https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91794
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> > Eric - was the intent of the PR81351 fix that the dwarf2out_do_eh_frame ()
> > works per function?
>
> No, dwarf2out_do_eh_frame is global but whether the CFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91763
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #2)
> I see now the fact that we are using exceptions is already being passed.
> The problem seems to be that flag_exceptions is set when we read an
> exception re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91758
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #8)
> > I've got it. It's a usage of an uninitialize member variable in a class:
> > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40547#c38
>
> Thanks for catching this!
You'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91413
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jb at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91474
--- Comment #5 from Dragan Mladjenovic ---
Hi,
I wasn't able to reproduce this issue which leds me to believe that this is the
r273174 is the probable fix. In either way, it should be backported to gcc-9
branch,
but it would be nice if you can c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91794
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So I guess an appropriate cleanup would be to pass a struct function
> to dwarf2out_do_eh_frame but also deal with it being NULL?
You need to ask Jan, my fix for 81351 was minimal and based on his insight.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91702
--- Comment #1 from Dragan Mladjenovic ---
Hi,
Same as with https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91474#c5. Chould you
perhaps verify if r273174 fixes your issue?
Thanks in advance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91804
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91797
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91708
--- Comment #19 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #18)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #17)
> > So do we have a testcase that shows the problem on older compilers?
>
> Yes, the same testcase shows the same in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91776
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #1)
> (In reply to yhr-_-yhr from comment #0)
> > I'm doing this test on a Raspberry Pi Model 3B+. The CPU is BCM2835 ARMv7.
>
> I think it's BM2837, ie. Cortex-A53. Or did
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91763
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 18 11:28:20 2019
New Revision: 275872
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275872&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-18 Richard Biener
PR lto/91763
* lto-stream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91776
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91708
--- Comment #20 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #19)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #17)
> > > So do we have a testcase that shows the problem on older compilers?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91708
--- Comment #21 from Richard Earnshaw ---
But dropping in a char* will give a more restrictive alias set, so that isn't
wrong, even if it is suboptimal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91807
Bug ID: 91807
Summary: [Regression] std::variant with multiple identical
types assignment fail
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #91 from Vladislav Ivanishin ---
> --- Comment #90 from Eric Gallager ---
> At Cauldron, Vladislav Ivanishin said in his lightning talk that ISP
> RAS has a patch to fix this.
Well, I also said that this patch is not meant to go int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91708
--- Comment #22 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #21)
> But dropping in a char* will give a more restrictive alias set, so that
> isn't wrong, even if it is suboptimal
The alias set could be anything given CSE changes on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91789
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91807
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52593
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91808
Bug ID: 91808
Summary: Static definition rejected after extern declaration in
anonymous namespace
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91809
Bug ID: 91809
Summary: in c++ bit-field is not promoted to int in printf
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91763
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55588
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2)
> > Also present in 4.9 trunk, and I recently got a user complaint about this
> > bug. How can I upvote? :)
>
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88632
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #2)
> Created attachment 45349 [details]
> A provisional patch that fixes the problem
>
> The attached fixes this but causes regressions:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/module_pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Sep 18 17:32:08 2019
New Revision: 275891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-18 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/9155
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Sep 18 17:39:33 2019
New Revision: 275892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275892&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-18 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/9155
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69815
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48303
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48419
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91810
Bug ID: 91810
Summary: I do not know what is wrong
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91446
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Sep 18 19:49:19 2019
New Revision: 275905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Increase Skylake SImode pseudo register store cost
On Skylak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90878
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Sep 18 19:50:45 2019
New Revision: 275906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275906&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Restore Skylake SImode hard register store cost
On Skylake,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91738
--- Comment #2 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Wed Sep 18 19:52:09 2019
New Revision: 275907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Add logical DImode expanders
We currently use default mid-end expanders for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90878
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size foo, .-foo
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 10.0.0 20190918 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 xxx]$
Is it possible to use 256-bit YMM register store?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91446
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91809
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought I had saw a dup of this bug and closed as invalid before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91809
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Or rather maybe fixed with the fix for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30277 (which was done 3 days ago).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70435
Felix Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fewix3000 at hotmail dot co.uk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88061
Felix Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fewix3000 at hotmail dot co.uk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83818
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812
Bug ID: 91812
Summary: GCC ignores volatile modifier
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91813
Bug ID: 91813
Summary: Derived types: Issues with user defined I/O and
recursive function of abstract type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48419
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6)
> We could do this if we clean up the ABI. If we do that, we could also
> revisit PR 45715 :-)
>
> Is there an ABI cleanup PR somewhere?
WeE did some of the ABI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91683
--- Comment #20 from Jim Wilson ---
Author: wilson
Date: Thu Sep 19 01:19:25 2019
New Revision: 275925
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275925&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
RISC-V: Fix more splitters accidentally calling gen_reg_rtx.
PR ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87007
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=275926
Author: liuhongt
Date: Thu Sep 19 01:21:39 2019 UTC (30 seconds ago)
Changed paths: 4
Log Message:
Extend pass rpad to handle avx512f vcvtu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48419
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 46897
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46897&action=edit
Comments with my thoughts on ABI
Just my initial thoughts. I would like to see some consensus before we jump
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81248
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86530
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91246
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58327
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812
--- Comment #2 from Gregory Fuchedzhy ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> If you declare ptr like this instead, the assembly comes out looking
> different:
> volatile unsigned int *volatile ptr;
Even seemingly unrelated code change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91811
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
And the GCC 8 issue is phiprop doing bogus invariant motion of the load.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> On trunk we remove the loop because it has no side-effects (oops).
actually no, it's the same issue (phiprop).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635
--- Comment #26 from Kito Cheng ---
Author: kito
Date: Thu Sep 19 06:38:23 2019
New Revision: 275929
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275929&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
RISC-V: Fix bad insn splits with paradoxical subregs.
Shifting by more than
66 matches
Mail list logo
