https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Oct 18 06:53:34 2019
New Revision: 277143
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277143&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86040
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_out_lpm): Do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #17 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Oct 18 06:46:03 2019
New Revision: 277142
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277142&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
Fix some fallout for small targets.
PR t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92144
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92126
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92126
>
> --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
> Should we close this? I found it on an in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Sure, the debug stmts should not have any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86753
--- Comment #10 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Fri Oct 18 05:13:26 2019
New Revision: 277141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-18 Prathamesh Kulkarni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87628
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92143
--- Comment #4 from Daryl Haresign ---
As for conformance, the latest C draft says:
The aligned_alloc function allocates space for an object whose alignment is
specified by alignment, whose size is specified by size, and whose value is
indetermi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92107
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92145
Bug ID: 92145
Summary: -Wdeprecated-copy false-positive when inheriting base
assignment operators
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92056
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 17 22:21:12 2019
New Revision: 277134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92056
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (determine_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69455
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=89047
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92144
Bug ID: 92144
Summary: [10 regression] c-c++-common/Warray-bounds-4.c still
fails after r277080
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92126
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Should we close this? I found it on an internal list of old failures on P7
that need looking at. Not sure having this issue open provides value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92143
--- Comment #3 from Daryl Haresign ---
$ g++-9 -E -dM test.cc | grep ALIGNED
#define _GLIBCXX_HAVE_ALIGNED_ALLOC 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92126
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 regression] |gcc.dg/vect/pr62171.c fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92143
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92143
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We increase the alignment when calling posix_memalign, so that shouldn't be the
problem:
static inline void*
aligned_alloc (std::size_t al, std::size_t sz)
{
void *ptr;
// posix_memalign has additional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89721
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89721
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Oct 17 19:52:55 2019
New Revision: 277132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2019-03-15 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89721
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Oct 17 19:51:01 2019
New Revision: 277131
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277131&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2019-03-15 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #29 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Oct 17 19:46:52 2019
New Revision: 277130
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277130&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Darwin, PPC] Fix PR 65342.
The current Darwin load/store lo_sum patterns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
Daniel Gutson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danielgutson at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92143
Bug ID: 92143
Summary: std::pmr::polymorphic_allocator throws bad_alloc
on macOS
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
--- Comment #2 from Ariel Torti ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> You shouldn't use those, they are for internal use only. That's the reason
> they are not documented.
Yes, my mistake. I just read
https://www.mail-archive.com/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92130
--- Comment #9 from Witold Baryluk ---
Indeed, passing -fno-tree-pre in the first example does make it be vectorized.
In the mesh_simple.c this corresponds to ONTHEFLY_CONSTANTS being defined, but
USE_LOOP_CONSTANTS being not. The SIMPLIFIED can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92141
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89400
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89400
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Oct 17 16:48:39 2019
New Revision: 277125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/89400 fix thumb1 unaligned access expansion
Armv6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89400
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Oct 17 16:47:42 2019
New Revision: 277124
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277124&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/89400 fix thumb1 unaligned access expansion
Armv6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89400
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Oct 17 16:45:46 2019
New Revision: 277123
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277123&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/89400 fix thumb1 unaligned access expansion
Armv6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92142
Bug ID: 92142
Summary: CFI_setpointer corrupts descriptor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89943
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83113
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Oct 17 16:30:25 2019
New Revision: 277122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-17 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83113
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89943
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Oct 17 16:30:25 2019
New Revision: 277122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-17 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83113
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, for the ignoring of not useful candidates we could during the cand_pref
computation not just check for step being equal, but also if one step is
multiple of the other one or vice versa, of course prefe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, one possibility is for remove_unused_ivs to get_computation_at for all
candidates it is considering rather than just the best, or try best and if that
fails, try the others too and pick the best from amo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That has been added for PR54693 BTW.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92126
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry, I may have gotten the suspect revision wrong for this. There are some
build compilation failures just a bit before this revision that are goofing up
my bisect script.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, there already is a function that is meant to handle this,
remove_unused_ivs, just either it doesn't find the right IV candidate, or
get_computation_at fails.
On this particular testcase, I see 2 IVs in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92093
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92093
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92093
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Oct 17 15:35:28 2019
New Revision: 277119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-17 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2019-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92141
Bug ID: 92141
Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-truncation warning for strncpy in a
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92093
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Oct 17 15:33:58 2019
New Revision: 277118
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277118&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-17 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2019-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92093
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Oct 17 15:32:40 2019
New Revision: 277117
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277117&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-17 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2019-
) { return n ? 2 : 1; }
compiled with gcc and clang see some optimizing opportunities for gcc.
