https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93248
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93173
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93179
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
Bug ID: 93269
Summary: 32bit-pointer to uint64_t cast sign-extends
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.2.0/gcc/Arrays-and-pointers-implementation.html#Arrays-and-pointers-implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is implementation defined area. And is documented. Neither is clang or
gcc is wrong. Now I dont know where clang it is documented but I posted where
gcc behavior is documented. So closing as invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92871
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Either we should document newer binutils requirement for aarch64 (and figure
out which exactly), or e.g. if it is possible fall back to using .byte or
similar to encode instructions if configure determines as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5a3c2dcf73aa245b0eb6f6cf56c4d03ab6056da
commit r10-5948-ga5a3c2dcf73aa245b0eb6f6cf56c4d03ab6056da
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini ---
I have been making progress on this (I'm in contact with Jason about that) but
unfortunately the issue requires additional analysis for the simple reason that
if I remove/amend my r260482 changes then in C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
commit r10-5949-g08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
commit r10-5949-g08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92552
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
commit r10-5949-g08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92594
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
commit r10-5949-g08c8c973c082457a7d6192673e87475f1fdfdbef
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93223
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b849001991c41b68407e7b0bcabf88e4ef414fff
commit r9-8133-gb849001991c41b68407e7b0bcabf88e4ef414fff
Author: Martin Jambor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93223
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any -march= or similar? Can't reproduce with current trunk, nor
with even Oct 10 GCC snapshot (crosses in both cases).
grep -B1 stxr pr92692.s
doesn't show any stores before stxr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:288c5324bf6e418dd94d718d1619464a4f68ff8e
commit r10-5951-g288c5324bf6e418dd94d718d1619464a4f68ff8e
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Tue J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ddd792fa53345180c782494aa597e438a73b6248
commit r10-5952-gddd792fa53345180c782494aa597e438a73b6248
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93270
Bug ID: 93270
Summary: [10 Regression] DSE removes store incorrectly
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93241
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93249
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think the expedient thing to do here is fix DSE in isolation. Note that I
think the code in question is new, so if we have to xfail some tests, that
wouldn't IMHO represent a regression.
Integrating DSE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92935
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The need to drop qualifiers in typeof in some cases with _Atomic results
from the stdatomic.h implementation, where it is necessary to define
temporaries with the corresponding non-atomic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93247
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kristopher.kuhlman at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93247
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93247
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92935
--- Comment #3 from pskocik at gmail dot com ---
jos...@codesourcery.com, that's interesting, but it seems like an unnecessary,
weird special case, considering that gcc already has a qualifier-dropping
mechanism that doesn't necessitate special-ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93009
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fbbc4c24fd7ba87e0c47cd965ae624afba6fa375
commit r10-5954-gfbbc4c24fd7ba87e0c47cd965ae624afba6fa375
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:000c7a93bdf4040d7d0672fbb9b064eae3d78f5d
commit r10-5955-g000c7a93bdf4040d7d0672fbb9b064eae3d78f5d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93249
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:623c6fddd605f8f225142d714440320e4ef54d84
commit r10-5961-g623c6fddd605f8f225142d714440320e4ef54d84
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81a68b9e3774401a99719ea29640d13125745b41
commit r10-5962-g81a68b9e3774401a99719ea29640d13125745b41
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93249
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93009
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] AVX512|[9 Regression] AVX512 FMA -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93257
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93257
--- Comment #2 from Alisdair Meredith ---
I am trying to use these extensively as ways to collect related static
assertions in my test suite for and . By using
consteval rather then constexpr, I get notified if any code is unexpectedly
deferred
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93072
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
This is not actually a nested function; it's another case of a non-nested
function (a valid declaration at block scope) wrongly being interpreted as
nested. Working on a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58237
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:697251b7a1bb7c14d3805de22248e83a23b90d1a
commit r10-5963-g697251b7a1bb7c14d3805de22248e83a23b90d1a
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58237
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03dc3f26231cbf570028e14706f8ad77fd5a
commit r10-5964-g03dc3f26231cbf570028e14706f8ad77fd5a
Author: David Malcolm
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58237
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8397af8ed0db685312e44117fd52316b57c2c129
commit r10-5965-g8397af8ed0db685312e44117fd52316b57c2c129
Author: David Malcolm
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93212
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32077b693df8e3ed0424031a322df23822bf2f7e
commit r10-5970-g32077b693df8e3ed0424031a322df23822bf2f7e
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93212
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93072
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2346a33b05871fc065815d4cfd531dfa0195507
commit r10-5972-ge2346a33b05871fc065815d4cfd531dfa0195507
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
--- Comment #10 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> @Dmitry: Can you please attach a pre-processed source file (-E option)?
done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
--- Comment #9 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
Created attachment 47654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47654&action=edit
pre-processed isl_fold.c
gcc_r277495
./contrib/download_prerequisites
~/src/gcc_r277485/configure --enabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priority
101 - 156 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
