https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested patch that handles tst1 and tst2 and some more, but doesn't handle
tst3 yet and is still missing some patterns.
Unfortunately, it can result in quite a lot of define_insn_and_split patterns,
while fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91994
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86753
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91532
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
I think it'd be good to add a testcase for this, assuming that
it's now fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Fri Oct 18 08:42:41 2019
New Revision: 277145
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277145&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Darwin] Amend section for constants with relocations.
Darwin's linker doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91165
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Three months later, still broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Oct 18 09:10:20 2019
New Revision: 277147
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277147&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from 2019-10-18 trunk r277143.
PR target/86040
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Oct 18 09:12:34 2019
New Revision: 277148
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277148&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from 2019-10-18 trunk r277143.
PR target/86040
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Oct 18 09:16:16 2019
New Revision: 277149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from 2019-10-18 trunk r277143.
PR target/86040
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92071
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Here is some reduced C code which demonstrates the problem:
a;
union b {
double c;
char d[8]
} e() {
union b b;
memcpy(b.d, a, 8);
f(b);
}
Flag -O2 required.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92143
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92146
Bug ID: 92146
Summary: gm2: the brig, fortran, go and D frontends are missing
lang_register_spec_functions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47062
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47062&action=edit
gcc10-pr92140-wip.patch
Slightly extended untested patch, which handles all the cases in the testcase
at the st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92147
Bug ID: 92147
Summary: gm2: modula-2 fails to build on powerpc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The patch adds 144 define_insn and 144 define_split to tmp-mddump.md though, to
total 6217 define_insn and 733 define_split.
Maybe a better way to deal with it would be to have x86_ne_0_operator and
x86_eq_0_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92148
Bug ID: 92148
Summary: gm2: race condition building gm2 on trunk
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: modula2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92149
Bug ID: 92149
Summary: Enefficient x86_64 code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92149
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI, missed-optimization
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92149
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Egorushkin ---
I notice that g++ always zeros out unused high-order bits. Clang++ never does.
Both follow the same System V ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47062|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92149
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Egorushkin ---
System V ABI doesn't seem to require unused bytes to contain any specific
value.
There is a specific note for _Bool: When a value of type _Bool is returned or
passed in a register or on the stack, bit 0 c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92143
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far, but I'll backport it too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92143
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Oct 18 11:27:31 2019
New Revision: 277151
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277151&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/92143 adjust for OS X aligned_alloc behaviour
OS X 10.15 ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91586
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Oct 18 12:04:31 2019
New Revision: 277153
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277153&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR91586 Fix ICE on invalid code with CLASS
gcc/fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 47064
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47064&action=edit
Proposed patch with pre-reload splitters
Maybe we should use pre-reload splitters as with the attached patch that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92150
Bug ID: 92150
Summary: Partial specializations of class templates with class
NTTP fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comparing the two patches, your patch handles f1-f4 in
/* PR target/92140 */
char c;
int v;
__attribute__((noipa)) void f1 (void) { v += c != 0; }
__attribute__((noipa)) void f2 (void) { v -= c != 0; }
__at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91586
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Oct 18 12:38:26 2019
New Revision: 277154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR91586 Fix ICE on invalid code with CLASS
gcc/fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91586
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47065
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47065&action=edit
gcc10-pr92140-wip.patch
If pre-reload splitters are reliable, my patch can be greatly simplified and
using the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 47065 [details]
> gcc10-pr92140-wip.patch
>
> If pre-reload splitters are reliable, my patch can be greatly simplified and
> using the formatti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92151
Bug ID: 92151
Summary: Spurious register copying
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
If an insn condition uses can_create_pseudo_p, the insn will suddenly stop
to match after reload --> kaboom.
If your insn always splits ("&& 1"), this means that if any of these:
NEXT_PASS (pass_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47067
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47067&action=edit
gcc10-pr92140.patch
So what about this version then? I've changed back a couple of
to nonimmediate_operand a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And as for the define_insn_and_split without constraints that don't expect to
be matched post split1, I think we can try to figure out something
incrementally and change all of them at once, e.g. a property
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #12)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> > Regarding reliability of pre-reload splitters, IIRC they should be safe, but
> > I'll leave the final verdict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92136
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Same issue with an explicit deduction guide:
template
class Base {};
template
class Test1 : public Base>
{
public:
Test1() = default;
template typename T>
Test1(Base> const &) {}
};
template typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91941
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> Created attachment 47067 [details]
> gcc10-pr92140.patch
>
> So what about this version then? I've changed back a couple of
> to nonimmediate_operand and remov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91941
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried to change the patch to use define_split instead of
define_insn_and_split, with all of them changed, it creates worse code for
f8/f12/f15 (the last one is expected, because we split into 3 instruct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92152
Bug ID: 92152
Summary: [10 Regression] Wring code (Resurrection of PR53663)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92152
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
configure:
Target: avr
Configured with: ../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/configure --target=avr
--prefix=/local/gnu/install/gcc-10 --disable-shared --disable-nls --with-dwarf2
--enable-target-optspace=yes --with-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #15)
> Is it possible to lift the limitation from the combine pass, where the
> combine tries to split the insn, but expects exactly two new insn patterns
> to be g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92153
Bug ID: 92153
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE / segmentation fault,
use-after-free at gcc/ggc-page.c:1159
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #19 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #15)
> > Is it possible to lift the limitation from the combine pass, where the
> > combine tries to split the insn, bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92154
Bug ID: 92154
Summary: new glibc breaks arm bootstrap due to libsanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12306
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47068
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47068&action=edit
gcc10-pr90231.patch
Untested implementation of what I wrote above.
