https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95743
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95745
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95748
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95753
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|ICE when buildi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95761
Bug ID: 95761
Summary: [11 regression] ICE during GIMPLE pass: slp verify_ssa
failed
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95745
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
I still see it with r11-1521-gaae80e833d2826fc0afe7ff1704d2ab0f4607c5a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95757
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|powerpc64*-linux-gnu arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95753
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95745
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95761
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95761
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95745
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
All right, I see something very similar for s390x cross compiler:
./xgcc -B. /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/vector27.C
-march=z13 -c
during RTL pass: expand
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94757
Qian Jianhua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qianjh at cn dot fujitsu.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95745
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Ok, can I test it with a x86_64-linux-gnu cross compiler?
Yes, that's what I am using.
Target: arm-none-linux-gnueabi
Configured with: /configure --target=arm-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95759
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95759
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95750
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Actually, x86_64 (at least my Fedora 32) does not like operations on stack:
Starting program: /sdd/uros/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/a.out
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95762
Bug ID: 95762
Summary: Failure to optimize __builtin_convertvector from
vector of 16 chars to vector of 16 shorts in a single
instruction on AVX2
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95750
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95762
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-19
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95750
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> The culprit is the %esp here, that adds the 0x67 prefix to the insn and
> will only work if %rsp is below 4GB.
Ah, indeed... I was in a bit of hurry and didn't no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95763
Bug ID: 95763
Summary: Feature request: compiler warning if line width
exceeds N symbols
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95740
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95762
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> We're currently representing this as a .VEC_CONVERT IFN lowered at veclower
> time to
>
> _4 = [vec_unpack_lo_expr] a_1(D);
> _5 = [vec_unpack_hi_expr] a_1(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95762
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And I should note, because of offloading, it would be better to do that kind of
folding only after_inlining.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95762
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95762
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> And I should note, because of offloading, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95764
Bug ID: 95764
Summary: Failure to optimize usage of _mm512_set1_epi32 to a
single instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95762
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say anything that depends on optabs if possible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95761
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8f5715606a4a455327874847ccc91f4617bb4de
commit r11-1553-gf8f5715606a4a455327874847ccc91f4617bb4de
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95761
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95493
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Fixed on trunk sofar.
Is there anything I can help to get this backported to 10? I applied your patch
on my GCC 10 checkout since you committed it to ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95763
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems like a better fit for something like clang-tidy than being hardcoded
into the compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95765
Bug ID: 95765
Summary: std::vector should be built without warnings with
-Wconversion and/or -Wsystem-headers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95748
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95493
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > Fixed on trunk sofar.
>
> Is there anything I can help to get this backported to 10? I applied your
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95764
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95750
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 48756
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48756&action=edit
Proposed patch
Patch in testing, survives GOMP testcases.
On a related note, the patch uses TARGET_USE_XCHG_FOR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95766
Bug ID: 95766
Summary: Failure to directly use vpbroadcastd for
_mm_set1_epi32 when passing unsigned short
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95748
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 tmp]$ cat x.c
typedef __UINTPTR_TYPE__ uintptr_t;
__attribute__ ((noclone, noinline))
void
check (uintptr_t address, uintptr_t align)
{
if (address & (align - 1))
__builtin_abort();
}
__attr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95763
--- Comment #2 from Erich Erstu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This seems like a better fit for something like clang-tidy than being
> hardcoded into the compiler.
I can see the reasoning there, but different source/header f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95767
Bug ID: 95767
Summary: No warning when branching on two identical conditions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95018
--- Comment #39 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:60bd3f20baebeeddd60f8a2b85927e7da7c6016e
commit r10-8327-g60bd3f20baebeeddd60f8a2b85927e7da7c6016e
Author: guojiufu
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95748
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Note that __alignof__ is preferred alignment, whereas C11 _Alignof (which
only applies to types, not declarations) is the alignment required in all
contexts (so they differ for long long on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95763
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
FWIW, the Ada front end has some style checking support (I once broke
bootstrap by applying spelling corrections there, where fixing the
spelling in a comment made a line too long). It wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95767
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
Bug ID: 95768
Summary: -march=sandybridge -O2 -Wall crashes as 'during GIMPLE
pass: uninit ... Segmentation fault'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
nwind-exceptions
CFLAGS='-O1 ' CXXFLAGS='-O1 ' --with-sysroot=/usr/x86_64-HEAD-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20200619 (experimental) (GCC)
crash is reproducible:
$ ~/dev/git/gcc-native-quick/gcc/xg++
-B/home/slyfox
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95769
Bug ID: 95769
Summary: Constant expression in inline function not optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35968
--- Comment #14 from Stephen Howe ---
(In reply to Anders Kaseorg from comment #13)
> (In reply to Patrick J. LoPresti from comment #12)
> > I am familiar with the usual algorithmic complexity definitions.
