https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Joel Hutton from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> > So the vectorization issue would be that basic-block vectorization doesn't
> > catch this in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, luoxhu at cn dot ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
>
> --- Comment #8 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
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=91301
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 31 07:49:56 2019
New Revision: 273922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273922&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/91301
* gimplify.c (gimplify_omp_for): If fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91257
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 07:53:11 2019
New Revision: 273923
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273923&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91257
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, in the end it's still the vectorizers awkward [dead] code generation but
for this testcase (for me) it recurses too deeply via the VN triggered by
complete unrolling, doing vn_reference_maybe_forwprop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68957
Roger Orr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rogero at howzatt dot
demon.co.uk
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91255
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91299
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-none-eabi-gcc
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42436
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83072
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> Author: hubicka
> Date: Mon Jul 29 08:18:38 2019
> New Revision: 273866
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273866&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
>
> PR lto/9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83073
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91257
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91299
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> You want to look at the output of the linker resolution file (compile with
> -v -save-temps and look for -fresolution=). The linker probably
> tells
> GCC that i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68957
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> > Author: hubicka
> > Date: Mon Jul 29 08:18:38 2019
> > New Revisio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61584
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Krauss from comment #2)
> Currently, enum promotions are incompatible between C and C++ modes.
Does that matter?
> Furthermore, when C++ requires promotion to signed int but the underly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 31 09:22:48 2019
New Revision: 273927
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273927&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91201
* config/i386/sse.md (reduc_pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91257
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91305
Bug ID: 91305
Summary: ICF compile-time issues
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90579
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
Transform second loop as
diff --git a/loop.c b/loop.c
index feea9ea..81a3ea6 100644
--- a/loop.c
+++ b/loop.c
@@ -9,6 +9,6 @@ loop (int k, double x)
for (i=0;i<6;i++)
r[i] = x * a[i + k];
for (i=0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #1 from Lauri Kasanen ---
clang 7.0.0 outputs the expected values, aka the gcc -O0 ones, at all
optimization levels. (it calls the builtin __builtin_altivec_crypto_vpmsumd,
but no other changes)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91305
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90579
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90579
>
> --- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
> Transform second loop as
>
> diff --git a/l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91257
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.5 |---
Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 09:46:18 2019
New Revision: 273928
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273928&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91178
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[9/10 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91306
Bug ID: 91306
Summary: [MSP430] libgcc/crtstuff.c: Alignment of frame_dummy
.init_array entry is too big
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91300
--- Comment #2 from zed.three at gmail dot com ---
Forgive me, but what is stupid here? The perceived wisdom is that it is best
practice to always use `stat` with `allocate`, and the addition of `errmsg` now
gives us something portable to hopefull
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289
Eric Müller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mueller at kip dot
uni-heidelberg.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289
--- Comment #2 from Philipp Spilger ---
Only reverting the "elf_low" insn changes of this commit leads to no encounter
of the problem, i.e. the following diff "resolves" the problem on
gcc-9_1_0-release.
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
Bug ID: 91307
Summary: -flto causes binary to vary
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69678
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #1 from Simon Schricker ---
We also tried building with -pipe, but the observed behavior didn't change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91293
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Equivalent testcase that doesn't run into the operator swapping and thus works:
long long a;
unsigned b, c;
int d = 62;
void e(long long *f, int p2) { *f = p2; }
int xx = 5, yy = 4;
int main()
{
for (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308
Bug ID: 91308
Summary: [7/8/9/10 Regression] unique_ptr assignment fails with
different deleters
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: reject
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91304
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #10 from wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com ---
On 7/31/19 2:25 AM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
>
> --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, luoxhu at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
>
> --- Comment #10 from wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com ---
> On 7/31/19 2:25 AM, rg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com wrote:
>
> OK, so -mveclibabi=mass isn't needed to reproduce the issue, nor is
> linking -lmassv or -lmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 8.3.0, 9.1.0
--- Comment #13 from B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91303
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill ---
I admit to being completely confused by the multitude of PwerPC variants but if
the e500 was deleted, why does libgcc/config.host still include
libgcc/config/rs6000/t-savresfgpr for multiple powerpc targets a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 31 13:49:26 2019
New Revision: 273932
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273932&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91201
* config/i386/mmx.md (reduc_pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
>
> Bill Schmidt changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> Honza probably knows where we output the LTO symtab and why we do not put
> undefs for builtins there.
