https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90527
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90527
Bug ID: 90527
Summary: alloc.c:72:7: error: implicit declaration of function
‘posix_memalign’
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90517
JunMa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90520
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90520
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 17 23:08:00 2019
New Revision: 271363
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271363&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90520 adjust Xmethod for recent unique_ptr changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41999
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 38570, which changed state.
Bug 38570 Summary: [arm] -mthumb generates sub-optimal prolog/epilog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38570
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38570
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38570
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9831
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42017
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90521
--- Comment #4 from colton.wernet at linquest dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The code is just wrong and should be fixed by removing "::basic_string".
>
> I don't see that wrong code in the upstream gdal code, so it l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Actually, wasn't this simple as the above patch broke the synchronous version.
Need to think more what to do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88406
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Is this still worth investigating given that we've dropped support for Solaris
10?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90521
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90526
Bug ID: 90526
Summary: Missing DW_AT_const_value for constexpr field
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90484
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90383
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90385
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90197
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] Cannot |[8 Regression] Cannot step
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #7 from Janne Blomqvist ---
This should fix it:
--- a/libgfortran/intrinsics/execute_command_line.c
+++ b/libgfortran/intrinsics/execute_command_line.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If
no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90525
Bug ID: 90525
Summary: Wrong offsets in warning text for -Warray-bounds (with
subobject)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54613
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 19:56:14 2019
New Revision: 271358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271358&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/54613
* gfortran.map (GFORTRAN_9.2): Export _g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54613
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 19:54:46 2019
New Revision: 271357
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271357&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/54613
* gfortran.map (GFORTRAN_9.2): New symbo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90484
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 19:54:15 2019
New Revision: 271356
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271356&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-05-16 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90197
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 19:52:06 2019
New Revision: 271353
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271353&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-05-15 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90385
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 19:51:32 2019
New Revision: 271352
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271352&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-05-10 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90383
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 19:50:52 2019
New Revision: 271351
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271351&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-05-10 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90326
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 19:49:54 2019
New Revision: 271350
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271350&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-05-10 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90303
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 19:48:25 2019
New Revision: 271349
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271349&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-05-03 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90197
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 19:47:18 2019
New Revision: 271348
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271348&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-04-26 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 07:35:46PM +, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
>
> --- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #4)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> What does 'it' refer to? fork() is leaving a zombie?
> posix_spawn() is leaving a zombie?
posix_spawn. Though I guess the old fork() code suffers from the same issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90482
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90524
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90524
Bug ID: 90524
Summary: attribute name and argument mixed up in an error
message
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Further testing revealed that it leaves zombie processes around as the child is
never wait()'ed for. E.g.
program cmd
implicit none
call execute_command_line("echo hi", wait=.FALSE.)
call sleep(30)
e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89433
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Fri May 17 19:13:15 2019
New Revision: 271344
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271344&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR89433] Use 'oacc_verify_routine_clauses' for C/C++ OpenACC 'routi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89433
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Fri May 17 19:13:26 2019
New Revision: 271345
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271345&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR89433] Repeated use of the C/C++ OpenACC 'routine' directive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89433
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Fri May 17 19:13:04 2019
New Revision: 271343
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271343&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR89433] Refer to OpenACC 'routine' clauses from "omp declare targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90521
--- Comment #2 from colton.wernet at linquest dot com ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> And what do you expect std::string::basic_string means?
I agree it is redundant because it just means std::string::string. I am not
certain why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed. We have for the thunk
.set.LTHUNK0,_ZN12Intermediate1vEv
.align 2
.p2align 4,,15
.globl _ZThn8_N12Intermediate1vEv
.type _ZThn8_N12Intermediat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90521
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
And what do you expect std::string::basic_string means?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #2 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Fri May 17 18:18:04 2019
New Revision: 271340
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libfortran/90038: Use posix_spawn instead of fork
fork() semantics can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90498
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54613
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 17:50:55 2019
New Revision: 271336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/54613
* gfortran.map (GFORTRAN_9.2): Export _g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90523
--- Comment #3 from krux ---
Possible, gcc was built with --disable-multilib --with-arch=armv7e-m
--with-mode=thumb --with-float=soft.
