https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83696
Bug ID: 83696
Summary: false positive warning when [[fallthrough]] is inside
of if statement
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83685
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83694
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-*-* |powerpc64*-*-*, sparc*-*-*
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83684
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83695
Bug ID: 83695
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O3: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82801
gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
Bug 45689 depends on bug 47988, which changed state.
Bug 47988 Summary: ICE: in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at postreload.c:403:
insn does not satisfy its constraints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47988
What|Remov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47988
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83626
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Gunnerson ---
Thanks for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83693
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83622
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
That's what I have been trying to find out :-)
It's jogging my memory but I cannot for the life of me rememeber what
it was about.
Paul
On 4 January 2018 at 22:00, anlauf at gmx dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83566
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83555
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83607
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83626
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83694
Bug ID: 83694
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/pr83666.c from r256232 ICEs on
powerpc64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83626
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 4 22:58:59 2018
New Revision: 256269
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/83626 Don't throw for remove("") and remove_all("")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83693
Bug ID: 83693
Summary: missing strlen optimization for array of arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83692
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at doublewise dot net
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83692
Bug ID: 83692
Summary: Rejects valid constexpr with unrelated code fixing
problem
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
In general case yes, this can produce a lot of false positives. I wanted to use
this only for strings stored in fixed-size buffer. Existing string-related
warnings already uses this information, and this r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #20 from Peter Bergne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83622
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
trans-array.c has:
/* Returns true if the expression is an array pointer. */
static bool
is_pointer_array (tree expr)
{
if (flag_openmp)
return false;
[...]
Is there a reason behind this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83554
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83046
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83554
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 4 21:54:23 2018
New Revision: 256268
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83554
* config/i386/i386.md (*hi3_1 splitter): U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83121
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00257.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning does see that range (it's in the output of the -fdump-tree-vrp
option). The challenge with using ranges is to avoid false positives from
excessive bounds. For sizes, typically only the lower boun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #39 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Jan 4 21:47:35 2018
New Revision: 256267
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256267&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid Solaris/SPARC comparison failures with Solaris as (PR bootstrap/81926)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 43037
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43037&action=edit
proposed UNTESTED patch
Everything is so easy once Jeff does all the analysis :).
As mentioned, there is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 4 21:13:17 2018
New Revision: 256266
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/82352
* g++.dg/ipa/pr82352.C (size_t): Define to __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
--- Comment #6 from Ville Voutilainen ---
As stated in the other comments, this breaks *users* of existing Qt versions.
Any fix would apply to newer versions only. QVector bit-blasts an object of a
type with a virtual table over an object of that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83683
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585
Bug 20585 depends on bug 45689, which changed state.
Bug 45689 Summary: [F03] Missing transformational intrinsic in the
trans_func_f2003 list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31392
Bug 31392 depends on bug 45689, which changed state.
Bug 45689 Summary: [F03] Missing transformational intrinsic in the
trans_func_f2003 list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30932
Bug 30932 depends on bug 45689, which changed state.
Bug 45689 Summary: [F03] Missing transformational intrinsic in the
trans_func_f2003 list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83683
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Jan 4 21:04:23 2018
New Revision: 256265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-04 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/83683
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Jan 4 21:04:23 2018
New Revision: 256265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-04 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/83683
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
> There is nothing to indicate that the first call to memcpy() in comment #0
> overlaps so -Wrestrict doesn't warn for it.
I thought that fix for bug 83373 will somehow help here. gcc could guess that
mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83679
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't consider this a regression. The warnings are justified and it wasn't a
design goal to let casts suppress them. I agree it would be useful for
compatibility with Clang (that's why I raised the bug), b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83679
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jan 4 20:18:58 2018
New Revision: 256264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-04 Steven G. Kargl
PR Fortran/83679
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83679
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jan 4 20:16:23 2018
New Revision: 256263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-04 Steven G. Kargl
PR Fortran/83679
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
There is nothing to indicate that the first call to memcpy() in comment #0
overlaps so -Wrestrict doesn't warn for it.
