https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46110|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081
--- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Guy Perfect from comment #5)
> (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #4)
> That was my line of thinking: supplying a cast in the macro.
Keep in mind that inside #if expressions, there cann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Frederico Lamberti Pissarra from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > It is <0 when sqrt is called and it is due setting errno. Not a bug.
>
> Hu... interesting. But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #4)
> In get_scaled_computation_cost_at, we have very big ratio between
> bb_count/loop_count:
>
> (gdb) p data->current_loop->latch->count
> $50 = {stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87703
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88790
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> (I couldn't add that cc:, Daniel doesn't have a bugzilla account yet).
What about now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078
--- Comment #4 from bin cheng ---
In get_scaled_computation_cost_at, we have very big ratio between
bb_count/loop_count:
(gdb) p data->current_loop->latch->count
$50 = {static n_bits = 61, static max_count = 230584300921369395
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89693
--- Comment #9 from Arseny Solokha ---
Can this PR be closed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90108
Bug ID: 90108
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in c_tree_chain_next)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: GC
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90107
Bug ID: 90107
Summary: rejects-valid on global-namespace-qualified variable
declared after class definition
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #2 from Frederico Lamberti Pissarra ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> It is <0 when sqrt is called and it is due setting errno. Not a bug.
Hu... interesting. But why the inefficient code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
Bug ID: 90106
Summary: builtin sqrt() ignoring libm's sqrt call result
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87758
--- Comment #3 from John Ericson ---
Hmm, the GHC issue I meant to link I think is
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/issues/11042 . From the looks of it, I might
have pasted the wrong URL anyways, but in any event GHC switched from Trac to
(its
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90062
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90060
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90060
--- Comment #2 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Mon Apr 15 20:32:50 2019
New Revision: 270372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR d/90059
PR d/90060
PR d/90062
lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059
--- Comment #2 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Mon Apr 15 20:32:50 2019
New Revision: 270372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR d/90059
PR d/90060
PR d/90062
lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90062
--- Comment #1 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Mon Apr 15 20:32:50 2019
New Revision: 270372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR d/90059
PR d/90060
PR d/90062
lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85890
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90070
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> (How do you do this btw, remembering all PRs?! :-) )
No, I had remembered I had filed (seen in most other cases) a similar bug a
long time ago (I don't reme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90070
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Oh that is PR 22326
Indeed it is. And your conclusion there ("we need some pass that does
this properly", instead of the current thing during expand)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90105
Bug ID: 90105
Summary: std::forward_list::sort() is not "stable"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078
--- Comment #3 from Walter Landry ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> I'm adding the pass maintainer to CC.
> @Walter: Do you have an account so that you'll be able to propose the patch
> to GCC patches mailing list?
The only accoun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90096
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90070
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> float f(float x, float y) { return 5.0*x + y; }
>
> it does not (and AFAICS it gives identical results here, too, even without
> -ffast-math, which makes no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90104
Bug ID: 90104
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage for variable arguments function
call statement while the function is inline function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90095
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46173
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46173&action=edit
gcc9-pr90095.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90103
Bug ID: 90103
Summary: ICE building Glibc's e_atan2f.c with -O2
-mcpu=hs38_linux -frounding-math
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89693
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Apr 15 14:31:57 2019
New Revision: 270371
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270371&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Reorganize cgraph_node::clone_of_p
2019-04-15 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081
--- Comment #5 from Guy Perfect ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #4)
That was my line of thinking: supplying a cast in the macro. Even in the case
of negative values being cast to unsigned types, the language spec provides a
rule for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90069
--- Comment #2 from Brad Richardson ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Confirmed from at least 4.8 up to trunk (9.0). Why is it not a duplicate of
> pr90072?
Because pr90072 occurs even with an intermediate variable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #48 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #47)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #43)
> > does anybody know what is the Ada and/or D syntax for that?
>
> Syntax for what?
I mean the Ada and D equi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90079
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46161|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
So we are _nearly_ there on trunk. LIM has improved up to the point the only
blocker is mismatching alias-sets in mem_ref_hasher::equal and the case in
question for this PR is even handled correctly becaus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90102
Bug ID: 90102
Summary: Incorrect ambiguous overload with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90101
Bug ID: 90101
Summary: [P0732]
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90100
Bug ID: 90100
Summary: [P0732] Cannot write a type-trait matching non-type
class template parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90099
Bug ID: 90099
Summary: [P0732] Partial specialization of a class template
with variadic parameter pack fails after adding
non-type template parameter
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90098
Bug ID: 90098
Summary: [P0732] Partial specialization of a class template
with variadic parameter pack fails
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90097
Bug ID: 90097
Summary: [P0732] Error while comparing 2 non-type parameters in
constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90055
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > Fixed on trunk with r250959 which is:
> >
> > 364bc5b93b76cf88(08 Aug 2017 14:09): [took: 2.844s] result: OK
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90071
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90074
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 15 12:26:11 2019
New Revision: 270370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-15 Richard Biener
PR debug/90074
* tree-loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #47 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #43)
> does anybody know what is the Ada and/or D syntax for that?
