https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Kretz ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #7)
> What does this do?
>
> auto __hi_exp =
> __hi & simd<_T, _Abi>(std::numeric_limits<_T>::infinity()); // no error
component-wise bitwise and of __hi and +inf. Or i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59345
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Jan 11 06:32:10 2019
New Revision: 267829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-11 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/59345
* trans-ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59345
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
So, test case #1 is fixed.
Scrolling down, there are still a few more to be done, so I'll
leave it open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88629
--- Comment #4 from Cheng Wen ---
Hi, does anyone here to look at this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83773
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Warning for redefined macro |Create new switch,
|do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80733
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
is this related to any of the new -Wtype-limits bugs that have been
filed/updated lately?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 88327, which changed state.
Bug 88327 Summary: Implement P0515R3, P0905R1, P1120R0, C++20 std concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88329
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 88327 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 88327, which changed state.
Bug 88327 Summary: Implement P0515R3, P0905R1, P1120R0, C++20 std concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47235
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35031
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88576
--- Comment #14 from Zack Weinberg ---
I don't see why it would _ever_ make sense for -fno-alloc-errno to default to
the setting of -fno-math-errno. The math functions and the memory allocation
functions are independent components of the C libra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
It might be possible for some. I'm not sure how successful it would be for
others. The thread_jumps pass runs four times and moving the warn_restrict
pass before its first instance results in dozens of regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Some if not all has been fixed on the trunk. There was just a few weeks ago a
bug that asked for the similar thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for missing this message. You're right.
Ditto for sph_legendre.
Putting together a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I looked at where the code is hanging and it looks like it is hung in a loop
where it keeps calling memcpy with an incrementing by 1 length.
I set a breakpoint at the start of memcpy to break if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 23:20:19 2019
New Revision: 267825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88785
* config/i386/sse.md (floatv2div2sf2): Tur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
Bug ID: 88799
Summary: Arm -mcpu=PROCESSOR does not result in assembly
directives for .arch and .arch_extension
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
Bug ID: 88798
Summary: AVX512BW code does not use bit-operations that work on
mask registers
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Of course only for equality comparisons, for non-equality the code is ok as is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems it is the:
/* When the addresses are not directly of decls compare base and offset.
This implements some remaining parts of fold_comparison address
comparisons but still no complete part of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unfortunately the #c11 patch breaks the
20_util/function_objects/comparisons_pointer.cc testcase (wonder if your VRP
patch would break it too), where the testcase does exactly what has been
discussed on IRC:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88613
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
--- Comment #4 from Cassio Neri ---
Comment on attachment 45408
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45408
Running example
The magic numbers 4, 6, 7, 0x24924924u and 0xb6db6db7u were chosen in an
attempt to maximize the probabili
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87305
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Jan 10 21:02:50 2019
New Revision: 267823
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267823&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/87305
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
--- Comment #3 from Cassio Neri ---
The attached file is running example that shows that performance is damaged.
The code runs faster when test_f calls g instead of f where g is
bool g(unsigned x, unsigned y) {
if (x >= y) return false;
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
--- Comment #2 from Cassio Neri ---
Created attachment 45408
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45408&action=edit
Running example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
Bug ID: 88797
Summary: Unneeded branch added when function is inlined
(function runs faster if not inlined)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #8 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #6)
> > How precise is hypot supposed to be? I know it is supposed to try and avoid
> > spurious overflow/underflow, but I am not convinced that it should ai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
Created attachment 45407
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45407&action=edit
Self-contained testcase
I've been able to produce a self-contained testcase, which may aid
debugging.
While re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk. Closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We also use magic alias set e.g. directly in RTL DSE
(ALIAS_SET_MEMORY_BARRIER).
Anyway, there are multiple MEMs that need to be treated specially. For the TLS
cases, it is e.g. on x86_64:
(insn 15 27 16 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88778
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> This is due to nonexistent SCmode patterns. I guess that movsc pattern is
> needed here.
Can IRA allocate registers for SCmode and DCmode?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Wonder if we e.g. could use some magic alias set, magic MEM_EXPR or whatever
> else to teach RTL DSE about this.
> The severity of this is IMHO high because most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 10 18:58:08 2019
New Revision: 267821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267821&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-10 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88792
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jan 10 18:45:38 2019
New Revision: 267820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/86322
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Wonder if we e.g. could use some magic alias set, magic MEM_EXPR or whatever
else to teach RTL DSE about this.
The severity of this is IMHO high because most of the distro vendors compile
everything with -fst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Bug ID: 88796
Summary: -fstack-protector* kills RTL DSE opportunities
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Yeah, on GCC users' side I think there's a demand for both: treating UB as
unreachable (e.g. on tiny systems with heavy program size constraints) and
transforming UB to a trap briefly annotated with sourc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, the stage1-gcc compiled tree-ssa-sccvn.o is identical no matter whether
-fno-checking or -fchecking=1 was used, and doesn't fail -fcompare-debug with
either, so it is simply that something is miscompile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #12 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
I think this messages look really good!
