https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96327
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paulmckrcu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96327
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96345
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does c++filt demangle it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82263
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96362
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96362
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is documented on https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html too:
Confusion may also result if the compiler finds the GNU assembler but has not
been configured with --with-gnu-as.
...
The following system
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96387
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96421
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96448
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
v
An Altivec vector register (VR), v0…v31.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96452
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96521
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-10
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] Wrong|Wrong evaluation of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96589
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Doesn't using -o /dev/null work in dg-options ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96586
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96387
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96603
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12086
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96610
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE: in |ICE: in
|gimplify_va_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96387
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96625
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.3|9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||blashyrkh at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafael_andreas at hotmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Do we ever transverse the hashtable that use symbolic_binding? If so using the
pointer value should almost never use really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > Do we ever transverse the hashtable that use symbolic_binding? If so using
> > the pointer value should almost ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
> There are a few places I'm hashing based on trees, for constants and types.
> Is there a good way to hash those? (avoiding pointer values)
Maybe iterative_hash_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87256
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikulas at artax dot
karlin.mff.cu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96649
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96606
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to RyuaNerin from comment #2)
> Unsigned long int is 64bit integer in x64.
Or rather unsigned long on x86 Linux is 64 bits while on x86 Windows, it is
32bits.
There is no bug with GCC here still.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96664
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96733
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96752
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> But I can't use standard LTO because my project contains C and CPP files
> which is compiled with different configuration flags.
That should not matter in new enough GCCs as GCC record the options per
fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96753
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96754
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96773
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96774
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/google/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96709
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-24
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|All |x86_64-linux-gnu
Component|rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61372
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> extern "C" functions can throw, so it would be wrong to unconditionally
> assume they can't.
Yes that is correct. Even extern "C" functions could be written i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96776
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Matheus Izvekov from comment #5)
> There is one small issue with this though, but is even smaller, in that if
> foo body was visible, and it did not escape that reference further, the tail
> call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-24
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96788
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
__int128 should not be used with respect to the type at all. __int128 is NOT
extended integer type:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96829
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just in case, does adding -fno-strict-aliasing help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96845
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96845
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Bernhard Rosenkraenzer from comment #0)
> Some Linux distributions have a workaround for this in their gcc packaging -
> they replace libgcc_s.so with an ld script that pulls in libgcc if needed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96847
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like there is some IV-OPTs issue and that the limited registers is
causing spilling and that add range is causing the need for more register
usage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96807
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96674
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96672
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely the patch which moves the warning to gimple would help here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-October/530995.html
But I have not seen any movement on it since last year but I could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96869
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmmm, so you dont want to allow generic vector types? This is unlike GNU c/C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96875
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is a defect report against the C standard about this case and a much
older gcc bugzilla filed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14319
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96907
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
putc was added by g-b53b5aa509
fputc has been there since before 2003.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96939
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is related to or a dup of bug 96882.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||25290
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96970
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought you have to set the seed if you want a reproductable binary in this
case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96990
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think it was only broken for GCC 10.2.0 and has already been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96993
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is there any reason why you didn't use offsetof/__builtin_offsetof here?
Instead of playing tricks like:
(tUint8 *)(&((struct tmm_blk_free_head_t *)0)->ql.column_list)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97025
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
malloc is not controlled by gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97033
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97086
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97154
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This looks valid to me.
spec.empty () || spec.end ()[-1] != ' '
Means if it empty or the last element is a space.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97156
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92149
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI, missed-optimization
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92197
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91766
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Kamlesh Kumar from comment #9)
> This fixes it.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> index 2e73f3515bb..6fb87d5f49f 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92220
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
No i think there is one case where what you said is incorrect. When both are
INT_MIN.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92227
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92233
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
401 - 500 of 29079 matches
Mail list logo