https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 93134, which changed state.
Bug 93134 Summary: [graphite] ICE: Segmentation fault in ISL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93132
--- Comment #2 from Pekka S ---
As the patch is pretty trivial, I think it's easiest if you simply make the
appropriate changes, including incrementing the atoi() values. I did mention
in the last paragraph that not incrementing the 1-based inde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81806
Raihat Zaman Neloy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raihatneloy1992 at gmail dot
com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93195
Bug ID: 93195
Summary: -fpatchable-function-entries :
__patchable_function_entries should consider comdat
groups
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93194
--- Comment #1 from Fangrui Song ---
The SHF_WRITE issue has been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00271.html will fix sh_addralign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
ppu_intrinsics.h is installed for all powerpc* configs. Though to use it you
need to compile with -mcpu=cell :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #13 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fxue
Date: Wed Jan 8 02:55:00 2020
New Revision: 279987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279987&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Find matched aggregate lattice for self-recursive CP (PR ipa/9308
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93194
Bug ID: 93194
Summary: -fpatchable-function-entries :
__patchable_function_entries has wrong sh_flags and
sh_addralign
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93189
--- Comment #3 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: luoxhu
Revision: 279986
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Wed Jan 8 01:32:45 2020
--
--- svn:log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93185
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87256
--- Comment #12 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I started looking at implementing full local cache in complement to global
evicting 'struct alg_hash_entry x_alg_hash[NUM_ALG_HASH_ENTRIES];' cache.
Noob question: which gcc's data structure should I u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93193
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40752
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92124
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Jan 7 21:01:37 2020
New Revision: 279967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/92124 fix incorrect container move assignment
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93180
--- Comment #5 from pskocik at gmail dot com ---
Jakub Jelinek, I later asked how this worked on Stack Overflow
(https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59629946/why-do-gcc-and-clang-place-custom-sectioned-const-funcptr-symbols-into-writable).
Got no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93193
Bug ID: 93193
Summary: C preprocessor works across commented lines
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93187
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47607
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47607&action=edit
gcc10-pr93187.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Component|testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93187
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93192
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patches should be sent to gcc-patches@ after reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian.s.mcinerney at ieee dot org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93190
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93192
Bug ID: 93192
Summary: [m68k] incorrect conversion of inf and nan in
__truncxfdf2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67202
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|67202 |
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93190
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93190
--- Comment #5 from Ian McInerney ---
Created attachment 47605
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47605&action=edit
Verbose output from successful linking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93190
--- Comment #4 from Ian McInerney ---
Created attachment 47604
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47604&action=edit
GCC verbose output from failed linking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93191
Bug ID: 93191
Summary: Conversions to arrays of unknown bound P0388 Fails for
variadic args
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93190
--- Comment #3 from Ian McInerney ---
Note that I am compiling this with
g++ -fno-lto -v -Wl,-v main.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93190
--- Comment #2 from Ian McInerney ---
Created attachment 47603
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47603&action=edit
Object file from successful linking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93190
--- Comment #1 from Ian McInerney ---
Created attachment 47602
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47602&action=edit
Object file from failed linking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93190
Bug ID: 93190
Summary: Failure to link with .note.GNU-stack in inline
assembly
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93132
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93189
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And prevents 176.gcc in spec2000 from building
c-lex.o: In function `init_lex':
c-lex.c:(.text+0xb30): undefined reference to `is_reserved_word'
c-lex.c:(.text+0xc68): undefined reference to `is_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91364
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Will Wray from comment #7)
> Fails to match for variadic arguments. Reopen or file a new bug?
Definitely a new bug, please.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93189
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93174
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47600
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47600&action=edit
gcc10-pr93174.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91364
--- Comment #9 from Will Wray ---
The variadic unknown-bound 1st overload matches exact T(&)[] only
https://godbolt.org/z/9qZpWX
#include
void cat(auto const(&...cstr)[]) { (((void)cstr,puts("G'bye")),...); }
void cat(auto const(&...cstr)[6]) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93189
Bug ID: 93189
Summary: [10 regression] Many test case failures starting with
r279942
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91364
--- Comment #8 from Will Wray ---
Reduced example (but still with puts output) https://godbolt.org/z/Ttc2Za
#include
void cat(auto const(&...cstr)[]) { (puts(cstr),...); }
// Comment out this next line[6]
void cat(auto const(&..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93174
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
james north changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||douglas_north at hotmail dot
com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91364
Will Wray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wjwray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93184
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93183
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93188
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93188
Bug ID: 93188
Summary: a-profile multilib mismatch for rmprofile toolchain
when architecture includes +mp or +sec
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93187
Bug ID: 93187
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2294
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93174
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93186
Bug ID: 93186
Summary: C++ compile time hog
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55791
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47877
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47877
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 7 15:05:25 2020
New Revision: 279960
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279960&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/47877 - -fvisibility-inlines-hidden and member templates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91525
--- Comment #3 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
On gcc-10 I get now the following stacktrace:
```
g++-git -std=c++17 -fconcepts -c ice.cpp
main.cpp: In function ‘std::string e()’:
main.cpp:46:16: internal compiler error: Segmen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93158
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Bloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Henlich ---
I must admit that the following F2018 clause invalidates my previous comment,
because it applies to G editing specifically (but not to E editing)
13.7.5.2.2 Generalized real and complex editing
...
