https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93428
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93428
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Guenther :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:148018bc3fe7ce47d005a1c5f7b6dd044024a4af
commit r10-6312-g148018bc3fe7ce47d005a1c5f7b6dd044024a4af
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93276
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7892ff37f407ef47ee852f281a80fa0dba6a5a67
commit r10-6313-g7892ff37f407ef47ee852f281a80fa0dba6a5a67
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93463
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa1b56967d85bfc80d71341395f862ec2b30ca36
commit r10-6314-gaa1b56967d85bfc80d71341395f862ec2b30ca36
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #4)
> your proposed patch fails with:
>
> checking for suffix of object files... configure: error: in
> `/home/packages/gcc/10/gcc-10-10-202
> 00128/build-gcn/amdgcn-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Klose ---
no, it fails earlier in libgcc. using llvm-9 as the linker/assembler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Klose ---
configure:3574: /home/packages/gcc/10/gcc-10-10-20200128/build-gcn/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/packages/gcc/10/gcc-10-10-20200128/build-gcn/./gcc/ -nostdinc
-B/home/packages/gcc/10/gcc-10-10-20200128/build-gcn/amdgcn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92326
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> negatives). Can you clarify how the builds of grub2 and qemu are affected
> by it?
Despite our rules, these packages use -Werror ;) So it's not a critical issue
this PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91118
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d7c0bf876fa784101f9ad9e3bba82cc065357da
commit r10-6315-g8d7c0bf876fa784101f9ad9e3bba82cc065357da
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93486
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93485
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93463
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91118
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93484
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93473
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93482
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91343
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93477
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r10-6310 PASS for me both reduced and unreduced cases.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #7)
> /home/packages/gcc/10/gcc-10-10-20200128/build-gcn/./gcc/xgcc […]
> -isystem /home/packages/gcc/10/gcc-10-10-20200128/src-gcn/newlib/libc/include
This looks as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93487
Bug ID: 93487
Summary: Missed tail-call optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93393
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f57ccb55cdaeabd099618622b6ddee3d03cc4fbf
commit r10-6316-gf57ccb55cdaeabd099618622b6ddee3d03cc4fbf
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91402
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90946
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
What might also cure the issue somewhat is putting down debug stmts at
definitions of register typed (but not yet register) defs. So much like
into-SSA does when rewriting a LHS to SSA do it also for those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91405
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91407
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91423
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91448
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91462
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91405
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91405
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or simpler:
template
concept DatabaseTransaction = requires(T a) {
a.commit();
};
template
concept UserRepository = requires(T a, DatabaseTransaction auto transaction) {
a.insert_user_if_not_exists(tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91466
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91467
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91405
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It was fixed by r276764
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91477
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91489
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93393
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91499
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91477
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #3 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91509
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91466
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 91466, which changed state.
Bug 91466 Summary: [concepts] indicates "used in its own initializer" when not,
constraint order change passes compilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91466
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 91467, which changed state.
Bug 91467 Summary: [concepts] ICE: in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15545
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91467
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91467
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91515
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91517
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91530
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91535
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91530
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91542
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91559
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91561
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91596
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91603
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91610
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91611
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91614
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91629
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91638
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91653
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91663
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91666
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, it seems
#0 symtab_node::noninterposable_alias (this=) at
../../gcc/symtab.c:1878
#1 0x10f6e5a0 in function_and_variable_visibility
(whole_program=) at ../../gcc/ipa-visibility.c:772
#2 0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed. I would suggest to either an option that will tell which prefix
should be stripped from the .gcda files, or how many path components to skip.
Will it work for FF and HHVM? I'm not sure FF uses a pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91669
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91693
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91653
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91695
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91724
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps if we want to really make sure all the flags are what we expect them,
we should call clone_function_name_numbered instead of clone_function_name,
though I'm afraid I have no idea how well that works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6693911f069b1ada7c04aa1d00c3653ba694958a
commit r10-6322-g6693911f069b1ada7c04aa1d00c3653ba694958a
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:636e80eea24b780f1d5f4c14c58fc1df8508
commit r10-6321-g636e80eea24b780f1d5f4c14c58fc1df8508
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91733
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91742
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91754
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91755
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps a workaround (and probably the right thing in any case) would be to
add _Py_NO_RETURN to _PyObject_AssertFailed declaration in
Include/cpython/object.h
because it will always call Py_FatalError which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91733
--- Comment #3 from Akim Demaille ---
That you want to still support \r is one thing. That you discard my point
about the fact that as a consequence GCC fails to generate proper diagnostics
is something entirely different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91759
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91760
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91762
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91765
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91569
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91768
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93488
Bug ID: 93488
Summary: [OpenACC] ICE in type-cast 'async', 'wait' clauses
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, openacc
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91762
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93488
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91793
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91796
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91798
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91803
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91807
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried to create small testcase for this:
__attribute__((noipa, noreturn)) void foo (void) { while (1) ; }
__attribute__((noinline)) void bar (void) { asm (""); foo (); }
void baz (int x) { if (x) bar ()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91840
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91848
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91849
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 320 matches
Mail list logo