https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96562
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
a simple c testcase
typedef struct
{
unsigned char* p;
unsigned int a;
}st;
st foo (unsigned char* p, unsigned char* q)
{
return {p, (unsigned int)(q-p)};
}
There's two issues here.
1. gcc use memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Using the current master, -fdbg-cnt=ipa_cp_bits:10461 is first bad debug
counter value where (for
./src/gallium/targets/dri/libgallium_dri.so.wpa.076i.cp):
diff -u /tmp/good.txt /tmp/bad.txt
--- /tmp/good.txt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #17 from Roger Wolff ---
UI suggestion: Then start the selection box on "choose one" instead of a
default that probably doesn't get used often (like everybody else).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96564
Bug ID: 96564
Summary: New maybe use of uninitialized variable warning since
GCC >10
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96558
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96312
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9040b14da7070f30af6d2814097fb7ea1a91707d
commit r10-8603-g9040b14da7070f30af6d2814097fb7ea1a91707d
Author: Paul Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Also this one shows the problem: -fdbg-cnt=ipa_cp_bits:10460-10461.
>
> If I see correctly the function body:
> lto-dump -dump-body=addr_to_index nir_lower_io.c.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Also this one shows the problem: -fdbg-cnt=ipa_cp_bits:10460-10461.
If I see correctly the function body:
lto-dump -dump-body=addr_to_index nir_lower_io.c.o
Gimple Body of Function: addr_to_index
addr_to_inde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
But streamed IPA CP info tells that:
Node: addr_to_offset/632014:
param [0]: VARIABLE
ctxs: VARIABLE
Bits: value = 0x0, mask = 0xfff8
int VARYING
AGGS VAR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96312
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96562
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
in ix86_expand_pinsr with
src:(reg:DI 88)
dst:(subreg:DI (reg:TI 84 [ D.1940 ]) 8)
pos: 64
size: 32
it goes into
---
20360
20361 case E_SImode:
20362 if (!TARGET_SSE4_1)
20363
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96559
--- Comment #1 from Ulrich Weigand ---
> [...] as __clzdi2 points to the very same place as _Z11CeilingLog2v.
How do you get to that conclusion? Nothing in that assembler source sets
__clzdi2 to point to the same place as _Z11CeilingLog2v. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96436
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |markeggleston at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96564
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
I think there are duplicates about the fact that while gcc knows that a and x
cannot alias (if you read *x, write to *a, then read from *x again, gcc reuses
the first value), it does not use that information to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
It's likely correctly propagated, right now it looks the source code is
invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96559
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96564
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-11
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC 10 ignoring function|[10/11 Regression] GCC 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96535
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Han-Chen ---
Oh lolll I was just about to add a comment about further experimentation
Seems like Jakub and Hongtao have found the root cause of the issues?
Anyways what I was gonna write [probs not necessary anymore s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96535
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49039
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49039&action=edit
gcc11-pr96535.patch
Ugh, process_options is called only once and thus I believe processing of
options with Opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96565
Bug ID: 96565
Summary: Failure to optimize out VLA even though it is left
unused
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96562
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Egorushkin ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> Add -mavx to -O2 triggers this.
The bug seems to be caused by -msse4.1, -mno-sse4.1 fixes it.
Changing size from `unsigned` to `unsigned long` makes the bug disapp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
Bug ID: 96566
Summary: [nvptx] Timeout in gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-21.c
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96535
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93897
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Egorushkin ---
It seems to get triggered by uint32_t, see also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96562
Any plans to fix this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96565
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96539
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:299c98578bda88c020a6d5b2c319c9e191a315d4
commit r11-2647-g299c98578bda88c020a6d5b2c319c9e191a315d4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96549
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b815e113c9aec397a86d7194f66455eb189cc7a
commit r11-2646-g6b815e113c9aec397a86d7194f66455eb189cc7a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] Wrong|[10 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Corresponding source bit:
...
struct Ax_m3 { char a[PTRDIFF_MAX - 3], ax[]; };
struct Ax_m3 xm3_3 = { { 0 }, { 1, 2, 3 } };
On x86_64, we generate for this:
...
xm3_3:
.byte 0
.zero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> If we run the command by hand, and tail the .s file, we get an endless
> repetition of 0, 0, 0, ... , which starts off like this:
> ...
> // BEGIN GLOBAL VAR DEF: x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Either the test can be skipped on nvptx or any targets that don't emit
something like a .zero similar directive, or we should after the size of
variable is too large diagnostic throw the initializer away (set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, on x86_64-linux we'd likely time out on the adjusted testcase during
assembly (unless it would will up the disks before that).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Then with this in addition:
...
@@ -2202,7 +2202,7 @@ nvptx_assemble_decl_begin (FILE *file, const char *name,
const char *section,
/* Neither vector nor complex types can contain the other. */
type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96534
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
> I did not have the real statistics yet as our company is not yet moved to
> gcc9 (maybe end of this year ).
>
> and even the size of the compressed file is smaller , but we have to unzip
> and parse it , ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96565
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Actually, it isn't so much the alloca call itself, it seems to be
__builtin_stack_save / __builtin_stack_restore that prevent DSE from removing
arr[0] = 0 (without that write, DCE can remove __builtin_alloca_wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96567
Bug ID: 96567
Summary: [11 Regression]
libgo/go/internal/syscall/unix/getrandom_linux.go:35:4
1: error: reference to undefined name 'getrandomTrap'
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96568
Bug ID: 96568
Summary: Cross compiler for epiphany and arm-none cannot be
built
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96568
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 49041
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49041&action=edit
Build log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96539
--- Comment #4 from Yichao Yu ---
Wow that was fast... thx.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94958
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Either the test can be skipped on nvptx or any targets that don't emit
> something like a .zero similar directive, or we should after the size of
> variable is too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96495
paul.luck...@rwth-aachen.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49011|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96535
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=96106
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:745ba1024c653324f9f0b88968c6f8989ed1e093
commit r10-8604-g745ba1024c653324f9f0b88968c6f8989ed1e093
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96106
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm not sure a target specific option is the way to go here, the only
difference is that nvptx spends all the time on this (adjusted) testcase at
compile time (and eats all disk space there too), while on x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96495
paul.luck...@rwth-aachen.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49042|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6)
> With a size of 0xfff we take 5s and generate a 193MB assembly file.
