https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91496
Nick changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.7.2 |7.4.0
--- Comment #1 from Nick ---
I have bumped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91496
Bug ID: 91496
Summary: !GCC$ directives error if mistyped or unknown
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #32 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #31)
> > No, IMO IRA should be "fixed" to avoid stack temporary and (based on some
> > cost metric) use direct move for paradoxical subregs.
>
> The problem is
>
> /* Mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89544
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Tue Aug 20 05:32:49 2019
New Revision: 274691
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274691&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-20 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/89544
* fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18206
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |driver
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44210
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||44209
Summary|Extended warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91495
Bug ID: 91495
Summary: std::transform_reduce with unary op is implemented in
the parallel case but not the basic case
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91494
Bug ID: 91494
Summary: Performance Regression when upgrading from 8.3.0 to
9.0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91433
--- Comment #2 from George Fan ---
The compiler option for botan is "-fstack-protector -m64 -pthread -lbotan-2
-ldl -lrt", which the compiler option for crafty is "-pthread -lstdc++
-fprofile-use -lm". While the sub-architecture is coffee lake.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91493
Bug ID: 91493
Summary: g++ 9.2.1 crashes compiling clickhouse
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-08-19 2:51 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is this a new failure, thus can it be bisected somehow?
The failure was introduced in r273662:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2019-07/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91347
--- Comment #18 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-08-19 4:36 a.m., ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Created attachment 46728
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46728&action=edit
> Execution test
Works on hppa wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91492
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79817
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #28)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26)
> > This is the powers of simplify_subreg I guess. We're lucky it doesn't do
> > this to arbitrary arithmetic.
> >
> > S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91486
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91484
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91426
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #2)
> Having had occasion to look at a few hundred multi-line error messages
> today, I have now changed my mind on what I would consider best :-)
>
> I now think diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91426
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 46732
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46732&action=edit
Prototype patch to colorize the (1) and (2) in the example given
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91492
Bug ID: 91492
Summary: [10 regression] Ada documentation issue starting with
r274637
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91491
Bug ID: 91491
Summary: [9 Regression] glib2.0 build not working when built
with -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79817
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #23 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Mon Aug 19 16:11:30 2019
New Revision: 274675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274675&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[aarch64] PR target/91386 Use copy_rtx to avoid modifying original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91067
--- Comment #17 from Viktor Ostashevskyi ---
Ok, got following today with GCC 9.2 with "-O2 -fno-inline -flto=20":
ld.bfd: /tmp/tests.oKru4z.ltrans32.ltrans.o: in function
`std::__shared_ptr::operator=(std::__shared_ptr&&)':
c++/9.2.0/bits/share
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91490
Bug ID: 91490
Summary: [9/10 Regression] bogus argument missing terminating
nul warning on strlen of a flexible array member
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
/* Match arithmetic done in a different type where we can easily
substitute the result from some earlier sign-changed or widened
operation. */
if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91403
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 19 14:45:38 2019
New Revision: 274672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91403
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85125
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91264
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91264
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Aug 19 13:59:13 2019
New Revision: 274671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91264 - detect modifying const objects in constexpr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91486
--- Comment #3 from John Salmon ---
I grep'ed the latest devel source tree (git sha: afadff66) for occurrences of
now\(\). The same bug appears several times in include/experimental/io_context
and include/experimental/timer.
The underlying prob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91347
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46728|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91347
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Yes. It aborts with current gcc-9.2.1 and passes with patched gcc-10.
> -fno-inline is needed.
Thanks. Let's drop the -fno-inline and put it in gcc.c-torture/execute.
All,
this is my first post on these lists, so please bear with me.
My question is about gcc's __attribute__((aligned()). Please consider the
following code:
#include
typedef uint32_t uuint32_t __attribute__((aligned(1)));
uint32_t getuuint32(uint8_t p[]) {
return *(uuint32_t*)p;
}
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #29)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #27)
> > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #25)
> > > and STV converting single-instruction 'chains':
> > >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-08-19 2:51 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is this a new failure, thus can it be bisected somehow?
New. I can say at this point that r273635 was okay. There was a testsuite
pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91347
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-08-19 4:35 a.m., ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> OK, thanks. Can you check that the testcase to be attached is a valid
> execution test for trunk when compiled with -O2 -fno-inlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #27)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #25)
> > and STV converting single-instruction 'chains':
> >
> > Collected chain #40...
> > insns: 381
> > defs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26)
> This is the powers of simplify_subreg I guess. We're lucky it doesn't do
> this to arbitrary arithmetic.
>
> So we need to really change all defs we introduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #27 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #25)
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
> >
> > --- Comment #24 from Uroš Bizjak ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
This is the powers of simplify_subreg I guess. We're lucky it doesn't do
this to arbitrary arithmetic.
So we need to really change all defs we introduce to vector modes instead of
making our live easy and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91489
Bug ID: 91489
Summary: misplaced stack pointer when __ms_hook_prologue__
attribute is used
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
>
> --- Comment #24 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> It looks that the patch introduced a (small?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91403
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so I have a patch to fix the recursion depth in SCEV analysis but then we
hit
the next one in SLSR, in my case because with -O0 there's no tailcall performed
but even with -O2 we don't tailcall it.
#8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91347
--- Comment #14 from Sven Schnelle ---
I tested the patch with my (previously broken) kernel Build, and the issue
seems to be fixed. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65696
--- Comment #3 from pmderodat at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pmderodat
Date: Mon Aug 19 08:36:39 2019
New Revision: 274654
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274654&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Ada] Buffer reading overflow in dispatch table initiali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91347
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 46728
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46728&action=edit
Execution test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91347
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> hppa-unknown-linux-gnu built successfully with change and there were no test
> regressions:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-08/msg01861.html
>
> Looks good to me.
OK, thanks. Can you check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91488
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91482
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91472
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
I'll have a look.
54 matches
Mail list logo
