https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94230
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94224
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94223
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> lhd_set_decl_assembler_name seems to only do this for local decls though
> so it shouldn't matter for actual generated code but is just a
> compare-debug artifac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94230
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We do not want to use 64-bit number for that, it is used everywhere in the
compiler and would cause massive growth of compile time memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94230
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48073
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48073&action=edit
gcc10-pr92264-wip.patch
WIP patch to try special casing cselib handling of stack pointer VALUEs.
The intent is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some incremental progress, but still ICEs...
--- gcc/cselib.c2020-03-20 17:42:02.333023994 +0100
+++ gcc/cselib.c2020-03-20 19:23:33.506622424 +0100
@@ -58,6 +58,16 @@
static void cselib_inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48075
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48075&action=edit
gcc10-pr92264-wip.patch
Updated patch, which doesn't ICE anymore, and creates 10500 instead of 12000
VALUEs du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94248
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93873
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is not going to be fixed in GCC 9, only in 10, where it should be fixed
already.
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 94239 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48081
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48081&action=edit
gcc10-pr92264-wip.patch
Further updated patch, this one passes bootstrap on both x86_64-linux and
i686-linux a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94272
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think another reason why this FAILs is that the IF_STMTs that the FE emits
initially have TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS set, because those are tcc_statement and for
those make_node sets TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS. While generi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94272
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48090
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48090&action=edit
gcc10-pr94272.patch
Untested hack (admittedly quite ugly) that seems to fix this testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94276
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94277
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the real problem is r6-3345-g4ec39494ac756ee9525371d2225f55f18200d8e0 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94277
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually even older. Anyway, this is another case where -w affects
-fcompare-debug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94277
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94283
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Latent since r5-6439-ge9d5a1a001f798a90fe6fcb031138740ce6ffb36.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #7 f
|--- |DUPLICATE
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 94239 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
|1
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|rtl-optimization|target
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48098&action=edit
gcc10-pr94286.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94247
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] Spurious
|Spurious -Wconversion |-Wconversion warning with
|warning with|-fsanitize=undefined since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] gcc:|[8/9 Regression] gcc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] gfortran: |[9 Regression] gfortran:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94277
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] error:|[9 Regression] error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94286
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94296
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is yet another test that should be dg-skip-if -fcompare-debug and
-fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables.
The code is different depending on the __GCC_HAVE_DWARF2_CFI_ASM macro, which
is dependent on whether -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94291
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94291
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is on try_combine on:
(gdb) p debug_rtx (i3)
(insn 20 12 22 2 (set (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 102 sfp)
(const_int -4 [0xfffc])) [1 x+0 S4 A32])
(reg:SI 125)) "pr9429
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48104
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48104&action=edit
gcc10-pr94292.patch
Untested fix.
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94300
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48105
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48105&action=edit
gcc10-pr94300.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94223
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48106
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48106&action=edit
gcc10-pr94223.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94303
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Jonathan has bisected this to my
r9-4877-gfaa9232da39587b27b46341667d6d415d2af9280 change (though, as the patch
shows, the bug is actually that varasm.c didn't handle RANGE_EXPRs properly
during output_constr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94303
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48107&action=edit
gcc10-pr94303.patch
Full untested patch.
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -mfpmath=sse -mavx2 -mfma" } */
#include
void
foo (float *x, const float *y, cons
|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with my r10-6451-gb7b3378f91c0641f2ef4d88db22af62a571c9359 change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94308
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48109
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48109&action=edit
gcc10-pr94308.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94300
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94223
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] Program |[8/9 Regression] Program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94296
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, the testcase doesn't fail even with -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
-fcompare-debug -fexceptions, , so I don't see how one can reproduce it in make
check, even
make check-gcc
RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94307
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, they could just make them alias of each other, that is not the big deal,
I guess they don't want to waste .rodata space on the data that provides the
details to those functions and waste .text on passin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94308
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94320
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48117|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94292
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, far from it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81349
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|1
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r9-3352
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94340
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |8.5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |c++
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94326
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
$ rm -f pr94326.C.*; ./cc1plus -quiet -std=c++11 pr94326.C -Wreturn-local-addr
-da; grep REG_EH_REGION pr94326.C.*
pr94326.C: In instantiation of ‘const int& A<
>::m_fn1() [with = int]’:
pr94326.C:5:45: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94273
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94326
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/cp/call.c.jj2020-03-25 08:05:07.153731580 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/call.c 2020-03-26 15:03:42.432909693 +0100
@@ -333,11 +333,14 @@ set_flags_from_callee (tree call)
&& internal_fn_flags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc-9: error: use_only.f90: |[8/9/10 Regression] error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I was thinking about
--- gcc/config/i386/sse.md.jj 2020-03-06 11:35:46.284074858 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/sse.md 2020-03-26 17:35:23.690515228 +0100
@@ -12800,10 +12800,18 @@
(xor:VI (match_op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48127
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48127&action=edit
gcc10-pr94343.patch
That of course doesn't work if the input operand is memory. This should.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, there are other issues. There is only vpternlog{d,q}, so for
V*[QH]Imode we shouldn't pretend we have masking support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48127|0 |1
is obsolete|
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
#define ATTR(...) __attribute__ ((__VA_ARGS__))
typedef struct ATTR (packed) A { ATTR (packed) unsigned bf: 1; } A;
int bar (void);
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94346
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-pr94343.c.jj 2020-03-26
17:47:40.008654504 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-pr94343.c 2020-03-26
17:48:37.169811375 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/* PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94346
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The COMPOUND_EXPRs should be handled like their second operand by
handle_copy_attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to jbeulich from comment #13)
> As to using 512-bit operations even on more narrow input types - is this
> correct when e.g. subsequently source code upcasts the vector? I.e. would
> such an upcast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to jbeulich from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> > Though, there are other issues. There is only vpternlog{d,q}, so for
> > V*[QH]Imode we shouldn't pretend we have ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The patch I've posted -
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-March/542774.html - solves it by
disabling the problematic masked cases in the condition. Or we could just
disable the masking on the i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90811
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For offloading it is very harmful. Which is why I'd strongly prefer to do it
after IPA, on the other side doing it at expansion time is too late.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94356
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93786
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48133&action=edit
gcc10-pr93786.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48135
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48135&action=edit
gcc10-pr93573.patch
For the error-recovery ICE, we can just make sure that after errors the type
isn't assumed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93572
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94290
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
401 - 500 of 42681 matches
Mail list logo
