-loop.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90973
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90982
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so this is IPA SRAs fault which fails to rewrite the d.c[i] expression
with the parameter replacement. After the cited rev. range-info makes d.c[i]
appear as d.c[2] from get_ref_base_and_extent analysis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
Bug ID: 90992
Summary: -Wnoexcept produce false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90981
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Btw. started with r259743.
Thanks. So that is mine:
commit ac7a2c61cf2ae7fcc948724ae179ac812c12186a
Author: mark
Date: Sat Apr 28 19:54:08 2018 +
DWA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In theory it could, but it's a non-trivial change, and I don't know how much
testing it's had on mingw-w64 yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89838
--- Comment #2 from Claudiu Zissulescu ---
Patch pushed to mainline r272643.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64958
--- Comment #7 from MarkEggleston ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> > Warning is output by gfortran 6.3.0.
> > ...
>
> Not a warning, but an error as it shall. This PR is different: it is about
> the case where the INTENT(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90993
Bug ID: 90993
Summary: simd integer division not optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90911
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 25 10:59:48 2019
New Revision: 272644
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272644&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90930
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90994
Bug ID: 90994
Summary: Bogus Wmaybe-uninitialized with fnon-call-exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90939
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 25 11:05:19 2019
New Revision: 272646
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 90939] Remove outdated assert in ipcp_bits_lattice::meet_with
2019-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If we inline the relevant code it reveals that t here are actually additional
warning lines that are being suppressed in system headers:
using size_t = decltype(sizeof(0));
void* operator new(size_t, void*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This inconsistency is because the warning function uses one location, and the
following warning_at uses a different location:
static void
maybe_noexcept_warning (tree fn)
{
if (TREE_NOTHROW (fn))
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jun 25 11:50:12 2019
New Revision: 272651
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove dead code in df-scan.c (PR tree-optimization/90978).
2019-06-25 M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90993
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This suppresses the second warning if the first is suppressed:
--- a/gcc/cp/except.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/except.c
@@ -1158,11 +1158,11 @@ maybe_noexcept_warning (tree fn)
{
if (TREE_NOTHROW (fn))
{
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
--- Comment #5 from adrien.hamelin at gmail dot com ---
The noexcept(false) is just to be extra obvious, we see the same behaviour
if we don't mark the function at all.
Regards,
Adrien Hamelin
Le mar. 25 juin 2019 à 14:30, redi at gcc dot gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to adrien.hamelin from comment #5)
> The noexcept(false) is just to be extra obvious, we see the same behaviour
> if we don't mark the function at all.
Yes of course. I'm just suggesting that may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90981
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64958
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
As long as we use a single file, it would be possible to
warn about this.
What we could do is to analyze dusty and check that its argument
n may be redefined. If it appears in a variable definition
context,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90969
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 25 14:05:13 2019
New Revision: 272654
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272654&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90969
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_array_reference): Don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> Hmm, I can't easily reproduce this, -flto -m32 doesn't work with my build.
Do you have a problem with LTO plugin? Or something else?
> Could someone else analyz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82182
Lauri Kasanen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.2.0 |8.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Tell me how and I can ;)
I think we want to know how the statement gets created
So i would just watchpoint its LHS and see when the component refs
sneeks in.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90995
Bug ID: 90995
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in grokdeclarator, at
cp/decl.c:12024
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90996
Bug ID: 90996
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gimplify_expr, at
gimplify.c:13495
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90997
Bug ID: 90997
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy_and_build, at
cp/pt.c:18480
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini ---
With Jason's r272656 remains to be handled what I had as other/final4.C.
final.3.C and final5.C are fine, I'm probably going to add those two to the
testsuite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90998
Bug ID: 90998
Summary: [Regression] ICE (segfalut) in gcc/cp/call.c
compare_ics() with -std=c++17
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #48 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> That sounds right. We can even vectorize
>
> void
> foo (char* restrict r, char* restrict a){
> for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++){
> r[i] += a[i];
> }
> }
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90997
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Hi,
Hope you are doing well!
I wanted to check if you'd be interested in purchasing 2019 updated MongoDB
User List for your marketing initiatives?
We also have related technology users like: Schneider, Salesforce, Oracle,
IBM, Cisco, Microsoft and many more...
Let me know if you are interested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #49 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #48)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > That sounds right. We can even vectorize
> >
> > void
> > foo (char* restrict r, char* restrict a){
> > for (int i = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #50 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #49)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #48)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > > That sounds right. We can even vectorize
> > >
> > > void
> > > foo (char*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90999
Bug ID: 90999
Summary: [MSYS2/MINGW64] std::experimental::net is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #51 from Uroš Bizjak ---
How about:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 272656)
+++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
@@ -21380,6 +21380,9 @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
Kris changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kristopher.kuhlman at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91000
Bug ID: 91000
Summary: noexcept in constexpr context with std=c++11 and
std=c++14
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90991
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #52 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #51)
> How about:
>
> Index: config/i386/i386.c
> ===
> --- config/i386/i386.c (revision 272656)
> +++ config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #53 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #52)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #51)
> > How about:
> Many V2SF, V8QI, V4HI and V2SI operations are missing.
True, but why not use the ones that are usable?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90991
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46520
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46520&action=edit
gcc10-pr90991.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #54 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #53)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #52)
> > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #51)
> > > How about:
> > Many V2SF, V8QI, V4HI and V2SI operations are missing.
> True
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47819
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90988
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jun 26 04:31:14 2019
New Revision: 272667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272667&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-24 Steven G. Kargl
PR Fortran/90988
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90988
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89808
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to sduguay from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > In any case, I agree with confirming this as a bug: all warnings should be
> > controllable by a -Wxxx option.
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 26 04:56:07 2019
New Revision: 272669
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272669&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70462 - unnecessary base ctor variant with final.
As point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18374
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52274
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58999
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=545
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90991
--- Comment #3 from Martin Kronbichler ---
I can confirm that this patch creates the right instruction on my test case,
"vmovups (%rdi,%rax,4), %xmm0", and also in the application code where it
originated from.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 90978, which changed state.
Bug 90978 Summary: A suspicious code in df-scan.c since r160348
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90973
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Jun 26 06:44:58 2019
New Revision: 272671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix one another thinko in tree-vect-loop.c (PR tree-optimization/90973).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90998
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90996
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90995
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
87 matches
Mail list logo
