https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92418
Bug ID: 92418
Summary: g++ does not produce the DW_AT_calling_convention
attribute for types
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91253
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Nov 8 08:14:40 2019
New Revision: 277948
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277948&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR91253 fix continuation-line handling with -pre_include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
>
> --- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com> ---
> Yes, pointers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92401
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47197
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47197&action=edit
gcc10-pr92401.patch
Full untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91253
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you Tobias for the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Nov 8 08:49:07 2019
New Revision: 277954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/92055
* config/avr/avr.opt (-mdouble=, -mlong-d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92410
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
One can see it with the following patch:
diff --git a/gcc/regstat.c b/gcc/regstat.c
index 4da9b7cc523..c6cefb117d7 100644
--- a/gcc/regstat.c
+++ b/gcc/regstat.c
@@ -324,6 +324,7 @@ regstat_bb_compute_calls_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92410
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92410
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Can be reproduced with a aarch64 cross compiler on x86-64-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92324
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 8 09:01:41 2019
New Revision: 277955
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277955&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92324
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92324
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92324
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Author: rguenth
> Date: Fri Nov 8 09:01:41 2019
> New Revision: 277955
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277955&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2019-11-08 Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92412
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The DECL_EXTERNAL is what should make the difference but IIRC a errno.h
with a tentative definition would be conforming, no? And that woudln't
be DECL_EXTERNAL ...
TREE_READONLY should be handled more gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92419
Bug ID: 92419
Summary: const variable aliases lead to folding non-const
initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92412
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
PR92419 for that mess...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91253
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Nov 8 09:25:40 2019
New Revision: 277957
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277957&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR91253 fix continuation-line handling with -pre_include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91253
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92419
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92324
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 8 09:30:52 2019
New Revision: 277958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277958&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92324
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92420
Bug ID: 92420
Summary: [7/8/9/10 Regression] Vectorization miscompilation
with negative strides since r238039
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92421
Bug ID: 92421
Summary: ice in inline_small_functions, at ipa-inline.c:2001
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92420
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Ah sorry, looking at my bash history, yesterday I somehow lost the -m32 on my
command line :-( Will try again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
I think the fix is more like the following to make declare_return_variable
notice the mismatch. That alone might not be enough but the fix should be
there. I assume that we use a return slot only for non-r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I don't think the inliner should work around this - this hasn't been
> necessary for Ada which is a good sign here. Eric - how does GiGi handle
> this
> case?
VLAs are always passed by reference in Ada.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> VLAs are always passed by reference in Ada.
And, more generally, any type with variable size is too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47195|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92422
Bug ID: 92422
Summary: Warning with character and optimisation flags
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #9)
> Created attachment 47199 [details]
> Fixed fix
>
> Uh, the conversion must be on the RHS, not the LHS. I'm testing this patch,
> it should be the right one no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92421
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
gcc trunk first seems to go wrong sometime between revision
277750 and 277800.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92421
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> @@ -3634,6 +3636,10 @@ declare_return_variable (copy_body_data
> && !DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P (result)
> && DECL_P (var))
> DECL_GIMPLE_REG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92419
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
bool
varpool_node::ctor_useable_for_folding_p (void)
{
...
/* Alias of readonly variable is also readonly, since the variable is stored
in readonly memory. We also accept readonly aliases of non-rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 8 10:52:50 2019
New Revision: 277962
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277962&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92384
* function.c (assign_parm_setup_block, assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92038
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 8 10:53:50 2019
New Revision: 277963
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277963&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/92038
* gimple-ssa-store-merging.c (find_constit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] Empty |[8/9 Regression] Empty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92420
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
>
> --- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #4 from Joel Hutton ---
Hi Rainer
I set up an account with cfarm, and tested on gcc202, the test fails because on
SPARC, no constructor is generated, the for whatever reason (see below) making
the test not really applicable. I sugge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92415
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Tackling from the tuning side, -mfma -mtune=znver2 miscompares,
-mtune=generic doesn't [checkme].
Using -mfma -mtune=generic
-mtune-ctrl=^fuse_alu_and_branch,^lcp_stall,use_incdec,^avoid_false_dep_for_bmi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> more complex "ranges" for debug counters appreciated,
> -fdbg-cnt=foo:{5-6,9,1-10} or some sorts of that (lists of ranges / values).
> I'm definitely missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
>
> more complex "ranges" for debug counters appreciated,
+1
> -fdbg-cnt=foo:{5-6,9,1-10} or some sorts of that (lists of ranges / values).
> I'm definitely missing a all-but-N as well. ~6 and ~6-9 maybe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
>
> --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
> >
> > more complex "ranges" for debug coun
stead of fprintf.
(sparc_init_pic_reg): In PIC mode, always initialize the PIC register
if optimization is enabled.