3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93185
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93185
Bug ID: 93185
Summary: Support git commits as a link in bugzilla entries
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #25 from Thomas Henlich ---
On second thoughts, I change my mind to:
c) the same output as G0.10 editing ("0.10E+1235") because there is no
need to do it differently for E editing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93184
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Wojciech Migda from comment #2)
> Should there be at least a warning in case when the shift amount is a
> compile-time known constant?
There is a warning, but only when it is a constant in the F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93184
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Wojciech Migda from comment #2)
> Should there be at least a warning in case when the shift amount is a
> compile-time known constant?
In an ideal world yes. Howevever, most such wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93184
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Shifts by negative values or larger or equal to the bitsize are undefined
behavior. Once you invoke undefined behavior in a program, there is no
discussion about what is correct and what is incorrect, the on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93184
--- Comment #2 from Wojciech Migda ---
Should there be at least a warning in case when the shift amount is a
compile-time known constant?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93184
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93184
Bug ID: 93184
Summary: Incorrect result of right shift bit operation if
compile-time constant shift amount exceeds type width
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Henlich ---
There is another issue with E0.d editing, concerning the case |exp| ≥ 1000 with
extended and quad precision.
In addition to tables 13.1 ... 13.3, the standard says:
13.7.2 Numeric editing
13.7.2.1 Ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
--- Comment #1 from Lars Gullik Bjønnes ---
Forgot to mention that it works nicely with GCC 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92983
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Isn't the issue that we say the split function parts are actually the original
function? If the tail were artificial there shouldn't be two breakpoints
but still a correct inlined subroutine (of an artifici
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93183
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||26163, 53947
Summary|SVE only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93183
Bug ID: 93183
Summary: SVE only makes the last thing conditional with
ifconversion
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92492
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
If we change x264_clip_uint8 slightly to:
static inline uint8_t x264_clip_uint8( uint8_t x )
{
uint8_t t = -x;
t = t>>7;
uint8_t t1 = x&(~63);
return t1 ? t : x;
}
GCC does the "right" thing.
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93156
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 7 10:05:14 2020
New Revision: 279951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/93156
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (bit_value_bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92492
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93118
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 7 10:03:07 2020
New Revision: 279950
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279950&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/93118
* match.pd ((x >> c) << c -> x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93005
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Joel Holdsworth from comment #7)
> > Did you test it with big-endian?
>
> Good question. It seems to do the right thing in both cases:
> https://godbolt.org/z/7rDzAm
foo2(long*, __simd128_in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Looking at ISL 0.2[01] they did
__isl_give isl_basic_set *isl_basic_map_underlying_set(
__isl_take isl_basic_map *bmap)
{
if (!bmap)
goto error;
if (bmap->dim->nparam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83411
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jan 7 09:18:46 2020
New Revision: 279948
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279948&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Document cloning for the target_clone attribute.
2020-01-07 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jan 7 09:15:38 2020
New Revision: 279947
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279947&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make warn_inline Optimization option.
2020-01-07 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jan 7 09:10:37 2020
New Revision: 279945
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279945&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Mark param_min_crossjump_insns with Optimization keyword.
2020-01-07 Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I've tried to notify ISL folks via the isl-development google group,
bugzilla doesn't like the URL though,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/isl-development/kgt5RxawS_Q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
But, confirmed. With in-tree ISL:
rogram received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x02447d44 in isl_basic_map_underlying_set (bmap=0x0)
at /tmp/trunk/isl/isl_map.c:5515
5515spac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93179
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93173
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67202
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
@Thomas: Setting host to 67202 is probably a typo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||grosser at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
> > @Richi:
> >
> > About the param_max_fields_for_field_sensitive:
> > Do I understand it correctly that the param is used in IPA PTA for global
> > variables? If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92552
--- Comment #7 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
--- Comment #38 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #37)
> On 30/12/2019 10.51, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> >> Obviously, it could be used to fold `a + i == b` to `0` if `a` and `b`
> >> are two different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #23 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
> Author: jvdelisle
> Date: Thu Jan 2 00:57:31 2020
> New Revision: 279828
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279828&root=gcc&view=rev
Jerry, please not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||93105
--- Comment #31 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Depends on|
95 matches
Mail list logo
