https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
This assertion is triggered when a copy is not elided as it should be.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
LP64 has:
(gdb) disass _D8runnable6test52FZv
Dump of assembler code for function _D8runnable6test52FZv:
0x0040943a <+0>: push %rbp
0x0040943b <+1>: mov%rsp,%rbp
0x004
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
And indeed, comparing -mx32 vs -m32, NRVO is not kicking in.
test52a ()
{
- struct Scoped result;
+ struct Scoped result [value-expr: *];
typedef struct Scoped Scoped;
...
struct Scoped a1;
- a1 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
>
> RDI/EDI isn't used to pass argument. Is this done on purpose? Where does
> D frontend decide how to pass argument?
Ultimately the main deciding factor is whether or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
The struct is built as a POD type. As the struct is nested, it should be
considered non-POD, otherwise it gets left up to aggregate_value_p to decide
how to pass it around.
i386 returns true from aggregate_va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #5)
> The struct is built as a POD type. As the struct is nested, it should be
> considered non-POD, otherwise it gets left up to aggregate_value_p to decide
> how to pass it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94558
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
I'm initially considering the following:
--- a/gcc/d/types.cc
+++ b/gcc/d/types.cc
@@ -915,7 +915,7 @@ public:
/* For structs with a user defined postblit or a destructor,
also set TREE_ADDRESSABL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #5)
> > The struct is built as a POD type. As the struct is nested, it should be
> > considered non-POD, otherwise it gets left up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94584
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Max Filippov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f45b87f786809997d2f8d418ab10de6640149422
commit r8-10182-gf45b87f786809997d2f8d418ab10de6640149422
Author: Max Filippov
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91880
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Max Filippov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87c1bfebcdda50ff8964a07c9963823de43de65a
commit r8-10181-g87c1bfebcdda50ff8964a07c9963823de43de65a
Author: Max Filippov
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94584
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Max Filippov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79b59676531631331b9353107f7d40c887852433
commit r9-8501-g79b59676531631331b9353107f7d40c887852433
Author: Max Filippov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91880
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Max Filippov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20c6c0c8b18ae1bb3582456085e98cb50ab5854a
commit r9-8500-g20c6c0c8b18ae1bb3582456085e98cb50ab5854a
Author: Max Filippov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94603
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06d6120b7a5621d584bd0c861bc94096cc8b60b7
commit r8-10183-g06d6120b7a5621d584bd0c861bc94096cc8b60b7
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94603
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The Arm AAPCS has detailed rules for operations on individual volatile
bit-fields, but not for this case where the whole struct is volatile and
the operation is on the whole struct. I thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #22 from Peter Bergner ---
To be more specific, I have implemented the hook cannot_substitute_mem_equiv_p
for rs6000 that rejects these and: altivec addresses. The nice thing about the
patch is that it only affects rs6000, whereas a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> The Arm AAPCS has detailed rules for operations on individual volatile
> bit-fields, but not for this case where the whole struct is volatile and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94610
Bug ID: 94610
Summary: 'invalid use of incomplete type' error which show an
alias, but without the real type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Sigh. That code is good in that it's rejecting matching the pattern for the
SImode sign bit that we can't implement. For some dumb reason I was thinking
it was changing how we split, but it's actually th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(cannot_substitute_mem_equiv_p,
"A target hook which returns @code{true} if @var{subst} can't\n\
substitute safely pseudos with equivalent memory values during\n\
register allocation.\n\
I guess "ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
core.exception.RangeError@/export/gnu/import/git/gitlab/x86-gcc/libphobos/testsuite/../src/std/algorithm/mutation.d(1518):
Range violation
/export/gnu/import/git/gitlab/x86-gcc/libphobos/libdrunti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #11 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
>
> I tested with glibc 2.30 with fix for
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25810
>
Nice, though currently the library testsuite is compiled at -O0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94611
Bug ID: 94611
Summary: gccgo hangs (infinite loop) on complex projects,
seemingly in simplify-rtx.c/simplify_plus_minus
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
--- Comment #18 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-04-15 2:14 p.m., sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote:
> What does -fdump-tree-original show for
>
> function foo(x)
>real(16) foo, x
>foo = cos(x)
> end function foo
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
--- Comment #19 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-04-15 2:32 p.m., sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:04:08PM +, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
>> /usr/lib/dld.sl: Unresolved symbol: strt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
--- Comment #20 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 01:10:21AM +, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
>
> --- Comment #18 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2020-04-15 2:14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94571
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4658c7dbbe88f742c96e5f58ee4a6d549d642ca
commit r10-7745-ge4658c7dbbe88f742c96e5f58ee4a6d549d642ca
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
Bug ID: 94612
Summary: Failed to build simple examples with offloading.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94611
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iant at google dot com
Compone
101 - 131 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
