https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92102, which changed state.
Bug 92102 Summary: identical requires-expression not subsumed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92102
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92284
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92102
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92345
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 4 14:50:11 2019
New Revision: 277782
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277782&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92345
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92345
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92356
Bug ID: 92356
Summary: Missed optimization of std::find looking for item in
array of items [0..n]
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92339
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92208
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Nov 4 15:07:19 2019
New Revision: 277783
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277783&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR 92208 don't use function-result dummy variable as actual argu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92208
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92354
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
Bug ID: 92357
Summary: ICE in IPA pass fnsummary in openmp offload
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85458
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Correct:
2018-09-19 John David Anglin
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_adjust_priority): Delete.
(TARGET_SCHED_ADJUST_PRIORITY): Delete define.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92358
Bug ID: 92358
Summary: libgfortran/io/async.c:548:37: warning: unused
parameter 'cmp'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92359
Bug ID: 92359
Summary: function static variable instantiated at -O1 despite
extern template
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92311
--- Comment #7 from Nichols A. Romero ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Nichols A. Romero from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 47156 [details]
> > OpenMP equivalent to OpenACC detach/attach
>
> map(from:...)
> mea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92311
--- Comment #8 from Nichols A. Romero ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #6)
> (In reply to Nichols A. Romero from comment #0)
> > For the OpenACC program, it may be that this is part of the OpenACC spec
> > that has not been implemented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
So if the AND-based idiom is now preferred, shouldn't the if-then-else variant
be transformed into it? Similarly for IOR, when we get
(IOR (NEG ()) (reg))
from
(IF_THEN_ELSE ()
(reg)
(const_int -1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> So if the AND-based idiom is now preferred, shouldn't the if-then-else
> variant be transformed into it? Similarly for IOR, when we get
>
> (IOR (NEG ())
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
Mick P. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Mick P. ---
Try Vis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92349
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92360
Bug ID: 92360
Summary: internal compiler error: in
gfc_enforce_clean_symbol_state, at
fortran/symbol.c:4273
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92349
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Nov 4 18:15:43 2019
New Revision: 277786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92349 - ICE in -Warray-bounds of a VLA member
gcc/te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92349
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92361
Bug ID: 92361
Summary: [8/9 Regression] failing fortran libcgns test on
powerpc64le-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92360
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92321
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||save1my1mail at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92302
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |testsuite
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92302
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 4 18:30:23 2019
New Revision: 277787
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277787&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/92302
* gcc.target/sparc/sparc-ret-3.c: A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92302
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92361
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92335
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The issue is probably some FP constraints that say we cannot elide ret += 0.0,
Yes, with signed 0 you can't elide + 0.0 as -0.0 + 0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92362
Bug ID: 92362
Summary: Compiler generates 2 function calls in a 'with
Address' aspect specification that uses a function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92361
Gilles Filippini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gilles.filippini at free dot fr
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92325
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #2)
> But, I admit, when I initially learned fortran, F77 was still brand new.
> Can someone explain to me what is this program is supposed to do?
Well, ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92321
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
Mick P. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Mick P. ---
Should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92363
Bug ID: 92363
Summary: wrong subscript value printed when indexing into an
empty array
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92363
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92336
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92364
Bug ID: 92364
Summary: strict-overflow warning only when using "--coverage"
flag and -O2 or above, and inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
Bug ID: 92365
Summary: ice unexpected expression ‘int16_t()’ of kind
cast_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92364
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92366
Bug ID: 92366
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-41.c fails with its
introduction in r277784
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92364
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92364
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
By the way I think you reduced the testcase too much.
NOTE --coverage adds extra "code" which causes jump threading and other
optimizations not to happen as much so you will get different warnings.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92341
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92361
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Fortran has no concept of a varargs call. It is an error to call a procedure
with
a different number or type of arguments (unless there is an explicit interface
and the dummy arguments are optional or ...). S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92361
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83079
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> So if the AND-based idiom is now preferred, shouldn't the if-then-else
> variant be transformed into it?
Neither form is canonical currently.
The form y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> > So if the AND-based idiom is now preferred, shouldn't the if-then-else
> > variant be transformed into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92367
Bug ID: 92367
Summary: spurious -Wunused-but-set-parameter warning with
constexpr if in a template function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92367
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91979
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Nov 4 23:24:25 2019
New Revision: 277801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277801&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91979 - mangling nullptr expression
2019-11-04 Kamlesh Ku
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92090
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92090
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It also fails on GCC 9 (which needs additional -finline-functions --param
max-inline-insns-single=20), but not on GCC 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92090
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
LRA creates
;; Insn is not within a basic block
(insn 7037 0 0 (set (reg:PTI 3703)
(const_wide_int 0x3ff0)) -1
(nil))
but that is not a valid insn.
This starte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92368
Bug ID: 92368
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault in
gcc-7.4.1
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87306
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
Author: linkw
Revision: 268003
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Tue Nov 5 02:26:38 2019
--
--- svn:log (original)
+++ s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92336
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
I've just git pushed a number of bug fixes to gm2/Make-lang.in (on the 9.2.0
branch of gm2). I think the above problem should now be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92127
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
Author: linkw
Revision: 277704
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Tue Nov 5 02:36:58 2019
--
--- svn:log (original)
+++ s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92369
Bug ID: 92369
Summary: ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at tree.c:1569
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91336
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92280
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> That said, VN already computes the partial loads to { 148, _142, _145, _139 }
> and would insert those CTORs in place of the loads, making the stores and
> the AVX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92370
Bug ID: 92370
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in cp_lexer_consume_token, at
cp/parser.c:1118
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recover
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92361
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92366
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.hutton at arm dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92370
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
--- Comment #2 from Tom Scogland ---
Created attachment 47172
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47172&action=edit
preprocessed source of test file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
--- Comment #3 from Tom Scogland ---
Sorry about that, apparently the original was too large but I didn't get a
warning, now attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 47173
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47173&action=edit
bloat.c: A trivial test case demonstrating the problem.
A (small) part of the overhead can be worked around
101 - 177 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