Syntax for what?
I fear we need eagerly load all vector registers before calling the personality
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89940
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89693
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Te commit did not appear here because I made a pasto in the commit message, the
fix landed as:
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270364&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Reorganize cgraph_node::clone_of_p
2019-04-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89693
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67809
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
"Forward progress [intro.progress]
The implementation may assume that any thread will eventually do one of the
following:
(1.1) — terminate,
(1.2) — make a call to a library I/O function,
(1.3) — perform an ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90096
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-4-15
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90096
Bug ID: 90096
Summary: Misleading option hint for AVX intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90071
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 15 11:59:02 2019
New Revision: 270369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90071
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90056
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46169
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46169&action=edit
perf annotate - Ofast native vs. Ofast native PGO
I'm attaching HTML and txt perf annotate for Ofast native and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |9.0
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90063
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89794
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Apr 15 11:33:29 2019
New Revision: 270368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Count auto_inc properly (PR89794)
The code that checks if
-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-270358-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-i686
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190415 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90070
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-gnu-linux, |powerpc*-*-*
|pow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90094
Bug ID: 90094
Summary: better handling of x == LONG_MIN on x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67809
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
clang doesn't optimize the corresponding C testcase
struct Foo {
struct Foo *next;
};
void release(struct Foo *next) {
struct Foo *tmp = 0;
for (struct Foo *it = next; it; it = tmp) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67809
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
So it's legal to remove the classical "halt CPU" while (1);? Interesting...
Does this apply to C++ only?
I presume for libstdc++ we could add a
#pragma GCC loop finite
which tells GCC it can assume the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67809
--- Comment #7 from Gareth Lloyd ---
To give extra context, this optimization is desirable when using
pmr::monotonic_buffer_resource. After de-virtualization and inlining it is
likely for node based containers with trivially destructible internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90082
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46167
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46167&action=edit
gcc9-pr90082.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90082
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is that in this case can_alter_cfg is false (fast DCE), and we have
a
(call_insn/u 27 25 38 2 (set (reg:SI 0 ax)
(call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:DI ("__mulvsi3") [flags 0x41]) [0 S1 A8])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88936
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88936
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 15 10:09:08 2019
New Revision: 270366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270366&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-15 Richard Biener
PR ipa/88936
* tree.h (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90093
Bug ID: 90093
Summary: Extended C interop: optional argument incorrectly
identified as PRESENT
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Apr 15 08:53:24 2019
New Revision: 270365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r268060
2019-04-15 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90090
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46165
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46165&action=edit
gcc9-pr90090.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90090
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|Intel x86 |x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90071
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Matching expression match.pd:1195, generic-match.c:115
Applying pattern match.pd:1251, generic-match.c:17730
Matching expression match.pd:100, generic-match.c:22
Optimizing range tests e_21(ab) +[, 0] and +[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90092
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85179
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 90092 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90083
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Just for the record, this PR appeared on trunk in r247830, before that it was
probably latent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90071
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Can you commit that change then? It's pre-approved since it only
> affects -darwin and you tested that. Thx.
Done at r270360.
Note that I cannot test the additional option for darwin[89].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90075
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #18 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Apr 15 07:56:43 2019
New Revision: 270360
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270360&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-15 Dominique d'Humieres
PR tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90070
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90092
Bug ID: 90092
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong frequencies then the default label in
switch statement is followed with no statement
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
>
> --- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > /* { dg-require-weak "" } */
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90090
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90091
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> /* { dg-require-weak "" } */
>
> was supposed to make it UNSUPPORTED on targets where it doesn't work.
Apparently this not enough. From gcc.dg/attr-weakref-1.c I see
// { dg-additional-options "-W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
>
> --- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The test gcc.dg/torture/pr90020.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90091
Bug ID: 90091
Summary: [GCOV] code formatting lead to incorrect code coverage
for "if ( expr1 || expr2) " statement
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Can you please attach also original (unreduced pre-processed test-case),
ideally created with GCC8?
97 matches
Mail list logo
