https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70103
vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at suse dot de,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70103
Bug ID: 70103
Summary: gcc reports bad dependence and bails out of
vectorization for one of the bwaves loops.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That pseudo 156 is assigned a floating point reg (33, i.e. f1) by IRA. That
won't end well; this is a jump_insn so is required to work without reloads.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67364
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sun Mar 6 06:47:22 2016
New Revision: 234013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67364
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_store_expression): R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70102
Bug ID: 70102
Summary: Tree re-association prevents SLP vectorization at
-Ofast.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70101
Bug ID: 70101
Summary: Allocator-extended priority_queue constructors are
badly broken
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70058
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #6)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> > > The problem does not exist on Linux for sure. Not sure if thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hadrien-gcc at psydk dot org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67364
--- Comment #13 from Louis Dionne ---
Actually, the problem is much worse than I thought. It turns out that with -O1,
the following code does not pass the assertion:
#include
template
struct tuple {
Xn storage_;
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70092
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70079
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Bonzini ---
Yes, until combine there is the equivalent of
addl$512, %ecx;; 4
andl$-8, %ecx ;; 4.5
shrl$3, %ecx ;; 5
and combine is ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60149
Göran Uddeborg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70100
Bug ID: 70100
Summary: internal compiler error: in execute, at
cfgexpand.c:6066
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70099
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70058
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> > The problem does not exist on Linux for sure. Not sure if this is a TDM
> > distribution problem, a Windows problem, a Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70096
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70099
Bug ID: 70099
Summary: Function found by ADL, but shouldn't be visible at
point of definition
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #1 from Anton Blanchard ---
Created attachment 37876
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37876&action=edit
Test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
Bug ID: 70098
Summary: PowerPC64: eigen hits ICE in reload
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70079
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70097
Bug ID: 70097
Summary: Cannot assign ref-qualified non-static member function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70096
Bug ID: 70096
Summary: [Invalid codegen] Read of uninitialized value in
ref-qualified pointer to member function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
--- Comment #2 from sasho648 at gmail dot com ---
The bug occurs at the most simple 'gcc test_code.c' command.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67364
--- Comment #12 from Louis Dionne ---
The following code still fails to compile on GCC trunk:
template
struct tuple {
Xn storage_;
constexpr tuple(Xn const& xn)
: storage_(xn)
{ }
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70061
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson ---
Created attachment 37875
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37875&action=edit
proposed patch
Thanks, Jeff, the errant stack adjustment was a good hint.
The problem is that we are emitt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70095
Bug ID: 70095
Summary: [C++14] Link error on partially specialized variable
template
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766
Bug 27766 depends on bug 32317, which changed state.
Bug 32317 Summary: [bounds checking] No warning on bad arguments with explicit
interface
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32317
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32317
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33430
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fritzoreese at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68184
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maysam.kind at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70094
Bug ID: 70094
Summary: Missed optimization when passing a constant struct
argument by value
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70089
--- Comment #2 from aik at aol dot com.au ---
Oh, darn. Sorry - the page had timed out on me the first time and I thought it
hadn't gone through.
The first attempt at the post actually lacked some information and I had
included the wrong attachme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70088
Bug ID: 70088
Summary: ARM/THUMB unnecessarily typecasts some rvalues on
memory store
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70089
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
--- Comment #1 from sasho648 at gmail dot com ---
As a comment - I'll add that this feature looks fascinating and my personal
opinion is that code like this should be allowed.
I even suggest a way of allowing the return VM type access to the func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
Bug ID: 70093
Summary: Instancing function with VM type cases internal
compiler error in 'assign_stack_temp_for_type'.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70092
Bug ID: 70092
Summary: Enhance -Wunused-but-set-parameter when the parameter
is also read
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70091
Bug ID: 70091
Summary: Codegen emits dead load on x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45076
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This PR seems fixed for 4.9.3, 5.3.0, and trunk (6.0). The change occurred
> between revisions r201916 (2013-08-22, broken) and r202111 (2013-08-30).
> Could someone checks that the PR is actually fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70090
Bug ID: 70090
Summary: add non-constant variant of __builtin_object_size for
_FORTIFY_SOURCE and -fsanitize=object-size
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
44 matches
Mail list logo