And if I replace -mcpu=cortex-m4 with -march=armv7e-m in my test command
there's no crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54613
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 17:24:27 2019
New Revision: 271335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/54613
* gfortran.map (GFORTRAN_9.2): Export _g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54613
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 17 17:23:30 2019
New Revision: 271334
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271334&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/54613
* gfortran.map (GFORTRAN_9.2): New symbo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90523
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
See also PR 87076, which has a reduced testcase and some root-cause analysis
(likely a duplicate).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90518
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On May 17, 2019 5:49:21 PM GMT+02:00, law at redhat dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90518
>
>--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
>It looks like BIT_INSERT_EXPR is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90523
--- Comment #1 from krux ---
So this one must be null:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/65af043/gcc/config/arm/arm.c#L3148
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90522
--- Comment #1 from Leo Sandoval ---
I just confirmed: without -Ofast, issue is not observed, thus the latter
optimization flag is triggering the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90523
Bug ID: 90523
Summary: lto1 segfault in arm_parse_cpu_option_name
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90522
Bug ID: 90522
Summary: unrecognizable insn (V8SF)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90520
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90521
Bug ID: 90521
Summary: error: names the constructor, not the type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90520
Bug ID: 90520
Summary: [10 regression] libstdc++-xmethods/unique_ptr.cc
triggers python failure starting with r271158
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90518
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It looks like BIT_INSERT_EXPR is being expanded as a simple move even though
its got BLKmode operands. That's a no-no. We have go use the mem* routines
rather than a simple move insn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90518
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90519
Bug ID: 90519
Summary: ICE (segfault) on derived type which has a recursive
allocatable component of the same type, and a static
component of another type which has a "final"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90497
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90517
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90482
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> What is different about 32-bit SPARC is not that it treats pointers and
> integers differently, but that
>
> struct { void *p; }
>
> and
>
> void *p;
>
> are passed as arguments in two different ways.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89576
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90497
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri May 17 14:48:37 2019
New Revision: 271328
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271328&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Enable MMX intrinsics without SSE/SSE2/SSSE3
Since MMX intri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90246
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90246
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 17 14:36:37 2019
New Revision: 271326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90246 Improve text of std::variant exceptions and assertions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 17 14:13:32 2019
New Revision: 271323
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271323&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85965 move is_invocable assertions again
This is another a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90518
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90518
Bug ID: 90518
Summary: ICE: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3745 in
gcc.dg/gimplefe-40.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90517
Bug ID: 90517
Summary: [10 regression] test case gcc.dg/cdce1.c fails
starting with r271281
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90482
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
What is different about 32-bit SPARC is not that it treats pointers and
integers differently, but that
struct { void *p; }
and
void *p;
are passed as arguments in two different ways. The former is pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
> I am not quite familiar with libm, will this change the its bevhavior or
> other side effect?
No. You have to tweak the macro definition, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
--- Comment #15 from Guobing Chen ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> (In reply to Guobing Chen from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> > > > The background is that, we want to try optimize libm with avx2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Guobing Chen from comment #13)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> > > The background is that, we want to try optimize libm with avx2/avx512, and
> > > found that not all the libm mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
--- Comment #13 from Guobing ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> > The background is that, we want to try optimize libm with avx2/avx512, and
> > found that not all the libm math functions will have benefit when we
> > generally use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
--- Comment #6 from ohaiziejohwahkeezuoz at xff dot cz ---
The ldlang.c:6868 assertion bug was fixed in binutils.
That leaves the -save-temps/gcc driver issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
>
> --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90506
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90498
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> On Fri, 17 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
> >
> > --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88256
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
digging into the C++ FE's grokdeclarator shows this to be trickier than C. C
has a global variable of the expression component currently being built. it
hooks a COMPOUND_EXPR into there, in its own bindin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90516
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
>
> --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
> >
> > Can you share -fopt-report-loop dif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88256
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90494
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90516
Bug ID: 90516
Summary: Strange behaviour of code if function no return value
and code embraced by try..catch with opt flags
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 46370
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46370&action=edit
Fix or workaound
Tested on various PowerPC ports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #11 from junma at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: junma
Date: Fri May 17 10:13:29 2019
New Revision: 271319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90106
* gcc.dg/cdce3.c: Ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90482
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's not obvious to me why this would have anything to do with the calling
convention on SPARC 32-bit, which is very reasonable. For example, it's not
like M68k where pointers and integers are passed differe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90514
--- Comment #2 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Are you saying the precision should be 1? If so then no, that would be
> invalid as in C, enum have the full range of the underlying type and is well
> defined to have v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90482
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Can you share -fopt-report-loop differences? From the above I would
> guess we split a lot of loops, meaning the memcpy/memmove/memset
> calls are in the "middle" and we have to split loops (how many
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
>
> --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> > So the only significant offender is modu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
> The background is that, we want to try optimize libm with avx2/avx512, and
> found that not all the libm math functions will have benefit when we
> generally use 'arch=haswell' or 'arch=skylake-avx512' to c
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