> >
> > So, just to be clear... Your as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95769
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95755
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95769
--- Comment #2 from John Simon ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> If you want to ensure a function is evaluated at compile time, it needs to
> be either C++20 consteval, or you need to evaluate it in constant expression
> context,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95769
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to John Simon from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > If you want to ensure a function is evaluated at compile time, it needs to
> > be either C++20 consteval, or you need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94880
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e0bfe016712ace877dd5b057bc1eb06e3c307623
commit r11-1558-ge0bfe016712ace877dd5b057bc1eb06e3c307623
Author: Przemyslaw Wirkus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95769
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And, in the compiler the C++ constant evaluation is something done only in the
C++ FE, while you are looking for IPA constant propagation and based on that
performing the C++ FE constant evaluation because th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Dunno, perhaps for backporting it could be done in template_args_equal
> instead?
For backporting we could treat them as different only if
comparing_specializati
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48758
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48758&action=edit
C source code
Sometime from 20200618 to 20200619, the attached C code fails
to compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Please test this out of context of a return statement. The problem with
unnecessary extends of return values is widely known and not specific to this
particular case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95770
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is:
typedef struct {
float a;
float b
} c;
c d, f, g;
float e;
h() {
g.a = d.a * f.a - f.b;
g.b = d.a * f.b + e;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens.seifert at de dot ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95755
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Leffler ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> The sizes used to trigger the warning are based on what it can determine
> from the representation of source code it sees. ...
Thank you for the confirmation,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95761
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r11-1553 PASS original testcase for me.
And FAIL similar test with the same stack.
$ cat x_2.i
typedef int a[10];
typedef struct {
a b;
a c;
a d;
} e;
e j;
void k() {
int *h = j.c, *f = j.d, *g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95771
Bug ID: 95771
Summary: Failure to optimize popcount idiom when argument is
unsigned char
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #17 from Sunil Pandey ---
$ cat foo.c
long long c(long long x) {}
int a() { long long b = c(b); }
$ gcc -m32 -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -c foo.c
during GIMPLE pass: adjust_alignment
foo.c: In function ??a??:
foo.c:2:5: internal com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737
Jens Seifert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95770
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Probably a duplicate, but this C++ code also causes a crash:
float *a;
void b() {
float c, d;
a[0] = a[1] = 0.5f * (c - 2 + d);
a[2] = a[3] = 0.5f * (c + 2 + d);
}
$ /home/dcb/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95673
--- Comment #3 from dn2sp-dev at yahoo dot fr ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> When the result of strncmp is only used to test for equality to zero that it
> determines must evaluate to either true or false GCC 10 issues the
> -Wst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95765
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b6215083bd6a3e10dd142e1c5d4fab011d6f074
commit r11-1562-g5b6215083bd6a3e10dd142e1c5d4fab011d6f074
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95765
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43167
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redboltz at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95765
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Actually Bug 87614 is the source of that other example, and a more suitable one
to mark this as a duplicate of.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 87614 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87614
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redboltz at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95772
Bug ID: 95772
Summary: warning desired when default operator= cannot be
constructued
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95772
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marc Pawlowsky from comment #0)
> I expected a diagnostic saying that operator= cannot be defaulted which is
> seen if the ASSIGN code is enabled. The code compiles cleanly.
As expected. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95773
Bug ID: 95773
Summary: [[nodiscard]] attribute is ignored for calls to
overridden functions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95774
Bug ID: 95774
Summary: __builtin_cpu_is can't detect cooperlake
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90436
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(writing down some notes)
Calling
size_type
_M_check_len_one(const char* __s) const
{
if (max_size() - size() < 1)
__throw_length_error(__N(__s));
const size_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95765
--- Comment #4 from Takatoshi Kondo ---
Thank you for fixing the warnings.
> Users should not be routinely using -Wsystem-headers to find problems with
> their own code (that defeats the entire purpose of suppressing warnings in
> system heade
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95673
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95673
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95772
--- Comment #2 from Marc Pawlowsky ---
I understand that it is deleted, but if somebody says it should be defaulted
when it is defaulted that is most likely an error, and it would be nice if a
warning were generated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #18 from Sunil Pandey ---
Another test, trigger with -Os option.
$ cat foo.i
int a;
long long b() {}
int c() {
if (b())
a = 1;
}
$gcc -m32 -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -Os -c foo.i
during GIMPLE pass: adjust_alignment
foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95775
Bug ID: 95775
Summary: Command line argument for target_clones?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95774
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95776
Bug ID: 95776
Summary: Reduce indirection with target_clones at link time
(with LTO)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95777
Bug ID: 95777
Summary: Allow specifying more than one target options at the
same time in target and target_clones attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95778
Bug ID: 95778
Summary: target_clones indirection eliminates requires noinline
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95779
Bug ID: 95779
Summary: Unnecessary dispatch function for static target_clones
function.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95780
Bug ID: 95780
Summary: target_clones treats internal visibility different
from static functions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95781
Bug ID: 95781
Summary: Missing dead code elimination when a recursive
function is inlined.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95110
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Bin Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:63c00a0c6543ce6d55e0ebc97ddbc1d36fb1289c
commit r10-8332-g63c00a0c6543ce6d55e0ebc97ddbc1d36fb1289c
Author: Bin Cheng
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Bin Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:63c00a0c6543ce6d55e0ebc97ddbc1d36fb1289c
commit r10-8332-g63c00a0c6543ce6d55e0ebc97ddbc1d36fb1289c
Author: Bin Cheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95782
Bug ID: 95782
Summary: [ppc64le] ICE in _cpp_pop_context
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
