https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #4 from Christoph ---
Command line is part of output.txt
> Am 04.05.2020 um 07:35 schrieb marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
> What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
But the attachment was removed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This is the third time I have seen this type of bugreport, and I really don't
know what is so magical on number "19" that everybody wants the register by
this number.
If this number crashes the compiler, then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94939
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Pankrath ---
That was quick :-) Thank you for looking into it.
Is this enough? I pasted all type_safe code that is used for the example
directly in there: https://godbolt.org/z/TGB8Jg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #6 from Christoph ---
Created attachment 48435
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48435&action=edit
Command line and output
Sorry, I wasn't aware that I at some point deleted the file.
Just to be sure, here my comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Bug ID: 94940
Summary: [10/11 Regression] array subscript i is outside array
bounds of ‘int[0]’ since r10-4300-g49fb45c81f4ac068
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Keywords|rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or just if one uses "frame" instead of "19" or "20", it ICEs with all the
revisions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or there are possible target ways, e.g. asm ("frame") would be rejected if that
register isn't in accessible_reg_set or operand_reg_set. Now, I haven't
investigated if it doesn't have to be in both sets for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48436
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48436&action=edit
Original test-case
$ gcc -c -O2 -Werror=array-bounds intelvf2.i -m32
intelvf2.i: In function ‘intelvf_mbox_poll’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94931
--- Comment #6 from Ryo Furue ---
Thanks again for your comments!
> For a software developer, I
> would put the libraries in ${INSTALLDIR}/lib and modules
> in ${INSTALLDIR?/modules. INSTALLDIR could be /usr/local,
> and, of course, you would d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Andreas Krebbel
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92ee7d437a98a0f9e63549b4aa83af87382821cf
commit r9-8562-g92ee7d437a98a0f9e63549b4aa83af87382821cf
Author: Andreas Krebbel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Andreas Krebbel
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf16ecdd897a73a1651aba50533c5a6fd73e842c
commit r8-10232-gcf16ecdd897a73a1651aba50533c5a6fd73e842c
Author: Andreas Krebbe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-04
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94941
Bug ID: 94941
Summary: Expansion of some internal fns can drop the lhs on the
floor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 94902 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 92469 ***
DUP. Only a DUP. It is DUP of his own bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94941
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-04
Ever confir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Bin Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:386f23b84aafbdb43701b5a50ebe2dc1f4e6201f
commit r8-10234-g386f23b84aafbdb43701b5a50ebe2dc1f4e6201f
Author: Bin Cheng
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94718
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:73a8043481d24ac86ce8d19459276181dfd9c858
commit r11-34-g73a8043481d24ac86ce8d19459276181dfd9c858
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94718
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:496f4f884716ae061f771a62e44868a32dbd502f
commit r11-35-g496f4f884716ae061f771a62e44868a32dbd502f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94666
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Kre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94718
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b5c7ee0df6b87780f2fd6f2c5759a04e6eed1fe
commit r11-36-g6b5c7ee0df6b87780f2fd6f2c5759a04e6eed1fe
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94718
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94903
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94109
--- Comment #3 from Antony Lewis ---
Although my reduced test in the other id case is one problem, it appears that
is not the only memory leak. Someone tested else on various gcc versions and
still found:
versionmemory leak
7.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94903
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Feel free to backport, it certainly doesn't have high priority.
--target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r11-36-20200504110332-g6b5c7ee0df6-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94943
Bug ID: 94943
Summary: A module does not export allocatable attribute of
herein arrays.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48439
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48439&action=edit
gcc11-pr94914.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94942
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
I thought we might already simplify (u >> 32) != 0 to u >= cst (other possible
forms are u != (uint64_t)(uint32_t)u, u & cst != 0, etc, I am trying to think
which one looks most canonical).
I expect in interes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #9 from Christophe Lyon ---
> My initial thoughts are along the lines of...
> Only try to save FP registers that this function directly clobbers.
What's the point of saving these if a callee clobbers other registers?