>
> With a size of 0x we take 1m10s and generate a 3.1GB assembly file.
FTR, I tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> I'm not sure a target specific option is the way to go here, the only
> difference is that nvptx spends all the time on this (adjusted) testcase at
> compile time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96535
--- Comment #8 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Created attachment 49043 [details]
> gcc11-pr96535.patch
>
> Updated patch to only move handling of the loop unrolling options (but I
> need changes on the rs6000 s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004
--- Comment #47 from john henning ---
SPEC next step: Because the performance differences were small (in my limited
testing) no matter which workaround I picked (-O3, or remove Feedback Directed
Optimization, or add -fno-unsafe-math-optimizations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
The issue described in bug 92815 comment 9 sounds like a similar problem. Does
sending the output to /dev/null instead of a .s file help? If it does, adding
a dg directive to do that might be a solution.
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88836
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96569
Bug ID: 96569
Summary: F2018 add EX edit descriptor support
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #11 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #10)
> The issue described in bug 92815 comment 9 sounds like a similar problem.
> Does sending the output to /dev/null instead of a .s file help? If it does,
> adding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85836
Bug 85836 depends on bug 96569, which changed state.
Bug 96569 Summary: F2018 add EX edit descriptor support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96569
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96569
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93727
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96545
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7840b4dc05539cf5575b3e9ff57ff5f6c3da2cae
commit r11-2648-g7840b4dc05539cf5575b3e9ff57ff5f6c3da2cae
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96545
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> But streamed IPA CP info tells that:
>
> Node: addr_to_offset/632014:
> param [0]: VARIABLE
> ctxs: VARIABLE
> Bits: value = 0x0, mask =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96568
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Should be already fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
So in ltrans we end up with:
addr_to_index (struct nir_builder * b, struct nir_ssa_def * addr,
nir_address_format addr_format)
{
unsigned int num_channels;
unsigned int swizzle[16];
unsigned int i;
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89760
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18095be17013444d9e91aa8c73ebe5cf58ccb3f1
commit r11-2653-g18095be17013444d9e91aa8c73ebe5cf58ccb3f1
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96568
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96570
Bug ID: 96570
Summary: Warnings desired for time_t to int coversions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89760
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:afd61b43808cebe0882cdf13dcdd766cae4ce4e7
commit r10-8605-gafd61b43808cebe0882cdf13dcdd766cae4ce4e7
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Honza, can you please take a look? There's a bug in how get_default_value how
nonzero bits are combined with ipcp_get_parm_bits. I can work on that
tomorrow..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96570
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95450
Carlos O'Donell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95450
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95450
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is that this gl_LDBL_MAX.ld is really the right maximum normalized
double double number, but is one ulp larger than GCC's __LDBL_MAX__.
The former is:
0x1.f7c000p+1023
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > Either the test can be skipped on nvptx or any targets that don't emit
> > something like a .zero similar directive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96511
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96384
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89760
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89760
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7a449909a53ec6e4ea13f197f86ed1aed7de560
commit r9-8802-gf7a449909a53ec6e4ea13f197f86ed1aed7de560
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88836
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
My preferred fix for this is now to finish off the secondary
(and ill-fated :-)) combine pass I posted at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-November/534728.html
I've been do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96571
Bug ID: 96571
Summary: Bad "set but not used" warning with _Generic
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 87209, which changed state.
Bug 87209 Summary: Wuninitialized or Wmaybe-uninitialized doesn't warn when
malloc's return value is used without being initialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87209
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87209
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 9.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95450
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or as an ugly hack for floating types with MODE_COMPOSITE_P (TYPE_MODE (mode))
in that spot, after using native_interpret_expr do native_encode_expr again and
compare if the bits are identical (or perhaps do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96572
Bug ID: 96572
Summary: Failure to optimize out branch when it always results
in UB from dereferencing a pointer to an undefined
value set in there
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96564
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39398
--- Comment #5 from Timothy Madden ---
Sorry but I can no longer test this to confirm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96570
--- Comment #2 from M Welinder ---
> Why? If somebody wants to be explicitly stupid, that's their prerogative.
I agree with the second sentence.
However, casts are not a clear indication that somebody wants to be explicitly
stupid, at least not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96564
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95450
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49045
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49045&action=edit
gcc11-pr95450.patch
Untested fix. Or as I said, it could be limited to
&& COMPOSITE_MODE_P (element_mode (type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96570
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to M Welinder from comment #2)
> Casts occur also in (e.g.) overload resolution and entirely too often in
> template soup. And in macros too, I guess.
Explicit casts don't, and that's what I was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96573
Bug ID: 96573
Summary: [Regression] Regression in optimization on x86-64 with
-O3 from GCC 9 to 10
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96573
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96567
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f9fd3c4ee5f9e9eb5045d35fcf189ccd214231c
commit r11-2657-g8f9fd3c4ee5f9e9eb5045d35fcf189ccd214231c
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91620
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Franथà¤ois Dumont
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b7af071b0cd4a6f8d989453ac81a4c3768d6343
commit r11-2658-g8b7af071b0cd4a6f8d989453ac81a4c3768d6343
Author: François Dumont
Da
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