* config/sparc/sparc.md (load_pcrel_sym): Emit the assembly
by calling output_load_pcrel_sym.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/2019
/compile/20191108-1.c
- copied unchanged from r277966,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20191108-1.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-9-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-9-branch/gcc/config/sparc/sparc-protos.h
branches/gcc-9-branch/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c
branches/gcc-9-br
/compile/20191108-1.c
- copied unchanged from r277967,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20191108-1.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/config/sparc/sparc-protos.h
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c
branches/gcc-8-br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted an RFC patch alleviating the situation somewhat to the mailing
list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00614.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92095
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> Trying to bisect with IVOPTs debug-counter.
>
> 65:69 FAIL
> 65:66 OK
> 67:69 OK
>
> *sigh*
Back to this (ivopts_loop counter soon to be checked in).
66:6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #30 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
i think it is not the end of the world if the asm constraint api
changes in this case: fixing musl is easy because it's not super
important to optimize fmin, fminf, fmax, fmaxf in libc (if it were
im
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #17)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> > interestingly 66:66 and 67:67 generate exactly the same code and
> > 66:67 add a single loop. That's tot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 8 13:15:40 2019
New Revision: 277972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-08 Richard Biener
PR ipa/92409
* tree-inli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Joel Hutton ---
> Hi Rainer
>
> I set up an account with cfarm, and tested on gcc202, the test fails because
> on
> SPARC, no constructor is generated, the for wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #26 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Hi Martin,
Wouldn't it be better if the testcase tested that no warning is given for a
true case? Otherwise if the bug is fixed, no warning will be given, no
matter the option. Or have a testcase that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92410
--- Comment #5 from Matthew Malcomson ---
I've had a little look into it, and the below seems promising:
Based on a comment in haifa-sched.c, notes are removed before scheduling and
added back in.
Since the insn that is larger than the df buffer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92423
Bug ID: 92423
Summary: Reference assigned from a ternary results in
destructor call
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92351
--- Comment #3 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: avieira
Date: Fri Nov 8 13:52:56 2019
New Revision: 277974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[vect] PR 92351: When peeling for alignment make alignment o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #31 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #28)
> [ "ws" needs at least a Power7, btw. ]
powerpc64le-* implies power8 and that's where this came up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #32 from Bill Schmidt ---
BTW, we are in close contact with the Clang folks for Power as well, so we're
going to get together with them about constraints consistency and a way forward
to ensure these problems don't recur. I don't wan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92421
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ code:
typedef long a;
void *b, *c;
template class d {};
template bool operator!=(d, d);
class g {
public:
g(char *);
};
class j {
public:
j();
void h();
void i();
void aj();
};
clas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92424
Bug ID: 92424
Summary: [aarch64] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry
and BTI
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92351
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92410
--- Comment #6 from Matthew Malcomson ---
I believe the problem is that `remove_notes` followed by `reemit_notes` can
generate these notes with a different UID.
When `reemit_notes` adds the new note, the dataflow information is not updated
autom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92425
Bug ID: 92425
Summary: Incorrect logical AND on 64bit variable using 32bit
register
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92425
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92425
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kobets ---
I think eax is 32-bit register. May be I do not understand, then I re-check the
result of that operation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tpg+gcc at mutabah dot net
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92423
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92425
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92425
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kobets ---
Ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92352
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92410
--- Comment #7 from Matthew Malcomson ---
(In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #6)
> I'm not sure whether there's any pre-existing "should not use dataflow
> queries on notes" rule. If there is, then the
> regstat_bb_compute_calls_crossed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #33 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #31)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #28)
> > [ "ws" needs at least a Power7, btw. ]
>
> powerpc64le-* implies power8 and that's where this came up.
Does m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92422
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #34 from Rich Felker ---
> Does musl not support BE? There is nothing about this that is LE-only
> as far as I can see.
For powerpc64, musl supports both BE and LE, and uses "elfv2" ABI for both
(since it was not present as a target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92015
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 8 18:52:44 2019
New Revision: 277980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 8 18:53:46 2019
New Revision: 277982
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277982&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-22 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92154
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 8 18:53:18 2019
New Revision: 277981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277981&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-22 Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 8 18:56:42 2019
New Revision: 277985
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277985&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-31 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92231
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 8 18:58:14 2019
New Revision: 277986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277986&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-31 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 8 18:59:14 2019
New Revision: 277987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277987&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-31 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92343
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 8 19:00:02 2019
New Revision: 277988
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277988&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-11-05 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 8 19:02:24 2019
New Revision: 277989
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277989&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92384
* function.c (assign_parm_setup_block, assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #35 from David Edelsohn ---
The ELFv2 ABI does not require Power8+ because the subroutine linkage
convention requires Power8 instructions. It requires Power8+ because the ABI
provide a minimum guarantee to the programmer / developer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92358
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I notoced your report here. I do not get that warning on my system here. I am
using gcc version 9.2.1 20190827 to build with. What are you using?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92426
Bug ID: 92426
Summary: ICE on spaceship declaration plus other P1185R2
interaction issue
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92231
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0, 9.2.1
Summary|[8/9 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] internal |[7/8 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92425
Alexander Kobets changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
