https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101969
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101964
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101971
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101972
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-19
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101974
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101966
--- Comment #5 from frans at fransdb dot nl ---
On 8/18/21 10:09 PM, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101966
>
> --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
> Why are you overriding CC_FOR_TARGET?
>
> All bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101970
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Summary|[11 regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101972
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101974
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101966
--- Comment #6 from frans at fransdb dot nl ---
I noticed that you are not using the --build switch, but rather the --target
switch. I tried that too - without the --build switch - to no avail.
I shall study your setup and report back with my res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101905
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I think adding the location early is most sensible in this case. As you saw
that might need tickling down adjustments or maybe a special-case of
DECL_REGISTER globals, bypassing most of the
add_location_or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89961
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to xaizek from comment #20)
> The patch works! I think you actually implemented behaviour of `-p` for `-l`
> (you hash path in the code and don't process includes). `-l` doesn't seem to
> make much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89961
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51316|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101950
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:301dc6011cbceb7ea9debd86aaec7cadb37213c8
commit r12-3017-g301dc6011cbceb7ea9debd86aaec7cadb37213c8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101965
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=101965
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
At least I got the branch prediction right though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100139
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101975
Bug ID: 101975
Summary: ICE with '-g' for x86 named address spaces
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101976
Bug ID: 101976
Summary: When constructing object, calling function and
performing co_await in same statement, temporary is
erroneously moved trivially
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87626
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-19
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101975
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.1, 11.2.1, 12.0
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101975
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r8-4385-ga297ccb52e0c894e.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101975
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with '-g' for x86 named |[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101977
Bug ID: 101977
Summary: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100139
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:926d4a71c7e5a2f7d17a4f943d6e7fe9f1e3ba55
commit r12-3021-g926d4a71c7e5a2f7d17a4f943d6e7fe9f1e3ba55
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101960
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0187e0d7360f327f88d8b2294668669306ae4630
commit r12-3022-g0187e0d7360f327f88d8b2294668669306ae4630
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4285ca3e1c4a6c9540dcdf1c4a71b99aba9bbfe8
commit r12-3024-g4285ca3e1c4a6c9540dcdf1c4a71b99aba9bbfe8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76174
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
I would argue that this isn't a range issue.
Looking at the code generated without the c *= 2 I see:
:
goto ; [INV]
:
if (q_1 == r_6(D))
goto ; [INV]
else
goto ; [INV]
:
m ();
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101965
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85a709595005b5df4b2ee9d81717a5df19c0023f
commit r12-3025-g85a709595005b5df4b2ee9d81717a5df19c0023f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100139
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31433e154f5eecb17151d77b259b13d41c0b8e7c
commit r11-8886-g31433e154f5eecb17151d77b259b13d41c0b8e7c
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100139
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:321ff3ad38e05096abc4de6d3bb2150cc0f75d91
commit r10-10047-g321ff3ad38e05096abc4de6d3bb2150cc0f75d91
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101960
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk, but I plan to backport it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101978
Bug ID: 101978
Summary: thread sanitizer false positive when smart pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101979
Bug ID: 101979
Summary: aarch64: wrong code with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101980
Bug ID: 101980
Summary: [12 regressions] many test case failures after
r12-3002
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101981
Bug ID: 101981
Summary: GCC10 produces bigger asm for simple switch than GCC7
- cortexM4
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101982
Bug ID: 101982
Summary: function parameter should not accept auto as
placeholder-type-specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101980
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101982
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101982
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> GCC 7 has been unsupported for more than two years,
Actually slightly less than two years (since November 2019). But it's still
unsupported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101924
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by John David Anglin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07b4100683e55023a78576cb8c75d8e40e41f44f
commit r12-3028-g07b4100683e55023a78576cb8c75d8e40e41f44f
Author: John David Anglin
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101924
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101983
Bug ID: 101983
Summary: analyzer leak false positives building singly linked
list
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101984
Bug ID: 101984
Summary: [12 Regression] gimple-ssa-warn-access memory leak
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: GC
