https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93295
--- Comment #3 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com ---
It appears that alias_ctad_tweaks assumes the deduction of the right hand side
of the deduction guide from the alias template does not fail.
> int err = unify (ftparms, targs, ret, utype, UNIFY_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20083
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Take f4, if we compile with -O1 -fno-tree-sink, you will see the behavior we
get for f.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20083
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is another testcase which should produce the same code:
int f3(int i, int j, int l)
{
int t = i | j;
_Bool t1 = l != 0;
_Bool t2 = t ? 1 : t1;
return t2;
}
int f4(int i, int j, int l)
{
int t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93234
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2947cfa2d1d4da13bb298b4f36cd745b007d88d
commit r10-6060-ge2947cfa2d1d4da13bb298b4f36cd745b007d88d
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46225
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54956
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46721
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31945
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36972
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36829
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36698
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36525
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33536
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66939
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48548
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77897
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49579
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55089
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59421
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91320
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93242
--- Comment #6 from Renat Idrisov ---
Thanks a lot!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93242
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93242
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93242
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is here:
unsigned i;
for (i = 0; i < patch_area_size; ++i)
fprintf (file, "\t%s\n", nop_templ);
inside default_print_patchable_function_entry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93242
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
'(' Start a nested ".set noreorder" block.
')' End a nested ".set noreorder" block.
For some reason it is not working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93242
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|mips
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93303
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93135
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So we have:
(insn 4 3 5 2 (set (reg:OI 92)
(subreg:OI (reg:V4SI 93) 0)) "t.c":9:1 3402 {*aarch64_movoi}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:V4SI 93)
(nil)))
(insn 5 4 7 2 (set (subreg:V4SI (reg:OI 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93313
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the problem here is the parser uses the standard stack and therefor limits
the max levels of nested parentheses. THIS IS NOT a bug really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93304
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
>
> However, if I add -mavx, I get
>
> vmovapd %xmm0, %xmm2
> vmovapd %xmm1, %xmm4
> vmovapd %xmm1, %xmm0
> vaddsd %xmm0, %xmm4, %xmm0
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93315
Bug ID: 93315
Summary: ICE in jit testsuite since "Missed function
specialization + partial devirtualization" (v8)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93293
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg01071.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93291
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93307
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93290
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93290
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07c86323a199ca15177d99ad6c488b8f5fb5c729
commit r10-6058-g07c86323a199ca15177d99ad6c488b8f5fb5c729
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92599
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
I guess the problem is that the code expect lto-stmt-uid and call_stmt to be in
sync. This is not true. If call statements are around lto stmt uids are not
maintained.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93299
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92599
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
I also get similar ICE building Firefox
[task 2020-01-17T20:36:04.213Z] 20:36:04 INFO -
../../gcc-source/gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c:722
[task 2020-01-17T20:36:04.213Z] 20:36:04 INFO - 0x9d8315
exec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92955
Matheus Castanho changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msc at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93278
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93278
--- Comment #6 from doug mcilroy ---
The waste of time and space happens in the assembler, but the assembler only
does what it is told to do. There must be a way for gcc to tell it to put array
a in a partially filled ELF section.
$ cat junk.c
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93278
--- Comment #5 from doug mcilroy ---
The waste of time and space happens in the assembler, but the assembler only
does what it is told to do. There must be a way for gcc to tell it to put array
a in a partially filled ELF section.
$ cat junk.c
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #17 from n54 at gmx dot com ---
On 17.01.2020 18:15, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
>
> --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Those patches actually were sent to the list, and
On 17.01.2020 18:15, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
>
> --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Those patches actually were sent to the list, and I reviewed them, and got no
> reply:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2014-12/msg00069.html
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> There's no RA commits in that range, further bisection is needed.
Done now. I've found r272742 to be the culprit:
2019-06-27 Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92531
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #28 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82033483fd74b1dcedab416d98673e212258498d
commit r10-6057-g82033483fd74b1dcedab416d98673e212258498d
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92531
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3815f211649cd5c8a277348aa71c9c18bc5ed070
commit r9-8141-g3815f211649cd5c8a277348aa71c9c18bc5ed070
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93286
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c7938eb3f1a116b1cf9a28090f2cc5e08814ce4
commit r9-8140-g5c7938eb3f1a116b1cf9a28090f2cc5e08814ce4
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
--- Comment #1 from Language Lawyer ---
GCC thinks that `char[S::m]` is VLA (because the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on
`S::m` lvalue doesn't look like a constant expression) and tries to move the
evaluation of `sizeof(char[S::m])` to run time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93312
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93312
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92542
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92542
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paolo Carlini :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c9e5b02f08b1b02f9b498c5121d06dea3f2c1c4
commit r10-6055-g4c9e5b02f08b1b02f9b498c5121d06dea3f2c1c4
Author: Paolo Carlini
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92542
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paolo Carlini :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e45138702a9c26b00d25db07f92a271b054e304
commit r10-6056-g7e45138702a9c26b00d25db07f92a271b054e304
Author: Paolo Carlini
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
Bug ID: 93314
Summary: Invalid use of non-static data member causes ICE in
gimplify_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93313
Bug ID: 93313
Summary: g++: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
signal terminated program cc1plus
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
--with-ld=/usr/bin/armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-20200117170346-0ba6a850b59-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-armv7a-hardfloat
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.1 20200117 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90565
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90565
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93299
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think D bugs shouldn't block the release, shouldn't this be P4?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90565
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at gcc-testresults, this seems to be long fixed, isn't it?
At least, I see both uninit-18.c and uninit-pr90394-1-gimple.c FAIL and not
FAIL pretty randomly in May, but certainly haven't seen them in r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93299
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Those patches actually were sent to the list, and I reviewed them, and got no
reply:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2014-12/msg00069.html
I've committed them (after suitable updates) so the libstdc++ pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69724
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|11.0
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90295
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|redi at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90704
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|redi at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93299
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
force_paren_expr now creates a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR:
+ expr = build1 (VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (expr), expr);
+ REF_PARENTHESIZED_P (expr) = true;
but it's not a case that tsubst_copy can handle:
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92376
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92376
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ba6a850b597236832140bf57bf6083b6fab93f9
commit r10-6049-g0ba6a850b597236832140bf57bf6083b6fab93f9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93076
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93173
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raj.khem at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93311
kuzniar95 at o2 dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from kuznia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92788
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is exactly in the EH edge purging being delayed, if it would be
done before thread_through_all_blocks, then it might work. But not sure if the
edge purging doesn't invalidate something that threa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92815
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #3 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93299
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems to have started with g:e4511ca2e9ecdb51d41b64452398f8e2df575668.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93299
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|WAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93310
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57612
--- Comment #4 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #2)
> I would like to second this request, however, I would like to request that
> it issues a warning rather than an error. It can always be promoted to an
> error via
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92376
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |8.4
Summary|[9/10 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93175
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80005
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
1 - 100 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
