https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #62 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, tavianator at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
>
> Tavian Barnes changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451
>
> --- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451
--- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 49000
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49000&action=edit
untested patch
Just noticed the dbgcnt supports several intervals, if we want to count
epilogue loop, we probably n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96460
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451
> >
> > --- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
> > (In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451
>
> --- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
> Created attachment 49000
> --> https://gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96470
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96476
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96479
Bug ID: 96479
Summary: AArch64: return SIMD register with -mgeneral-regs-only
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96460
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It's perfectly valid code ... guess similar to -Wconversion though.
If the modulo result is never negative, it's not *perfectly* valid because GCC
has to add i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96471
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 49002
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49002&action=edit
reduced fortran testcase
Manually reduced the fortran testcase down to a single file, now reproduces
with
> .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96471
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
And auto reduce + some manual sanitizing:
SUBROUTINE CMUMPS_SCATTER_DIST_RHS(
& POSINRHSCOMP_FWD, IFIRSTNOTTOUCHED,
& NBRECORDS)
INTEGER, INTENT(IN):: POSINRHSC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95511
Olivier Kannengieser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96476
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96479
--- Comment #2 from qiaopeixin at huawei dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> If -mgeneral-regs-only is not supposed to be an ABI changing option then the
> compiler has to reject code using non-general regs. With a diagnost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96459
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:916c7a201a9a1dc94f2c056a773826a26d1daca9
commit r11-2571-g916c7a201a9a1dc94f2c056a773826a26d1daca9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96153
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96342
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
That's great, thanks for the heads-up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96480
Bug ID: 96480
Summary: missed optimisation: unnecessary compare in standard
algorithms
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96481
Bug ID: 96481
Summary: SLP fail to vectorize VEC_COND_EXPR pattern.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
FWIW, I think the reason I mentioned for skimping on this originally
was that we don't e.g. prevent if-conversion of:
void
foo (int *c, float *f)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 16; ++i)
f[i] = c[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
>
> --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> FWIW, I think the reason
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
>
> --- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> (In reply to rguent...@su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96480
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
Bug ID: 96482
Summary: Combination of -finline-small-functions and ipa-cp
optimisations causes incorrect values being passed to
a function
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96481
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96480
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That commit changes the pre-reassoc2 dump like:
--- pr96480.ii.172t.printf-return-value2_ 2020-08-05 07:22:42.0
-0400
+++ pr96480.ii.172t.printf-return-value22020-08-05 07:23:32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #1 from Yevhenii Kolesnikov ---
Created attachment 49003
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49003&action=edit
Preprocessed file (compressed)
Oh. Preprocessed file was actually too big. Attaching a compressed file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96481
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96481
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> So in theory we could record basic-block boundaries as DR group_id instead
Note for outer loop vect we need the BB restriction which means we'd need to
compute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Combination of |[10/11 Regression]
|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96153
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #2)
> The new test FAILs on 64-bit Solaris/SPARC:
>
> The test PASSes with -O0 and -Os, as well as with -m32.
Thanks, I've checked Linux/SPARC64 and see the same thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96480
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Simplified testcase:
int v[4];
int
foo (int x)
{
int *p;
if (x == 0)
p = &v[0];
else if (x == 1)
p = &v[1];
else if (x == 2)
p = &v[2];
else if (x == 3)
p = &v[3];
else
p = &v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96483
Bug ID: 96483
Summary: ICE in code hoisting with AArch64 SVE2 intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96483
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
--- Comment #10 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5)
> > Just note that _all_ floating point operations, not just divisions, can trap
> > (without fast-math). You never know if the user enabled stops for any of
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96478
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96474
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96443
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
--- Comment #11 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> How do we represent sNaNs with -fnon-call-exceptions? That is,
I think we're currently simply buggy at various stages as soon as sNaNs are
involved _and_ ST
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96427
vfdff changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhongyunde at huawei dot com
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96484
Bug ID: 96484
Summary: Horrible performance of std::read_symlink
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96474
--- Comment #2 from Luiz Henrique Laurini ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> The ICE started with r278298. Before that:
>
> 96474.C:11:15: error: class template argument deduction failed:
>11 | A::B x;
> |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96485
Bug ID: 96485
Summary: Lambda parsing regression in GCCs 9 and onwards
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96191
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe1a26429038d7cd17abc53f96a6f3e2639b605f
commit r11-2576-gfe1a26429038d7cd17abc53f96a6f3e2639b605f
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96480
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=70314
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Glisse :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:229752afe3156a3990dacaedb94c76846cebf132
commit r11-2577-g229752afe3156a3990dacaedb94c76846cebf132
Author: Marc Glisse
Date: Wed Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95906
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Glisse :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:229752afe3156a3990dacaedb94c76846cebf132
commit r11-2577-g229752afe3156a3990dacaedb94c76846cebf132
Author: Marc Glisse
Date: Wed Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96468
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96446
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
*movpxi tries to not split xxsetaccz insns, but that one is only for
fpr_reg_operand as operands[0], while *movpxi uses something more
general.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70314
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
We now generate for the original testcase
vpcmpd $1, %zmm3, %zmm2, %k1
vpcmpd $1, %zmm1, %zmm0, %k0{%k1}
vpmovm2d%k0, %zmm0
which looks great.
