https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
Bug ID: 94613
Summary: combine: Wrong code due to splitting a simplified
IF_THEN_ELSE
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel ---
If we have to assume that we already applied simplifications on the THEN or
ELSE branches it doesn't appear to be correct to look for split points inside
an IF_THEN_ELSE expression anymore.
This patch fixe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
-fno-ipa-sra is required to get the same results as in the first comment. The
full command line then is:
c1plus -O3 -march=z14 t.ii -quiet -o t.s -fno-ipa-sra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Why is it not correct to split the insn the way you describe? I see nothing
wrong with that - the use of r115 is still under r110 == 0. Is the issue
that r115 is re-used and r115 has more than a single use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
You might be able to turn this into a RTL testcase with a C driver to make it
suitable for a dg-do run testcase. There's a combine testcase at
gcc.dg/rtl/aarch64/asr_div1.c you could look at (just not dg-do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
Bug ID: 94614
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in emit_move_multi_word, at
expr.c:3716 since
r10-416-g1bf2a0b90f2457f6d9301535560eb5e05978261b
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-16
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The testcase ICEs before the fix for PR94574, not sure how you bisected to
> the offending rev?
Isn't only aarch64 affected? I'm talking about arm-none-eabi-gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Why is it not correct to split the insn the way you describe? I see nothing
> wrong with that - the use of r115 is still under r110 == 0. Is the issue
> that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 Regression] ICE in |ICE in
|emit_move_multi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
#1 0x00cecacc in emit_move_multi_word (mode=E_TImode,
x=0x769f66c0, y=0x769f64e0)
at /space/rguenther/src/gcc/gcc/expr.c:3716
(gdb) p debug_rtx (x)
(subreg:TI (reg/v:DI 113 [ res ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94609
--- Comment #12 from Iain Buclaw ---
Created attachment 48285
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48285&action=edit
pr94609.patch
Results of attached patch.
kernighan_ritchie.d failure is due to glibc bug being fixed here
https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92326
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> but lack the same check for the x parts. The following fixes it:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
> index b97c217e86d..dfbeae71518 100644
> --- a/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94570
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you jon.
I'm testing the patch and will send it soon to the GCC patches mailing list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ca17e0a89ff6c37e17851a5bd7b0a03ee8de535
commit r10-7748-g2ca17e0a89ff6c37e17851a5bd7b0a03ee8de535
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:42e20fd25d3651349d892d8af864dc576c09019c
commit r10-7749-g42e20fd25d3651349d892d8af864dc576c09019c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Summary|combine: Wrong c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92372
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9303fe0714c6cc2ff01bcfddd554d7d5057c32bd
commit r10-7750-g9303fe0714c6cc2ff01bcfddd554d7d5057c32bd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94598
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd87b1fddbbe7d424671ebf81c96e12d748fafc7
commit r10-7751-gbd87b1fddbbe7d424671ebf81c96e12d748fafc7
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94598
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94615
Bug ID: 94615
Summary: -Wstringop-truncation warns on strncpy() with struct
lastlog (or utmp)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:437eea66a4b010d8e94aa81c2b40ccf0588e5fab
commit r10-7752-g437eea66a4b010d8e94aa81c2b40ccf0588e5fab
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616
Bug ID: 94616
Summary: Incorrect destruction for partially built objects
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #15 from Akim Demaille ---
Sorry to insist, but I don't understand all these complications. Bison has
been supporting %parse-param for 17 years.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85363
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stephane.zimmermann@trust-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94615
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
bison 1.35 doesn't, and that is what has been used last time.
Is even %define api.pure full (vs. %pure_parser) supported in much older bison
versions? Maybe 1.875 is the oldest people do use in real-world,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94615
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #17 from Akim Demaille ---
Hi Jakub,
I'm not claiming you should require 3.0, I'm claiming there's no reason to
target 1.35, there is no evidence there's a need for it. So there's no reason
to pay for "PARSE_PARAMS" support.
"%requ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #18 from Akim Demaille ---
WRT to "pure-parser", there seems to be some misunderstanding. News of 3.4
says:
The %pure-parser directive is deprecated in favor of '%define api.pure'
since Bison 2.3b (2008-05-27), but no warning wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48287
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48287&action=edit
gcc10-pr92008.patch
Or maybe just do require bison 3 (7 years old) if intl/plural.y needs to be
regenerated?
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92008
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Forgot an important part:
--- config/gettext.m4.jj2020-01-12 11:54:35.753423366 +0100
+++ config/gettext.m4 2020-04-16 12:34:51.466081569 +0200
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
# gettext.m4 serial 20 (gettext-0.12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94614
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eafeba3e5187a53a4c08a3285b4b220e1ab68b60
commit r10-7753-geafeba3e5187a53a4c08a3285b4b220e1ab68b60
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94617
Bug ID: 94617
Summary: Simple if condition not optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94617
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Why do you think this is terrible? Aggressive use of conditional moves is not
a good idea in general.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94617
--- Comment #2 from David Seifert ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Why do you think this is terrible? Aggressive use of conditional moves is
> not
> a good idea in general.
I've benchmarked the code, and on a Zen 2 the GCC pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94605
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c3f12e2a7625c9a2f5d74a47dbacb2fd1ae5643
commit r10-7755-g3c3f12e2a7625c9a2f5d74a47dbacb2fd1ae5643
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94617
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Note the RTL if-conversion pass doesn't recognize what we present to it.