Table with instruction generated:
gccclang
tst1: 53
tst2: 53
tst3: 43
This is with:
gcc (GCC) 10.0.0 20191017 (experimental)
clang version 10.0.0 (trunk 373843)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92111
--- Comment #6 from Jan ---
-fno-semantic-interposition with -flto seems to be the culprit if I drop
either compile works fine.
minimum cflags for error: -march=native -O2 -flto -fno-semantic-interposition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92136
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
We call comp_template_parms with
2 D.2223, 1 d, <<< Unknown tree: template_decl >>>
2 D.2254, 1 d, <<< Unknown tree: template_decl >>>
it compares D.2223 to D.2254, then d to d, then the template_decls. Whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92139
Bug ID: 92139
Summary: Segmentation fault on constraints verification
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Oh doh, I am blind, apparently :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure, the debug stmts should not have any effect on code generation. I admit I
don't know much about ivopts implementation, but either when you are rewriting
stmts containing uses of the IV being replaced b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #15 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Created attachment 47059
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47059&action=edit
proposed fix (without renaming the pass so far)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #14 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Created attachment 47058
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47058&action=edit
temporary patch for finding out the number of threaded edges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I don't see a patch there? If you have one, please attach it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63287
Alisdair Meredith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alisdairm at me dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92138
Alisdair Meredith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92138
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92124
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Oct 17 14:21:27 2019
New Revision: 277113
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277113&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/92124 fix incorrect container move assignment
The container
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #12 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Actually (int) ((ivtmp.11 - (unsigned long) dst_10) / 4), sorry.
> On 64-bit targets this will never be a problem, are you worried about 32-bit
> targets where int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92124
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #11 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> (In reply to bin cheng from comment #7)
> > The orignal iv needs to be represented in debug bind stmt is:
> > 64 IV struct:
> > 65 SSA_NAME: i_18
> > 66
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92138
Bug ID: 92138
Summary: Compiler does not define __CPP_THREADS__ when multiple
threads are supported
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #12 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
> Well, it apparently has found new jump threading opportunities after
> partition_blocks. Are such changes useful? Does it happen often?
It's still combine that was responsible for this particular opp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
Bug ID: 92137
Summary: [ia32] Missing documentation for ia32 builtins
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: dri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92136
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with
commit 42decc18f5e1795228b8259de7880d7f676e36c7
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 28 23:57:09 2017 +
Class template argument deduction refinements
* call.c (joust): Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92136
Bug ID: 92136
Summary: cc1plus segv with CTAD and -fchecking
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92027
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Another case
unsigned bar (unsigned int *x)
{
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 16; ++i)
sum += x[i];
return sum;
}
where an intermeditate result of the reduction chain is live.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92115
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #6)
> Did you per chance open-source it?
I didn't, but if you are interested I believe it would be appropriate to
continue the discussion in private for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92111
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Please include any flags that were used in building things. For example, it
looks like it needs at least -std=c++17 to work.
I can't reproduce with a ./cc1plus -O2. I also can't reproduce with -flto:
./x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92134
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92121
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There is no GCC bug here. Please find a more appropriate place to ask for help
solving your problem (and try to accurately describe that problem -- so far all
you've done is show things that don't work, whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92122
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Regarding the discussion of comment 0, see:
https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2019-October/011691.html
https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2019-October/011692.html
"So, the whole argument h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #17 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Thu Oct 17 12:38:38 2019
New Revision: 277107
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277107&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92131
* tree-vrp.c (value_range_bas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92132
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes, odd that the comparison is flagged as not vectorizable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92121
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually (int) ((ivtmp.11 - (unsigned long) dst_10) / 4), sorry.
On 64-bit targets this will never be a problem, are you worried about 32-bit
targets where int and pointers are the same width and for a loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #7)
> The orignal iv needs to be represented in debug bind stmt is:
> 64 IV struct:
> 65 SSA_NAME: i_18
> 66 Type: int
> 67 Base: 0
> 68 Step: 1
> 69 B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #7)
> The orignal iv needs to be represented in debug bind stmt is:
> 64 IV struct:
> 65 SSA_NAME: i_18
> 66 Type: int
> 67 Base: 0
> 68 Step: 1
> 69 Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
The orignal iv needs to be represented in debug bind stmt is:
64 IV struct:
65 SSA_NAME: i_18
66 Type: int
67 Base: 0
68 Step: 1
69 Biv: Y
70 Overflowness wrto loop niter: No-overflow
Whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92121
Dhanagopal Kannaiyan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92134
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, so do I need to somehow mark the CALL_EXPR created from new/delete lowering
and only treat calls to global replaceable allocator/deallocator functions
specially if they either have this flag or are in al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92125
--- Comment #2 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fxue
Date: Thu Oct 17 09:55:37 2019
New Revision: 277095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/92125
2019-10-17 Feng Xue
PR testsuite/9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92135
Bug ID: 92135
Summary: Implement popcountsi expansion for arm
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92111
Jan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47043|0 |1
is obsolete||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92115
--- Comment #6 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
> Am 16.10.2019 um 16:32 schrieb asolokha at gmx dot com
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92115
>
> --- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
> (In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
Summary|incorrect assumpt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
> We cannot really add range bounds to symbolics because those bounds
> are not added in the IL and thus those adds are prone to overflowing.
Yes, the issue is very likely in the way we use combine_bound.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Perhaps, but it would still be called for
> long int [-9223372036854775805, +INF] + long int [-INF, e.7_8 + -1], for
> which it would still end up with long int [-INF, e.7_8 +
> 9223372036854775806].
Why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92134
Bug ID: 92134
Summary: static constinit members incorrectly compile
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92133
Bug ID: 92133
Summary: Support multi versioning on self recursive function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
