https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97190
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> I can't reproduce the ICE with today's top of trunk. It looks like a
> duplicate of pr97175 that I fixed yesterday.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
Bug ID: 97199
Summary: ICE in process_bb at gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c:7250
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] |[10 Regression]
|Misco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97200
Bug ID: 97200
Summary: error: use of local variable with automatic storage
from containing function
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
Bug ID: 97201
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in location_wrapper_p at
gcc/gcc/tree.h:4002 since r11-3410-g67aeddb785ddcc86
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97197
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
Bug ID: 97202
Summary: GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before
‘short’
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96814
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so the extra folding for PR97085 also fixed this testcase, now expanding
from
_1 = { 0, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC reports an error: |[11 Regression] GCC reports
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97200
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
clang rejects it as well as soon as you instantiate func1:
t3.ii:4:28: error: reference to local variable 'a' declared in enclosing
function 'func1<1>'
int func1(void){return a;}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86883
--- Comment #4 from vopl at bk dot ru ---
One more:
template struct Outer
{
template struct Inner;
template
Inner method();//error: expansion pattern 'V0' contains no parameter
packs
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48361
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
Please update to at least GCC 8.4.0, it should be fixed there.
Older releases are not supported right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #44 from Martin Liška ---
Please update to at least GCC 8.4.0, it should be fixed there.
Older releases are not supported right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97183
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
> Or we can check for the 1.3.0 version which seems simpler.
> I do know that version 1.3.3 of zstd works as this is what Ubuntu 18.04 has.
> I haven't tried the versions 1.3.[012].
Yes, I would recommend ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96683
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by SRINATH PARVATHANENI
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc0743773bef43cd3e4a8b986befa5bfebcd70f3
commit r10-8798-gdc0743773bef43cd3e4a8b986befa5bfebcd70f3
Author: Joe Ramsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Could this be a c++17 difference?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48361
--- Comment #18 from Prasannanjaneyulu ---
Thank you @martin. I am not sure whether ubuntu 16.04 is compatible with gcc
8.4.0. Our app. is currently built for ubuntu 16.04 and I don't know what
breaking changes it could bring if we upgrade gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48361
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Prasannanjaneyulu from comment #18)
> Thank you @martin. I am not sure whether ubuntu 16.04 is compatible with gcc
> 8.4.0. Our app. is currently built for ubuntu 16.04 and I don't know what
> br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97203
Bug ID: 97203
Summary: [nvptx] 'illegal memory access was encountered' with
'omp simd'/SIMT and cexpf call
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97193
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|.gcno files are not written |[9/10/11 Regression] .gcno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81778
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95654
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus ---
See also PR97203 + PR97203, and PR80053.
And the thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/thread.html#554054
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97203
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Besides PR95654, see PR81778 and PR80053.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97160
Dave Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97119
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Ali Bahrami ---
> I added -flive-patching=inline-only-static as suggested by Martin. It didn't
> alter the results I'm seeing. There is still a lot of .localalias i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97204
Bug ID: 97204
Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/sse2-mmx-pinsrw.c execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
Bug ID: 97205
Summary: arm: Compiler fails with an ICE for -O0 on Trunk and
GCC-10 for _Generic feature.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
;-O0 -ggdb3 ' CXXFLAGS='-O0 -ggdb3 ' --enable-valgrind-annotations
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20200925 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97204
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:499b63048acd5e9ffd3c04061b531f6bf851dc00
commit r11-3454-g499b63048acd5e9ffd3c04061b531f6bf851dc00
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.1, 11.0
Version|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97206
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Testcase 2: something related happens to wavpack-5.3.2 package where gcc
stopped typechecking array declarations:
char *a(char *__restrict, int);
__attribute__((__access__(__write_only__, 1))) char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(gdb) p debug_gimple_stmt (phi)
.MEM_104 = PHI <(4), .MEM_97(41)>
so clearly bogus IL here. The issue is the virtual operand update in
if-conversion combine_blocks which does
/* We release virtual P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97206
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #42 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4fb606b503780b91ad79c203003dc41a32cfbab7
commit r9-8939-g4fb606b503780b91ad79c203003dc41a32cfbab7
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #43 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26020c849802a03f7a0634636d752ffbc7729096
commit r8-10535-g26020c849802a03f7a0634636d752ffbc7729096
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #44 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c775bf447e190024fa08c55e38db94dd013a393
commit r11-3455-g8c775bf447e190024fa08c55e38db94dd013a393
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4dcc7f03b54087638e084ac69d40d7507fe83bd8
commit r11-3456-g4dcc7f03b54087638e084ac69d40d7507fe83bd8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97197
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
Bug ID: 97207
Summary: [nvptx, build] nvptx.c:3539:38: error: no matching
function for call to ‘swap(bracket_vec_t&,
bracket_vec_t&)’
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||nvptx
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Configure from build-gcc/config.log:
...
$ /home/vries/nvptx/trunk/source-gcc/configure --target=nvptx-none --prefix=
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-werror --enable-checking=yes CC=gcc
-m64 -Wl,-r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 49271
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49271&action=edit
gzipped preprocessed source
Reproduce:
$ g++ -m64 -fno-PIE -c -O0 -g -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTUR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Fixed on trunk, not sure how important it is to backport.