#include
double y, z;
void foo ();
int main()
{
vol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #3 from Bernhard M. Wiedemann ---
It seems to be triggered by nvme-cli/cmd_handler.h
#define PLUGIN(name, cmds) \
static struct plugin plugin = { \
name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91303
--- Comment #3 from Joel Sherrill ---
Pursuing the assumption that the e500 files shouldn't be build, I decided to
remove them from the t-savresfgpr files. With this patch, powerpc-rtems5 builds
again:
diff --git a/libgcc/config/rs6000/t-savresf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
A simple two-file testcase like
static void init(void) __attribute__((constructor));
static void init()
{
static volatile int i = 0;
}
int main() { return 0; }
static void init2(void) __attribute_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91309
Bug ID: 91309
Summary: Fails to compile when initializing template argument
with immediately-invoked lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91293
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[8/9/10 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed:
$ marxin@marxinbox:/tmp> gcc -flto pr91307-*.c -o a.out && objdump -S a.out |
grep GLOBAL
00401109 <_GLOBAL__I_65535_0_ccIH3dv1.o.4348>:
marxin@marxinbox:/tmp> gcc -flto pr91307-*.c -o a.ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91293
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 14:15:37 2019
New Revision: 273934
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273934&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91293
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91310
Bug ID: 91310
Summary: Read overflow generated by character array assignment
to self
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91310
--- Comment #1 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 46648
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46648&action=edit
test case 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91310
--- Comment #2 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 46649
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46649&action=edit
test case 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91192
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 31 14:32:24 2019
New Revision: 273935
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273935&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/91192
* c-parser.c (c_parser_sizeof_expression): Call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91192
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 regression] |[9 regression]
|non-de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91280
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 14:38:21 2019
New Revision: 273936
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273936&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91280
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[8/9/10 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91310
--- Comment #3 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 46650
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46650&action=edit
intermediate code for test case 1
You can see the central condition described in the original report from lines
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 31 14:38:26 2019
New Revision: 273937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273937&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/91308 fix constraints on unique_ptr assignment
PR l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
The name to function is given here:
get_file_function_name
Breakpoint 1, get_file_function_name (type=0x7fffd670 "I_65535_0") at
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/tree.c:9809
9809 if (first_global_obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91310
--- Comment #4 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 46651
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46651&action=edit
intermediate code for test case 2
You can see the central loop described in the original report from lines 18-25.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91299
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > You want to look at the output of the linker resolution file (compile with
> > -v -save-temps and look for -fresolution=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91311
Bug ID: 91311
Summary: __attribute__ ((aligned (128))) results in
stack-use-after-scope and stack-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91131
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 15:40:36 2019
New Revision: 273939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91126
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 15:40:36 2019
New Revision: 273939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91200
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 15:40:36 2019
New Revision: 273939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91145
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 15:40:36 2019
New Revision: 273939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91162
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 15:40:36 2019
New Revision: 273939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.1.1
Target Milestone|9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91311
--- Comment #1 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
Created attachment 46652
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46652&action=edit
rr record for the testcase, results in stack-use-after-scope
I'm also attaching the `rr` record for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87100
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-03-10 00:00:00 |2019-7-31
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > > Honza probably knows where we output the LTO symtab and why we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91169
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
The patch totally overlooks that the index can wrap around during the traversal
of the CONSTRUCTOR:
if (index_type)
index = wi::ext (index, TYPE_PRECISION (index_type),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91312
Bug ID: 91312
Summary: -Wconversion warning with += operator
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91312
--- Comment #1 from Kostas Sotiropoulos ---
Hi,
When compiling the following code snippet with gcc 8.3.0
with -Werror=conversion option:
#include
#define MACRO 1
int main(void)
{
unsigned char i;
i += MACRO;
return i;
}
the following w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91312
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91050
--- Comment #15 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Wed Jul 31 17:18:40 2019
New Revision: 273941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/91050
* config/rs6000/rs6000.opt (mdejagnu-cp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91050
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
Bug ID: 91313
Summary: [10 regression] r273908 breaks lto on power 7
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88233
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90538
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 31 18:50:00 2019
New Revision: 273944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273944&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90538 - multiple expansions of capture packs
Previously, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried this on a different power7 system and it worked OK there. The failing
system is running Fedora 28. The one that worked Red hat 6.10. Maybe it is
distro related? I will try a couple of o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89746
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91264
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