One thing to note is that the warning treats raw memory functions slightly
differently th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83679
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.2 |6.4
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83679
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83679
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83507
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
I've managed to generate a couple of additional testcases for this PR in
December. Next week I'll check whether this ICE is still there w/ my setup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83691
Bug ID: 83691
Summary: Invalid gpr_reg_operand handling in powerpcspe port
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83690
Bug ID: 83690
Summary: [8 regression] spurious unused variable warings for
variables used only in static_assert
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Looks that something is not working properly. I have pasted output from
compilation of function in 1st post, and -Wrestrict complained only about last
memcpy call. Please take a look on this.
BTW, string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83689
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
#include
struct X { X() {} };
void test01()
{
static_assert(std::is_trivially_constructible::value);
}
ICEs too (but not std::is_constructible).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83585
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83585
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 4 17:47:55 2018
New Revision: 256256
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256256&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/83585
* bb-reorder.c (insert_section_boundary_not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83689
Bug ID: 83689
Summary: Internal compiler error using
is_trivially_default_constructible on array of
nontrivially-destructible types
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82922
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83559
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Fixed in r256188.
Thanks for the quick fix! One thing I'm still wondering, though, what's the
recommended way for maintaining compatibility with old compilers tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
This also would allow to catch code which use sprintf to concatenate strings,
what is an undefined behavior (snippet from
https://linux.die.net/man/3/snprintf):
sprintf(buf, "%s some further text", buf);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83667
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Jan 4 15:49:28 2018
New Revision: 256254
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/83667] Fix tree_dump ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
Bug ID: 83688
Summary: Please check if buffers may overlap when copying
strings
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352
--- Comment #6 from Holger Hopp ---
The patch fixes my >10 original issues with gcc-7.
It also fixes similar (other, fewer) issues with gcc-6 (gcc-6.2.1 was ok,
gcc-6.3.1 not ok, with patch ok).
So please downport this patch also to gcc-6 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83687
Bug ID: 83687
Summary: ARM NEON invalid optimisation for vabd/vabdl
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82882
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83686
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82096
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83686
Bug ID: 83686
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE (segfault) in determine_visibility
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83683
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Another thing that is incorrectly accepted, also with
-fcheck=bounds:
program main
implicit none
integer :: n
integer :: i,n1, n2, n3
character(len=3), parameter :: e(2,3,4) =
reshape([(repeat(achar(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83685
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
$ cat score.i
int b;
char c;
int _setjmp();
void a();
void d() {
int e;
while (b) {
if (_setjmp())
a(e);
if (c) {
e--;
a();
}
e++;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83680
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
And I bet the solution will be to handle empty classes in
split_nonconstant_init_1 or somewhere similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83680
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Jan 4 14:39:03 2018
New Revision: 256251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR83680: Inverted test in arm_vectorize_vec_perm_const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
--- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Jan 4 14:36:35 2018
New Revision: 256250
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83387
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_discov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83685
Bug ID: 83685
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83466
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
This also fixes the original failure: miscompiled efl that causes python3-efl
to fail to build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83684
Bug ID: 83684
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE in maybe_diag_overlap, at
gimple-ssa-warn-restrict.c:1371
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83683
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Here's what happens.
We get the "flows off" error because:
4151 if (tree init = DECL_INITIAL (r))
4152 {
4153 init = cxx_eval_constant_expression (ctx, init,
4154
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83683
Bug ID: 83683
Summary: eoshift accepts wrong-length boundary
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83628
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
On a related note, gcc-5 (-O2) was able to also simplify:
int test (int a, int b, int c)
{
return (a < b) * 4 + c;
}
cmplt $16,$17,$17
s4addl $17,$18,$0
ret $31,($26),1
where gcc-8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83682
Bug ID: 83682
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg, at
simplify-rtx.c:6296
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83507
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83507
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I cannot reproduce this on either powerpc-linux or powerpc64-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83554
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Comment on attachment 43035
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43035
gcc8-pr83554.patch
>(any_rotate:HI (match_dup 0) (const_int 8)))
> (clobber (reg:CC FLAGS_REG))]
> "reload_comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83628
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The MULT is not canonical.
For some reason we do not realise we can do the ASHIFT as SI instead of DI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83628
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83681
Bug ID: 83681
Summary: epiphany: config/epiphany/epiphany.h:883:8: error:
unknown type name 'rtl_opt_pass'
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83627
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Tangentially related: Bug 60262
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83666
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
