https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96847
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like there is some IV-OPTs issue and that the limited registers is
causing spilling and that add range is causing the need for more register
usage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96850
Bug ID: 96850
Summary: format missing from std
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96850
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
int8_t;
constexpr auto Count = 2;
// Below does not compile
constexpr auto value = test(std::array{}, std::array{});
The problem exists in gcc 10.1 and trunk.
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20200830/include/c++/11.0.0/array:262:32:
error: '__builtin_memcmp(((std::array::const_pointer)(&am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96851
--- Comment #1 from milasudril at gmail dot com ---
Apparently, std::lexicographical_compare works
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/E1ETh1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96157
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b30aeaa173b6886cda15570a2e23eac1136665bf
commit r10-8689-gb30aeaa173b6886cda15570a2e23eac1136665bf
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96820
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96849
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE: in |[11 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96849
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96852
Bug ID: 96852
Summary: Missing diagnostic message for friend declaration with
wrong number of template arguments.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96850
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, as documented.
And also stated at https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81880
Toby Brull changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tobias.bruell at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96838
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-30
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96842
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59994
Bug 59994 depends on bug 67135, which changed state.
Bug 67135 Summary: [thread_local] heap-use-after-free (OS X 10.10.4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67135
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67135
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66360
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96837
--- Comment #2 from Olaf Krzikalla ---
This raises the question, if a false "if" clause creates a parallel region
anyway. I haven't found a explicit statement in the OpenMP standard.
However note, that the assertion "!omp_in_parallel()" in my e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96837
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The standard describes in detail what parallel if (false) creates, and what the
various APIs should return for that. It does create a parallel region, albeit
an inactive one. So, e.g. for the question wheth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96853
Bug ID: 96853
Summary: Explicit template instantiation & thread_local
interaction
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
Bug ID: 96854
Summary: avx vectorizer breaks complex arithmetic
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96807
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96674
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96672
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely the patch which moves the warning to gimple would help here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-October/530995.html
But I have not seen any movement on it since last year but I could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96849
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96551
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
a patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/552230.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96855
Bug ID: 96855
Summary: r11-571 regression FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr92658-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96856
Bug ID: 96856
Summary: [r11-571 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr92645-4.c
scan-tree-dump-times optimized "VEC_PACK_TRUNC" 1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96857
Bug ID: 96857
Summary: [r11-1301 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-pr95488-1.c
scan-assembler-times vpmullw[^\n]*zmm 2 on
Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascade
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96855
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Add -mprefer-vector-width=512 to avoid impact of different failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96855
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> Add -mprefer-vector-width=512 to avoid impact of different failure.
Typo: different mtune.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96858
Bug ID: 96858
Summary: Many i386 testcases failed with different configured
gcc on different hosts.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94672
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac4f77d2563828324bb6a4f08b52aae3410702ea
commit r10-8691-gac4f77d2563828324bb6a4f08b52aae3410702ea
Author: Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96840
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96841
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96859
Bug ID: 96859
Summary: Wrong answer with intrinsic merge_bits
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94672
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tomáš Trnka from comment #12)
> The fix for this broke assumed length optional character arguments. I have
> noticed this on 10.2.1 20200723, which is currently used by Fedora 32.
Thanks for th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|[r11-571 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96855
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|r11-571 regression FAIL:|[11 Regression] r11-571
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96857
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[r11-1301 Regression] FAIL: |[11 Regression] FAIL:
43 matches
Mail list logo
