https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49171
--- Comment #25 from mark ---
As suggested, I've posted my comments as a question to the gcc-help mailing
list, viewable at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2020-02/msg00048.html
Further comments and suggestions are welcome as replies on the list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41a9e940c7014f117738a9a59b31833047a1083d
commit r10-6564-g41a9e940c7014f117738a9a59b31833047a1083d
Author: David Malcolm
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #9 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I just tried the patch and am still seeing failures on at least some systems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93637
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f57aa9503ff170ff6c8549718bd736f6c8168bab
commit r10-6565-gf57aa9503ff170ff6c8549718bd736f6c8168bab
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93637
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE: |[9 Regression] ICE:
|S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93664
Bug ID: 93664
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault on invalid concept code
gcc/gcc/cp/constraint.cc:2537
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #10 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I ran the test 200,000 times on the same systems as before (p7 BE, p8 BE, 2
different p8 LE, and 2 different p9 LE) and all but one of them had at least 1
failure. One had 172. It looks like it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think we might be able to do this in remove_range_assertions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93647
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e953f9588d4a7ea4183d14914f915329cc37941f
commit r10-6566-ge953f9588d4a7ea4183d14914f915329cc37941f
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93350
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e87deb37649cfe480217fc83c8d56fe925600f93
commit r10-6567-ge87deb37649cfe480217fc83c8d56fe925600f93
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-01-14 00:00:00 |2020-2-10
Known to fail|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93665
Bug ID: 93665
Summary: missing warning on strncmp reading past unterminated
array
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93659
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb031d4ba27b3fdc292f5a1092e66024f5ee239c
commit r10-6568-geb031d4ba27b3fdc292f5a1092e66024f5ee239c
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93651
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
I cannot recreate this with trunk or GCC 9 from today. DO you have extra
patches applied or ???
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93661
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93647
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93350
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93659
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93666
Bug ID: 93666
Summary: Dependence of optimization on use of constexpr seems
inappropriate
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93663
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93666
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92572
--- Comment #3 from Walt Karas ---
(conanrunenv) [root@d761696b8abf setup-work]# cc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=cc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/rh/devtoolset-8/root/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/8/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-redhat-linu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92572
--- Comment #4 from Walt Karas ---
(conanrunenv) [root@d761696b8abf VagueDynLink]# cc -O2 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic
-std=c++17 -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -S main.cc
(conanrunenv) [root@d761696b8abf VagueDynLink]# cat main.s
.file "main.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93666
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Walt Karas from comment #0)
> My understanding is that constexpr should not be used as a "register-esque"
> hint to decide whether or not to optimize.
'constexpr' implies 'inline' which is use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
But it could do just
stw r4,0(r3)
(on LE; and with a rotate first, on BE).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93666
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The source:
struct A
{
int i{1}, j{2};
A(int i_, int j_) : i(i_), j(j_) {}
};
A a{3,4};
struct B
{
int i{1}, j{2};
constexpr B(int i_, int j_) : i(i_), j(j_) {}
};
B b{3,4};
CUT
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93666
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93666
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||4131
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93663
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80471
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a6ee556c7659877bb59b719f11ca2153e86ded59
commit r10-6571-ga6ee556c7659877bb59b719f11ca2153e86ded59
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69448
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a6ee556c7659877bb59b719f11ca2153e86ded59
commit r10-6571-ga6ee556c7659877bb59b719f11ca2153e86ded59
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69448
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93659
--- Comment #5 from Roland Illig ---
Cool, thank you for the quick fix. That makes translating GCC more fun than in
the previous years. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Li Jia He from comment #5)
> Could we consider doing this optimization on gimple? I use the following
> code on gimple to produce optimized results on powerpc64.
It might make sense. But fold-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93657
--- Comment #3 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> Dump various analyzer internals to stderr.
I like these. They are simple and to the point, and I cannot find any ambiguity
anymore. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Li Jia He from comment #5)
> > Could we consider doing this optimization on gimple? I use the following
> > code on gimple to produce optimized resul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Li Jia He from comment #5)
> > > Could we consider doing this optimization on gimple? I use the follo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #9 from Li Jia He ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > > (In reply to Li Jia He from comment #5)
> > > > Could we consider do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93667
Bug ID: 93667
Summary: [10 regression] ICE in esra with nested
[[no_unique_address]] field
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93668
Bug ID: 93668
Summary: constexpr delete[]
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93668
--- Comment #1 from fdlbxtqi ---
constexpr int f()
{
auto p(new int[1]);
delete p;
return 4;
}
int main()
{
constexpr auto w(f());
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What makes shift amount special at all, for those gimple simplifications?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
the file from icu 65.1 is built using
g++ -v -Wdate-time -g -O3 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat
-Werror=format-security -W -Wall -pedantic -Wpointer-arith -Wwrite-strings
-Wno-long-long -std=c++11 -c -o g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93667
gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92572
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
GCC is emitting static_local as @gnu_unique_object, so it should be unified by
the Glibc dynamic linker. You can use 'nm -CD' to check its type after linking
for the main executable and the library to mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93669
Bug ID: 93669
Summary: ICE in dump_exploded_nodes, at analyzer/engine.cc:3239
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #11 from Li Jia He ---
The reason is that it is the remainder of the nth power of 2. In x >> (n% 32),
32 is the fifth power of 2. The hexadecimal representation of 32 is 0x100.
Taking the remainder of 0x100, the data range is 0 ～ 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
Paul Zimmermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zimmerma+gcc at loria dot fr
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Sure, but what makes shift amount special here? This works just fine in
any other expression as well. That is, for unsigned n; for negative numbers
modulo works differently: it returns 0 or negative,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93670
Bug ID: 93670
Summary: ICE for _mm256_extractf32x4_ps (unrecognized insn)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92572
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-linux
--- Comment #6 from Rich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93670
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Refer to https://godbolt.org/z/QfpRWu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93671
Bug ID: 93671
Summary: gfortran 8-10 ICE on intrinsic assignment to
allocatable derived-type component of coarray
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93671
--- Comment #1 from Damian Rouson ---
The submitted code also compiles and executes cleanly with the NAG Fortran
compiler version 7.0.
101 - 161 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