However, using | instead of &,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96468
--- Comment #3 from Joseph C. Sible ---
I didn't intend to restrict this to only volatile control variables. If you
have "_Bool canMoveOn(void);", I'd like "while(!canMoveOn());" in place of
"while(!signaled);" to warn too for the exact same reas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95906
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
With the patch (which only affects vectors), f becomes (a>b)?a:b. It should be
easy to add the corresponding transform to MAX_EXPR in match.pd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96484
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96484
--- Comment #1 from M Welinder ---
I should note that not only does it allocate 500M, it also zeroes it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96446
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> *movpxi tries to not split xxsetaccz insns, but that one is only for
> fpr_reg_operand as operands[0], while *movpxi uses something more
> general.
As we di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96468
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #4 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96468
--- Comment #5 from Joseph C. Sible ---
I didn't have termination checking in mind at all for this. I envisioned the
warning triggering any time a "while" loop's body was just a semicolon, when
the "while" isn't the first statement in its block.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
Bug ID: 96486
Summary: get_environment_variable fails for zero-length
variables
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Could you please provide an example?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96153
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
Created attachment 49006
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49006&action=edit
inline memset
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #2)
> > The new t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96469
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27eac9ee6137a6b5ae693b54cafa22bdc0cbcd5a
commit r11-2578-g27eac9ee6137a6b5ae693b54cafa22bdc0cbcd5a
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #3 from Susi Lehtola ---
program zerolen_value
implicit none
character(len=*), parameter :: name='HOSTNAME'
character(len=:), allocatable :: value
integer :: l, err
call get_environment_variable(name,length=l,status=err)
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92396
jeremycong at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeremycong at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #4 from Susi Lehtola ---
$ export HOSTNAME=foo
$ ./a.out
$
$ export HOSTNAME=
$ ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: Zero-length string passed as value to
get_environment_variable.
Error termination. Backtrace:
#0 0x7f25c93aadf1 in ???
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I do note there are other problems with get_environment_variable.
1) Neither length nor status can be integer(1). gfortran should issue
an error.
2) Fortran 2018 has added an optional errmsg a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> I do note there are other problems with get_environment_variable.
>
> 1) Neither length nor status can be integer(1). gfortran should issue
>an error.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96485
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
[[gnu::no_sanitize_undefined]] instead of the GNU __attribute__ is accepted,
but as the C++ specification requires it applies to the type not the
declaration and therefore it is ignored.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #8 from Susi Lehtola ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> What gfortran version and operating system? I get
>
> % gfcx -o z b.f90 && ./z
> STOP System variable unassigned
> % gfcx -o z -g b.f90 && ./z
> STOP System variable una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That option was removed in GCC 6, already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #4)
> > $ export HOSTNAME=foo
> > $ ./a.out
> > $
> >
> > $ export HOSTNAME=
> > $ ./a.out
> > Fortran runtime error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96487
Bug ID: 96487
Summary: cddce1 optimizer depends on order of basic blocks
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96485
--- Comment #3 from Niall Douglas ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> [[gnu::no_sanitize_undefined]] instead of the GNU __attribute__ is accepted,
> but as the C++ specification requires it applies to the type not the
> declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #10 from Susi Lehtola ---
Compiled with -g, rerun gives
$ ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: Zero-length string passed as value to
get_environment_variable.
Error termination. Backtrace:
#0 0x401267 in zerolen_value
at /tmp/re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #10)
> Compiled with -g, rerun gives
>
> $ ./a.out
> Fortran runtime error: Zero-length string passed as value to
> get_environment_variable.
>
> Error ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96488
Bug ID: 96488
Summary: Long time failures of gnat.dg/unchecked_convert5.adb
and gnat.dg/unchecked_convert6.adb
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96469
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd30d93f1a3ead7b814c1b179cf7197e4bf1e183
commit r11-2579-gdd30d93f1a3ead7b814c1b179cf7197e4bf1e183
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96469
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96282
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d21252de6c81ed236d8981d47b9a57dc4f1c6d57
commit r11-2580-gd21252de6c81ed236d8981d47b9a57dc4f1c6d57
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96199
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96489
Bug ID: 96489
Summary: Three way comparison operator failure to synthesize
traditional comparitors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96489
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882
Ivan Sučić changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sucicf1 at outlook dot com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882
--- Comment #5 from Ivan Sučić ---
I have added in match.pd a simplify. But for unknown reason it doesn't get
applied. Anybody knows why?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96489
--- Comment #2 from DV Henkel-Wallace ---
I don't think this should be marked as resolved. The bug is not the case you
cited which indeed works properly as specified.
The bug is that comparators are not being synthesized when the a *user
suppli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> That option was removed in GCC 6, already.
Oh. Do you know if they added a replacement or just dropped the functionality
altogether?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96490
Bug ID: 96490
Summary: Template code with function pointers fails with very
cryptic error message
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f9ceff11132
-ftree-coalesce-vars it sounds like? But that isn't a 1-1 replacement
probably (or, what was the point of this change otherwise?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96489
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to DV Henkel-Wallace from comment #2)
> I don't think this should be marked as resolved. The bug is not the case
> you cited which indeed works properly as specified.
>
> The bug is that compara
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