I wouldn't backport it. The strange options come from my periodic fuzzing and
it took quite some time t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe try implementing the deleted
void operator= (auto_vec&&) = delete;
but the diagnostic isn't really pointing to that ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so
diff --git a/gcc/vec.c b/gcc/vec.c
index a28899170ed..0cda3b96beb 100644
--- a/gcc/vec.c
+++ b/gcc/vec.c
@@ -560,6 +560,9 @@ vec_c_tests ()
test_qsort ();
test_reverse ();
test_auto_delete_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> That swap couldn't have worked before because auto_vec eventually contains a
> pointer into itself. So the patch has improved things from broken to
> rejected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you don't want to support assignment you can still support swapping:
--- a/gcc/vec.h
+++ b/gcc/vec.h
@@ -1546,9 +1546,21 @@ public:
this->m_vec = r.m_vec;
r.m_vec = NULL;
}
+
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/vec.h b/gcc/vec.h
index d73d865cff2..c0e577893a3 100644
--- a/gcc/vec.h
+++ b/gcc/vec.h
@@ -1546,7 +1546,12 @@ public:
this->m_vec = r.m_vec;
r.m_vec = NULL;
}
- void ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
> >
> > --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> diff --git a/gcc/vec.h b/gcc/vec.h
> index d73d865cff2..c0e577893a3 100644
> --- a/gcc/vec.h
> +++ b/gcc/vec.h
> @@ -1546,7 +1546,12 @@ public:
>this-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> If you don't want to support assignment you can still support swapping:
>
> --- a/gcc/vec.h
> +++ b/gcc/vec.h
> @@ -1546,9 +1546,21 @@ public:
>thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
OK, adding explicit swap doesn't look worth the trouble (the object is just a
single pointer). Might be useful if we ever support std::move for auto_vec with N != 0. Which reminds me that still uses broke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #15 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> diff --git a/gcc/vec.h b/gcc/vec.h
> index d73d865cff2..c0e577893a3 100644
> --- a/gcc/vec.h
> +++ b/gcc/vec.h
> @@ -1546,7 +1546,12 @@ public:
>this->m_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
--- Comment #18 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #7)
> > > > Two questions in min
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7bfc4cd2c812a3197c09797796828459714f8849
commit r11-3459-g7bfc4cd2c812a3197c09797796828459714f8849
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
--- Comment #19 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
> >
> > --- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin ---
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #19)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> > On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #18)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #9)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > > > (In reply to K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
--- Comment #15 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #14)
> > Still I don't understand why compiler does not compare the cost of full loop
> > body after combining to the cost before combining and does not come to
> > conclusi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |diagnostic
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97208
Bug ID: 97208
Summary: [gcc 10.2.0] Microblaze regression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96814
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d16b5975ca985cbe97698479fc38b6a636886978
commit r11-3460-gd16b5975ca985cbe97698479fc38b6a636886978
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97197
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
--- Comment #16 from Alexander Monakov ---
Mostly because prior to register allocation the compiler does not naturally see
that x = *mem + a*b will need an extra mov when both 'a' and 'b' are live (as
in that case registers allocated for them can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
I can confirm the analysis, except that I see the edge we're trying to
add to the heap as already inlined (as a speculative edge it got
inlined even its caller was). Also just not adding an edge with
non-NU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |gcov-profile
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1921ebcaf6467996aede69e1bbe32400d8a20fe7
commit r11-3463-g1921ebcaf6467996aede69e1bbe32400d8a20fe7
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97197
--- Comment #4 from David Fink ---
Hi Jakub,
I tried to reduce the code as much as possible before reporting, which is why
the example has the "this != &o" check in the copy constructor.
The original code where I saw this problem had the "this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Vlad, do you plan to backport this to 10.3?
I guess so. We had enough time to test it. I don't see any complaints about
this patch. I'll backport it today
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
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=97201
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Just a correction to the comment:
+ /* Zero-length arrays have a null upper bound in C++ and
+SIZE_MAX in C. */
It's actually the other way around.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The decision to use null for the upper bound can be traced to this message:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2015-December/437361.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97045
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49272&action=edit
Updated patch
It turned out that with the original patch, character payloads of the unlimited
polymorphic array w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
so after Martin asked some good questions, it turns out this should probably be
avoided in ipa-prop, after all, as with, for example (untested):
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.c b/gcc/ipa-prop.c
index b28c78eeab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
--- Comment #17 from Alexander Monakov ---
To me this suggests that in fact it's okay to carry the combined form in RTL up
to register allocation, but RA should decompose it to load+fma instead of
inserting a register copy that preserves the live
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97209
Bug ID: 97209
Summary: TODO: building array references needs a big tidy up
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #45 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1788d74b05b7936e9e8dd01a8f66701ad2bc2951
commit r8-10536-g1788d74b05b7936e9e8dd01a8f66701ad2bc2951
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:957e37ac288fe6c40ee0bb98a0b06a85be8a35e3
commit r10-8800-g957e37ac288fe6c40ee0bb98a0b06a85be8a35e3
Author: Vladimir N.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:038b65f378b36624b1fd3867fa5e578c1bfa50cc
commit r10-8799-g038b65f378b36624b1fd3867fa5e578c1bfa50cc
Author: Vladimir N. M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97206
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