The difference on the testcase at -O2 -g is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, okay. So it is either one or two insns (zero can not be handled, but you
can do a noop, a move of a reg to itself, and that will be optimised away just
fine). Three insns is not something combine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #40 from Eric Gallager ---
Josef Wolf mentioned that he ran into this on the gcc-help mailing list here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2019-10/msg00079.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47069
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47069&action=edit
gcc10-prereload-splitters.patch
Ah, apparently we already have for ~ 2 years a property to handle this safely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92154
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If it has landed upstream already, please post the backport of it to
gcc-patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92153
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #41 from Rich Felker ---
> Josef Wolf mentioned that he ran into this on the gcc-help mailing list here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2019-10/msg00079.html
I don't think that's an instance of this issue. It's normal/expected th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92153
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 18 17:18:21 2019
New Revision: 277157
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277157&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92153
* ggc-page.c (release_pages): Read g->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92153
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92149
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69455
--- Comment #16 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 18 17:27:06 2019
New Revision: 277158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277158&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-18 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/69455
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69455
--- Comment #17 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 18 17:59:32 2019
New Revision: 277160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-18 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/69455
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
--- Comment #7 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #6)
> > Only if the int is out of float's range.
>
> float's range is [-INF,INF] (endpoints included). There is no such thing as
> "out of float's range".
Floating po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
--- Comment #8 from Rich Felker ---
> Floating point types are not guaranteed to support infinity by the C standard
Annex F (IEEE 754 alignment) does guarantee it, and GCC aims to implement this.
This issue report is specific to target sh*-*-* w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69455
--- Comment #18 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 18 18:18:34 2019
New Revision: 277161
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277161&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-18 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/69455
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
--- Comment #9 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #8)
> So arguments about generality to non-Annex-F C
> environments are not relevant to the topic here.
The comment it was a reply to suggested (possibly unintentional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
--- Comment #10 from Rich Felker ---
GCC can choose the behavior for any undefined behavior it wants, and GCC
absolutely can make transformations based on behaviors it guarantees or that
Annex F guarantees on targets for which it implements the r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
--- Comment #11 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #10)
> On this particular target, and on every target of any modern
> relevance, (float)16777217 has well-defined behavior.
That was exactly the point of my original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92056
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
The following C code:
unsigned int wrong(unsigned int n){
return (n%2) ? 0 : 42;
}
should return 42 when n is odd and 0 when n is even.
But ARM gcc 8.2 with -O3 produces following assembly:
tst r0, #1
moveq r0, #42
movne r0, #0
bx lr
tst r0,#1 sets Z=1 iff r0 is even, and moveq r0,#42 executes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69455
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 18 19:26:22 2019
New Revision: 277193
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277193&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-18 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/69455
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69455
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dimhen at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92155
Bug ID: 92155
Summary: strlen(a) not folded after memset(a, 0, sizeof a)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hrm, I don't see how this is nicer than just adding a scratch in the
pattern? What makes that a worse option?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92156
Bug ID: 92156
Summary: Cannot in-place construct std::any with std::any
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #22)
> Hrm, I don't see how this is nicer than just adding a scratch in the
> pattern? What makes that a worse option?
Most of the patterns don't have constrain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92157
Bug ID: 92157
Summary: incorrect strcmp() == 0 result for unknown strings
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92157
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92155
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92155
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The inequality (__builtin_strlen (a4) != 0) is folded into (a4[0] != 0) very
early on during Gimplification so the strlen pass never sees it.
What the strlen pass should be able to do is fold strlen(a4) below
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92155
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Actually, the memcpy is transformed to MEM_REF and the strlen pass knows how to
deal with a subset of those (small powers of 2). What it doesn't know how to
do yet is deal with other sizes like in the test ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
A dumb question I'm sure, but I don't see it: if the rest of your
define_insn doesn't need constraints, why would the match_scratch
need some? (A define_split never uses constraints).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The define_insn part of define_insn_and_split needs constraints if it is meant
to match during or after reload, the patterns are just written with the
assumption that they are split before reload. At least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92157
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Oct 18 22:26:39 2019
New Revision: 277194
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92157 - incorrect strcmp() == 0 result for unknown st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92155
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Oct 18 22:26:39 2019
New Revision: 277194
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92157 - incorrect strcmp() == 0 result for unknown st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 92157, which changed state.
Bug 92157 Summary: [10 Regression] incorrect strcmp() == 0 result for unknown
strings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92157
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92157
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sh*-*-* |
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
(In rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #42 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #41)
> > Josef Wolf mentioned that he ran into this on the gcc-help mailing list
> > here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2019-10/msg00079.html
>
> I don't think that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86518
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #10)
> > If this is becoming the meta-bug for all warnings that affect codegen, then
> > I'd like to add bug 61579 (-W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82240
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77404
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikestump at comcast dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7654
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78736
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 78736, which changed state.
Bug 78736 Summary: enum warnings in GCC (request for -Wenum-conversion to be
added)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78736
What|Removed |Added
--
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