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101984
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101975
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100530
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100767
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59b5e629a7e4544dc7830638bc20f388c14ef7c8
commit r10-10048-g59b5e629a7e4544dc7830638bc20f388c14ef7c8
Author: Richard Ear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100767
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:255fe52e8ad859f59bb863ad75d00fa84caa88bd
commit r9-9682-g255fe52e8ad859f59bb863ad75d00fa84caa88bd
Author: Richard Earnsh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100530
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||88094
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100530
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101978
--- Comment #1 from pavlick ---
Apparently this is due to condition_variable, if it is commented
//while (! cv.wait_for(lck, 1s, [&sh_ptr](){
// return sh_ptr->processed == true;}) && true);
then there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100767
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83247
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101984
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=83171
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-11-26 00:00:00 |2021-8-19
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82582
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82582
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101985
Bug ID: 101985
Summary: vec_cpsgn parameter order
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85987
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
We are now able to handle the testcase in comment #0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13563
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86723
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-07-29 00:00:00 |2021-8-19
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101984
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81501087758cb0c32e555858cf367e449a09246e
commit r12-3031-g81501087758cb0c32e555858cf367e449a09246e
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101984
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d881460deb1f0bdfc3e8fa2d391a03a9763cbff4
commit r12-3033-gd881460deb1f0bdfc3e8fa2d391a03a9763cbff4
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87627
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-10-17 00:00:00 |2021-8-19
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95389
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Teichert ---
After running out of disk space during stage2 of the gcc build, I now have a
gcc 11.2.0 compiled for sparc64:
ristkon:~> gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101246
--- Comment #6 from Lance Fredrickson ---
So I compared runtime.inc in gcc 10.3 and gcc 11.1, and they have quite a bit
different. I tried using the runtime.inc file from 10.3 in 11.1, and it does
allow it to finish compiling, and I appear to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53101
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670
Bug 88670 depends on bug 53101, which changed state.
Bug 53101 Summary: Recognize casts to sub-vectors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53101
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101982
--- Comment #3 from qingzhe huang ---
Thank you for clarifications!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48037
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86541
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57601
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is fixed in GCC 10+ with the patches do do 64bit vector support in SSE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101986
Bug ID: 101986
Summary: go, sparc64: Segmentation violation during kubernetes
build
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79709
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89081
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101952
Thomas Petazzoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.petazzoni@free-elect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25671
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note there is a bug in the original testcase.
It should be:
int test_bit(unsigned long *words, int bit)
{
int wsize = (sizeof *words) * 8;
return (words[bit / wsize] & (1ul << (bit % wsize))) != 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25671
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
With the fixed testcase we get:
movq%rsi, %rax
movq%rsi, %rcx
shrq$6, %rax
andl$63, %ecx
movq(%rdi,%rax,8), %rax
shrq%cl, %rax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101915
Thomas Petazzoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.petazzoni@free-elect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101916
Thomas Petazzoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.petazzoni@free-elect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101987
Bug ID: 101987
Summary: gcc 10.3.1 fails to generate debugging information for
aarch64 .S files
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101987
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101977
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101977
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101987
--- Comment #2 from Dietmar May ---
$ /opt/linaro/10.3.1/bin/aarch64-none-elf-gcc -v -g src/boot.S -c
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/linaro/10.3.1/bin/aarch64-none-elf-gcc
Target: aarch64-none-elf
Configured with: /data/jenkins/workspace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101987
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89961
--- Comment #23 from xaizek ---
> it should be fixed in the updated version of the patch.
Yes, it is.
> Right now, one can easily detect JSON format with
> `gcov --help | grep json-format`, am I right? What type of capability would
> you apprec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101987
Dietmar May changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Dietmar May --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101988
Bug ID: 101988
Summary: Accepts invalid new-expression of array of deduced
class template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86440
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike ---
gcc 11.2 changes it somewhat:
a.c:1:5: warning: type qualifiers ignored on function return type
[-Wignored-qualifiers]
1 | int const f() { return 0; }
| ^
a.c:3:13: warning: type qualifiers i
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