I believe that this contains everything required to actually work on improving
automatic unswitching, thank you very much!
Do you think that there is a chance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What does this do?
auto __hi_exp =
__hi & simd<_T, _Abi>(std::numeric_limits<_T>::infinity()); // no error
Sorry, I have no simd knowlege yet.
Anyway, doesn't the large scale risk overflow i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88774
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2)
> The startup overhead isn't the problem. The asymptotic performance is
> really bad, too. (I hope I didn't botch my test, though. It's vaguely
> based on w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for the testcase.
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10)
> Created attachment 45406 [details]
> Followup patch to try to dump why a condition can't be unswitched within a
> loop
This is a foll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 45406
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45406&action=edit
Followup patch to try to dump why a condition can't be unswitched within a loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 10 16:53:39 2019
New Revision: 267817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-01-02 Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87007
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
The current patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg00298.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #0)
> > However, optimizing for size is a very big hammer and causes substantial
> > performance issues on i386 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 10 16:06:49 2019
New Revision: 267815
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267815&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80762 avoid ambiguous __constructible_from
Ensure we don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81452
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> There is -Walloc-zero. If we want a separate knob for just it then maybe
> -Wrealloc-zero.
Oh right, -Walloc-zero, I forgot about that one. It triggers so rarely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
--- Comment #59 from Marian ---
Thanks for the fast replay
wget http://ptrace.fefe.de/int.c
gcc -Wstrict-overflow=1 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -o int int.c
does not produce a warning (except for the missing `#include `) on gcc
8.2.0 on Alp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84877
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 15:44:16 2019
New Revision: 267812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/84877
PR bootstrap/88450
* function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 15:44:16 2019
New Revision: 267812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/84877
PR bootstrap/88450
* function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
Bug ID: 88795
Summary: ICE on class-template argument deduction if non-type
parameter has indirection
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #0)
> > The following testcases from libstdc++ have started failing in the past few
> > days on trunk:
> >
> > FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, that's exactly right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The profile_estimate difference is a bug introduced in r191883 and later
extended in r193821 I have a fix for, but it can be ignored, it should have
went into the combine dump instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450
--- Comment #21 from Bence Szabó ---
Bootstrap succeeds with trunk + gcc9-pr88450.patch. Ran gcc testsuite, all
stackalignment tests pass and so does the test added by r266345. The CPU was an
Intel Coffee Lake so avx and avx2 is supported but avx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #32 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Some of the tests in this PR are fixed by the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg00065.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
Дилян Палаузов changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
Bug ID: 88794
Summary: fixupimm intrinsics are unusable [9.0 regression]
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
Bug ID: 88793
Summary: Document that __attribute__ ((cold)) is not equivalent
to __builtin_except because of optimization for size
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45405&action=edit
gcc9-pr88775.patch
Full patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
--- Comment #58 from Andreas Schwab ---
-Wstrict-overflow=1 is enabled by -Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88772
--- Comment #6 from Andoni ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
>
> But you said above that the result is "yes" for 32-bit, so how come the test:
>
> x$ac_cv_sjlj_exceptions = xyes;
>
> is false? Does it help to rewrite it into j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
Marian changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marian.buschsieweke at ovgu
dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I get pretty much the same thing with:
--- gcc/match.pd.jj 2019-01-07 17:59:24.100931144 +0100
+++ gcc/match.pd2019-01-10 14:45:31.870509916 +0100
@@ -1660,6 +1660,19 @@ (define_operator_list CON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88702
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Just for the record, when rewriting the code with switch:
int IsHTMLWhitespace(int aChar) {
switch (aChar) {
case 0x0009:
case 0x000A:
case 0x000C:
case 0x000D:
case 0x002
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45404
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45404&action=edit
VRP patch
This makes VRP register asserts for the pointer variants. This doesn't help
until after ifcombine b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Created attachment 45403 [details]
> reduced test-case
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88772
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> For 64bits the result is "no":
> 643 configure:4751: checking whether the compiler is configured for
> setjmp/longjmp exceptions
> 644 configure:4769: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc
> -L/home/andoni/mingw/windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45403
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45403&action=edit
reduced test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750
--- Comment #34 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #33)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #32)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #31)
> > > Then I get tons of duplicate symbol lines.
> >
> > ah well, not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71959
--- Comment #11 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jules
Date: Thu Jan 10 12:32:03 2019
New Revision: 267806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267806&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add testcase from PR71959
libgomp/
PR lto/719
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #2)
> Sorry for the breakage, I will take a look.
>
> Regards,
> Prathamesh
Wait, I have almost reduced test-case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
OK, I see what goes wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
I am not an epiphany expert. I just noticed this while testing the GCC builds
for RTEMS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45402
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45402&action=edit
gcc9-pr88785.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess latent since r214091.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for the breakage, I will take a look.
Regards,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 10 11:54:26 2019
New Revision: 267805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267805&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85574
Modified:
branches/gcc-8-branch/g
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
