https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #15)
> So this is the irritating corner case where the two options are linked.
>
> *If* we are using -mindirect-branch-cs-prefix, then we intend to rewrite
> `jmp __x86_in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #4)
> > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > > There might be another bug
mp .LIND0
.LIND1:
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
mov %rax, (%rsp)
ret
int3 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Is this needed?
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1:
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.0 20211027 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-tgl-2 pr102952]$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96441
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Cooper ---
Yes to both.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51684|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Cooper ---
Actually, there is a (possibly pre-existing) diagnostics issue:
$ cat proto.c
static void __attribute__((cf_check)) foo(void);
static void __attribute__((unused)) foo(void)
{
}
void (*ptr)(void) = foo;
$ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102976
Bug ID: 102976
Summary: MMA test case emits wrong code when building a vector
pair
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102976
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chip.kerchner at ibm dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102976
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102944
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Bug ID: 102977
Summary: [GCC12 regression] vectorizer failed to generate
complex fma.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102976
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51672|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #8)
> Actually, there is a (possibly pre-existing) diagnostics issue:
>
> $ cat proto.c
> static void __attribute__((cf_check)) foo(void);
> static void __attribute__((unu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102946
--- Comment #6 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Hi Rainer and Richard,
Thanks for working on this PR.
The intention of these test cases (pr101145*) is to test if the number
of iterations can be calculated for the loop with the 'until wrap'
condition.
So,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58798
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||trivial_translation_nits
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90148
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79183
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||40883
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90183
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93759
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Bug 40883 depends on bug 93759, which changed state.
Bug 93759 Summary: Invalid % in param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93759
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94698
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93855
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93854
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||40883
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93852
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90179
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90164
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90182
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90160
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90041
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, easyhack
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80760
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||40883
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79093
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66928
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||40883
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9222481ffc69a6c0b73ec81e1bf04289fa3db0ed
commit r12-4757-g9222481ffc69a6c0b73ec81e1bf04289fa3db0ed
Author: Xionghu Luo
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f9ef1339e9d0d709af6a70b60e584bf7decd761
commit r12-4758-g5f9ef1339e9d0d709af6a70b60e584bf7decd761
Author: Xionghu Luo
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102978
Bug ID: 102978
Summary: Function/Struct declaration with absent semicolon that
is put before including standard header results in
wall of errors with no indication of the actual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102979
Bug ID: 102979
Summary: GCC gives wrong error for struct definitions without
semicolon, despite G++ doing so
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note st2 does the opposite of ld2 while doing the storing of the vector.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-28
Summary|[12 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #5 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Oh you mean fcmla.
> Never mind.
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> it is easier to understand what is going wrong with:
> #include
>
> void
> foo (_C
101 - 151 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
