https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87096
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I don't think we "preserve" exceptional behavior consistently. That is, we
happily change code with exceptional behavior to code without if the main
computation result is the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018, joey.ye at arm dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
>
> Joey Ye changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87096
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87111
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87111
Bug ID: 87111
Summary: erroneous builtin snprintf transformations
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80528
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||list+gcc-bugzilla@meyering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44520
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
--- Comment #6 from chengming at bjuci dot com.cn ---
Created attachment 44604
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44604&action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
--- Comment #5 from chengming at bjuci dot com.cn ---
Created attachment 44603
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44603&action=edit
output of gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
--- Comment #4 from chengming at bjuci dot com.cn ---
Created attachment 44602
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44602&action=edit
ELF file
compiled with command
gcc -v -save-temps -m32 -march=i386 -fcf-protection=none -o onlyR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87085
--- Comment #3 from chengming at bjuci dot com.cn ---
Created attachment 44601
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44601&action=edit
C source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52090
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
I believe this is probably a gdb bug. Calling the verify routine after each
step can corrupt the register state.
I don't see a way to save and restore all general registers in verify routine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63303
--- Comment #20 from Joshua Green ---
> "But if we don't know which pointer is greater, it gets more complicated:
> ..."
>
> I'm not sure that this is true. For types that are larger than 1 byte, it
> seems that one can do the subtraction after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
miltonkbenjamin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
--- Comment #7 from miltonkbenjamin ---
(In reply to miltonkbenjamin from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > (In reply to miltonkbenjamin from comment #0)
> > > Created attachment 44589 [details]
> > > Output from win
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86662
Jozef Lawrynowicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86647
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
--- Comment #6 from miltonkbenjamin ---
(In reply to miltonkbenjamin from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > (In reply to miltonkbenjamin from comment #0)
> > > Created attachment 44589 [details]
> > > Output from win
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87088
--- Comment #5 from miltonkbenjamin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to miltonkbenjamin from comment #0)
> > Created attachment 44589 [details]
> > Output from win_flex
> >
> > C:\parser>g++ -Xpreprocessor "C:\MinGW\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 44600
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44600&action=edit
Patch which has a problem
The attached patch shows how something could be done, but it
has one problem: The ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87110
Bug ID: 87110
Summary: tree check fail in to_wide, at tree.h:5523
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87109
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
I guess this can serve as a run-time testcase:
#include
struct C { int i; };
struct A {
operator C() & { return { 1 }; }
operator C() && { return { 2 }; }
};
C f(A a)
{
return a;
}
C f2(A a)
{
re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86760
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87109
Bug ID: 87109
Summary: Wrong overload picked with ref-qualifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87029
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87029
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sun Aug 26 16:45:51 2018
New Revision: 263863
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263863&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87029, Implement -Wredundant-move.
* c.opt (Wred
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87108
Bug ID: 87108
Summary: Template partial specialization is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sun Aug 26 16:31:27 2018
New Revision: 263862
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263862&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87080
* typeck.c (maybe_warn_pessimizing_move):
Hi,
I have found an ICE in the transaction memory extension while
compiling a program with gcc,but unfortunately for filing a bug in the
gcc bugzilla I am unable to reduce the buggy file with creduce .
I have included the command line option -fgnu-tm while compiling it.
Does creduce support transa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #6 from Petr ---
I think the test-case can even be simplified to something like this:
#include
#include
struct Point {
double x, y;
void reset(double x, double y) {
this->x = x;
this->y = y;
}
};
void f1(Point* p,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86481
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87050
--- Comment #9 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #6)
> A replacement for MetaHTML is already available, we just need to switch to
> using it.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg00176.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87107
Bug ID: 87107
Summary: Template instantiation is 50x slower than with clang++
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86704
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86704
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Aug 26 12:02:28 2018
New Revision: 263861
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263861&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-26 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR libf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
Bug ID: 87106
Summary: Group move and destruction of the source, where
possible, for speed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7)
> Furthermore, if I don't misread the standard, the expectation is that if an
> implementation does not support threads, it still recognizes _Thread_local
> and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #4 from Petr ---
I think this code is vectorizable without --fast-math. However, it seems that
once a min/max (or something else) is kept scalar it poisons the rest of the
code.
The following code works perfectly (scalar):
```
#incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
With -ffast-math we (awkwardly) vectorize a couple min/max at the beginning,
but clearly not the whole thing like llvm.
44 matches
Mail list logo