If you alter initial RTL expansion via -fno-tree-ter (not recommended in
general)
we produce a more 1:1 translation of the code as
_Z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94617
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
IIRC you can also express the range test this way:
const char* vanilla_bandpass(int a, int b, int x, const char* low, const char*
high)
{
const bool within_interval { (unsigned long)x - a < (unsigned long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94617
--- Comment #5 from David Seifert ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Note the RTL if-conversion pass doesn't recognize what we present to it.
> If you alter initial RTL expansion via -fno-tree-ter (not recommended in
> general)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44b326839d864fc10c459916abcc97f35a9ac3de
commit r10-7756-g44b326839d864fc10c459916abcc97f35a9ac3de
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Thu A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Summary|[9/10 regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94479
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f1cf13ecee1b4f9d963426b35acb5a0625816c4
commit r9-8503-g0f1cf13ecee1b4f9d963426b35acb5a0625816c4
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48288
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48288&action=edit
gcc10-pr94567.patch
So perhaps this? In the condition exclude cases where we can't widen the
problematic case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33315
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> > Created attachment 48279 [details]
> > patch
> >
> > Patch forward ported to current trunk.
>
> Surprising
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94617
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94475
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:effcb4181e143bc390286a489ff849768a49f6af
commit r10-7757-geffcb4181e143bc390286a489ff849768a49f6af
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94475
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE: tree |[9 Regression] ICE: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94129
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> @Richi: Can you please enable zstd for our nvptx cross compiler:
>
> $ x86_64-suse-linux-accel-nvptx-none-gcc-10 -v
> ...
> Supported LTO compression algorithms: z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Can you please paste output of:
$ /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10//accel/nvptx-none/mkoffload -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94618
Bug ID: 94618
Summary: [10 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure (length)
with -O2 -fnon-call-exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94030
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiri.pitt...@jh-inst.cas.cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88452
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Klose ---
$ /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10/accel/nvptx-none/mkoffload -v
mkoffload: fatal error: COLLECT_GCC must be set.
compilation terminated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94617
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> (In reply to David Seifert from comment #5)
> > just benchmarked the code on an oldish Ivybridge. GCC with vanilla_bandpass
> > is 2.1x slower than GCC with funk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #5)
> > Perhaps Ubuntu has the offloading and non-offloading compiler configured
> > differently, one with zstd compression support and the other without?
>
> how wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #6)
> $ /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10/accel/nvptx-none/mkoffload -v
> mkoffload: fatal error: COLLECT_GCC must be set.
> compilation terminated.
Then please:
$ ldd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94129
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > @Richi: Can you please enable zstd for our nvptx cross compiler:
> >
> > $ x86_64-suse-linux-accel-nvptx-none-gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Klose ---
Both compilers have zstd support.
$ gfortran-10 -v prod.f90 -fopenmp -foffload=nvptx-none -o test.x
Driving: gfortran-10 -v prod.f90 -fopenmp -foffload=nvptx-none -o test.x -l
gfortran -l m -shared-libgcc
U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> It's likely dup of PR94129.
Note that that one ICEs on matching compression algorithms which here
the ICE notes the compressed data stream is corrupt.
There mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7a65edb629a010f7ef907d457343abcb569fab7
commit r10-7758-gd7a65edb629a010f7ef907d457343abcb569fab7
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
--- Comment #11 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 48290
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48290&action=edit
example files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94483
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94618
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.4.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94611
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Kolesa ---
It reproduces on any GCC 9.x series, and when building *any* version of the
official Go compiler (tested 1.12-1.14), and many other projects (e.g. gitea).
I'm not sure if it reproduces on x86_64, as I don't h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94611
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Kolesa ---
The steps I took to reproduce the problem:
1) Grab a Go source release
2) Install gccgo including the 'go' command
3) Then do something like:
cd go-1.x
export GOROOT_BOOTSTRAP=/usr/lib/go/9.3.0
export GOROO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94383
--- Comment #9 from Matthew Malcomson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> I'd like to ping this, it would be nice to at least decide if this should be
> handled for GCC10 or postponed to GCC11 only.
Hi Jakub -- I'm taking a look at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94611
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Kolesa ---
Oh, also, sorry, the process that *actually* gets stuck is go1, not gc1, that
was a typo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94383
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94619
Bug ID: 94619
Summary: String literals as non-type template parameter fails
to compile with partial specialization of calling
function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94578
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Somewhat smaller test case:
program main
implicit none
type foo
integer :: x, y
end type foo
integer :: i
integer, dimension (2,2) :: array2d
integer, dimension(:), pointer :: array1d
type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94578
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Also wrong:
program main
implicit none
type foo
integer :: x, y
end type foo
integer :: i
integer, dimension (2,2) :: array2d
integer, dimension(:), pointer :: array1d
type(foo), dimension
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94618
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94618
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the difference is much earlier, in cse_local dump there is (with
additional --param=min-nondebug-insn-uid=1):
deferring deletion of insn with uid = 10060.
-deferring deletion of insn with uid = 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94606
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26bebf576ddcdcfb596f07e8c2896f17c48516e7
commit r10-7759-g26bebf576ddcdcfb596f07e8c2896f17c48516e7
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94606
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94611
Daniel Kolesa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux-gnu |
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Kolesa ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94611
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Kolesa ---
Another thing of note, the gccgo command that hangs is the same on both x86_64
and ppc64le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94620
Bug ID: 94620
Summary: GCC 9.2.1 segfaults when compiling file with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94621
Bug ID: 94621
Summary: GCC 9.2.1 segfaults when compiling file with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68394
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
Regardless of an answer, it is a duplicate of PR68395.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94621
--- Comment #1 from Ola Olsson ---
Created attachment 48292
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48292&action=edit
Preprocessed file of the smallest example I could make
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