Shouldn't that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94943
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94650
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ea03e9016cbca5a7ee2b4befa4d5c32467b0982
commit r11-37-g8ea03e9016cbca5a7ee2b4befa4d5c32467b0982
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Mon May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78155
Bruno Haible changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruno at clisp dot org
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94650
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94942
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48441
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48441&action=edit
gcc11-pr94942.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #33 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:375a77925c320a273d3b1ef3182f29f31aaa8edf
commit r11-38-g375a77925c320a273d3b1ef3182f29f31aaa8edf
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93581
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da710a35525cc7631b778fa4a5cfd20c366c01a4
commit r9-8565-gda710a35525cc7631b778fa4a5cfd20c366c01a4
Author: Tobias Burnus
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93581
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #39 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9e1ea10e657af9fb02fafecf1a600740fd34409
commit r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9fb02fafecf1a600740fd34409
Author: Richard Biener
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> I thought we might already simplify (u >> 32) != 0 to u >= cst (other
> possible forms are u != (uint64_t)(uint32_t)u, u & cst != 0, etc, I am
> trying to think whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94909
--- Comment #3 from Neil Carlson ---
Richard, this is just a typical declaration of an abstract type. An extension
of this type will have to define the deferred dot_ function with an interface
that happens to match the interface of dot. The dot f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94936
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec40967f1323069da3a5a45286f71fa4f80926df
commit r11-40-gec40967f1323069da3a5a45286f71fa4f80926df
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93891
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:367766f40a031ff064857681dc4da3309f0ce57d
commit r11-41-g367766f40a031ff064857681dc4da3309f0ce57d
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93891
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Not yet fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94907
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94925
--- Comment #2 from Fred Krogh ---
I'm unclear on comment 1. Are you saying the code is such that this diagnostic
can not be turned off and that is the way it should be, or that there is an a
problem in gfortran with the if that is guarding the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94896
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94896
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94775
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05be85b649173b10d0bf10255eb15275c2dcf509
commit r11-42-g05be85b649173b10d0bf10255eb15275c2dcf509
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94745
--- Comment #4 from Louis Dionne ---
Thanks for your replies, all. We resolved the problem on our side by not trying
to workaround the lack of error, which means that we might end up passing
`-Wno-foo` to GCC when it's not supported. I think that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94775
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94775
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:251c85372e088017e79894f50156901d112affee
commit r10-8088-g251c85372e088017e79894f50156901d112affee
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94896
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #9)
> > My initial thoughts are along the lines of...
> > Only try to save FP registers that this function directly clobbers.
> What's the point of saving these i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94929
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94864
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
vec_duplicate of vec_select is just a vec_select. Any vec_merge is a
vec_select as well, as you say.
Canonicalisation should make vec_select always.
We probably should have canonicalisation rules for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88759
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54366
Bug 54366 depends on bug 88759, which changed state.
Bug 88759 Summary: `decltype(auto)` as return type of abbreviated function
template strips cv-qualifications and referenceness
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88759
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94944
Bug ID: 94944
Summary: compile error accessing member function of dependent
base class template in exception specification
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94944
--- Comment #1 from eracpp ---
The example may be simplified further by removing the function parameters:
template
struct B {
void foo() {}
};
template
struct D : B {
void foo() noexcept(noexcept(B::foo())) {}
};
template struct D;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||56456
Summary|[10/11 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94944
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-04
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94800
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-04
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #11 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #10)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #9)
> > > My initial thoughts are along the lines of...
> > > Only try to save FP registers that this function di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #12 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #9)
> > > > My initial thoughts are along the lines of...
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94931
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 08:23:17AM +, ryofurue at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> But, then the question is, why don't you need the -L option? as in
>
> gfortran -I/usr/include mysourcefile.f -L/usr/lib -lne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94945
Bug ID: 94945
Summary: Missed optimization: Carry chain not recognized in
manually unrolled loop
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94795
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9decd08b7b153a593a0b61e4f5373cb9574a1973
commit r11-45-g9decd08b7b153a593a0b61e4f5373cb9574a1973
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Mon May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94795
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94827
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94938
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
value_dependent_expression_p (called via the new uses_template_parms call)
doesn't expect a non-constant expression. So one possible fix would be:
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -10624,7 +10624,8 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94747
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90736
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f6965321b1c00bfb2b9c8407df56bcf38f096088
commit r8-10235-gf6965321b1c00bfb2b9c8407df56bcf38f096088
Author: Marek Polacek
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94929
--- Comment #5 from David Seifert ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> I'm going to backport the fix to 8 if it passes the usual testing.
Hi Marek,
could you also test the inlined code. Defining some const and then using it
alignas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94929
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94800
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94929
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to David Seifert from comment #5)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> > I'm going to backport the fix to 8 if it passes the usual testing.
>
> Hi Marek,
> could you also test the inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94849
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you for the analysis, I'm gonna report that to qemu guys.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #13 from Christophe Lyon ---
> > Why do we need a library function for that? It would have to be special with
> > the stack: push FP registers, but do not restore SP, so that the dual
> > restore function can pop them and restore SP.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48444
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48444&action=edit
Semi-reduced test-case
I'll carry on with the reduction, but it goes down slowly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with if constexpr (in |[10/11 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
"clobber" is a red herring; it is impossible to make a REG_EQ* note for
a clobber, a clobber does not set a new value (that is the whole point
of a clobber).
I think we could allow auto-modify, sure, ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #13)
> But, in general (non-interrupt) code, what is supposed to happen if you
> compile for a d32 VFP and run on d16 one ? (and the code uses the extra
> regist
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
