https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-23
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104434
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
OpenBLAS issue filed as https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/issues/3543
suggesting the use of __attribute__((const)) on LAPACKE_lsame.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104670
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-23
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102232
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68350
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104657
--- Comment #4 from Christoph Müllner ---
Thanks for mentioning the volatile pointer method.
However, the pragma-solution results in better code (fewer instructions and
does not require a valid stack pointer).
I've used the code below to see wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84519
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104657
--- Comment #5 from Christoph Müllner ---
Creating hard-wired object references might be a solution, but there is a lot
of existing code out there, that would need to be patched (including all the
hassle with support for old and new compilers).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104665
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104664
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104661
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Catching exception by const |[C++17+] Catching exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104661
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102719
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104256
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104335
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104434
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aee1adf2cdc1cf4e116e5c05b6e7c92b0fbb264b
commit r12-7364-gaee1adf2cdc1cf4e116e5c05b6e7c92b0fbb264b
Author: David Malcolm
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104434
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98202
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104640
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-24
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103196
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103407
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh dear, yes, wrong patch. I'll attach the right one in a few hours.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102485
--- Comment #8 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> > GCC already passes -m to the assembler though.
>
> That mostly is historic.
So? I was pointing out the compiler already tells the assembler what
instr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102485
--- Comment #9 from Nicholas Piggin ---
And upstream gas still doesn't even warn with -many!!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104666
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104671
Bug ID: 104671
Summary: -Wa,-m no longer has any effect
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104671
--- Comment #1 from Nicholas Piggin ---
The comment in recent binutils.git commit cebc89b9328 sheds some more light on
this and possibly provides a workaround in binutils for the errant .machine
directive.
The referenced gcc bug #101393 looks l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104671
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nicholas Piggin from comment #1)
> The comment in recent binutils.git commit cebc89b9328 sheds some more light
> on this and possibly provides a workaround in binutils for the errant
> .machine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104666
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
So builtins are registered in the beginning, but isa checking is during
pass_expand, and gimple folding is between them, maybe we should restrict
builtin gimple folding under their required target.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101323
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103353
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
*** Bug 101323 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104663
--- Comment #3 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
Also -O3 is 50% faster which sounds unreasonable.
-O2 with GCC12 is 75% slower than -O3 for GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx was added to prevent combine from changing
> store of vector registers with constant value to store of constant
> value. You can change ix86_g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104610
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
Don't worry about vzeroupper.
It's ok to have vzeroupper.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104666
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> So builtins are registered in the beginning, but isa checking is during
> pass_expand, and gimple folding is between them, maybe we should restrict
> builtin gimple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104666
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Same ICE exists for
__builtin_ia32_blendvpd
__builtin_ia32_blendvps
__builtin_ia32_blendvpd256
__builtin_ia32_blendvps256
__builtin_ia32_pblendvb128
__builtin_ia32_pblenddvb256
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104672
Bug ID: 104672
Summary: C++ frontend failing when function pointer argument
types contain a parameter pack
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
101 - 140 of 140 matches
Mail list logo