https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93618
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93616
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #2 from Richa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #213 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #212)
> (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #211)
> > If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it
> > please be moved from SUSPENDED stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
Bug ID: 93621
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in redirect_call_stmt_to_callee,
at cgraph.c:1443
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92875
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #212 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #211)
> If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it
> please be moved from SUSPENDED status to REOPENED? The situation is far
> worse than wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93195
Bug 93195 depends on bug 93536, which changed state.
Bug 93536 Summary: -fpatchable-function-entries -ffunction-sections doesn't
work with --gc-sections
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93536
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93195
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 93536 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93536
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #211 from Rich Felker ---
If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it please
be moved from SUSPENDED status to REOPENED? The situation is far worse than
what seems to have been realized last this was worked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #210 from Rich Felker ---
If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it please
be moved from SUSPENDED status to REOPENED? The situation is far worse than
what seems to have been realized last this was worked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #209
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93620
Bug ID: 93620
Summary: Floating point is broken in C++ on targets with excess
precision
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82318
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #137 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-05 10:18 p.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> I just had a chance to do some testing tonight. So attempting to bootstrap
> 8.3.0 in stock configuration gives PCREL21B s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93561
--- Comment #3 from vfdff ---
thanks very much!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Does the patch in comment #6 fix the remaining test failures for everyone?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:13f5b93e6453d121abc15c718dfcc588aca976c3
commit r10-6496-g13f5b93e6453d121abc15c718dfcc588aca976c3
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91465
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What makes that move redundant? I don't see it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93569
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93569
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a66219dce7fcba068a0998dd926e2ffc6857f149
commit r10-6494-ga66219dce7fcba068a0998dd926e2ffc6857f149
Author: Michael Meissner
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #6 from Wilc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93561
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d26f37a16e3ed3d75a93ffb1da10c44c36a8a36d
commit r10-6493-gd26f37a16e3ed3d75a93ffb1da10c44c36a8a36d
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
IOW, we need hard numbers, not guesstimates :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why would that be unlikely? It lengthens the lifetime of that pseudo,
potentially significantly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93616
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93616
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93512
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I said (or I meant, at least) that as far as I see and know, all rotate
instructions on all machines do this truncation. It is of course possible
for targets to write it in RTL that only works for a lim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87612
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93619
Bug ID: 93619
Summary: aarch64 target testsuite is so broken with -mcpu=*
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92517
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #10 from kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
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=93288
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70913
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=93405
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93609
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Hello, it's a known and reported issue:
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2020-01/msg00022.html
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> Whoops, that was not supposed to go to bz. Sorry about that.
Hehe. Sure, I'll do it next time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86269
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 86269, which changed state.
Bug 86269 Summary: [concepts] ICE with intermediate concepts notation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86269
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 87441, which changed state.
Bug 87441 Summary: [concepts] Found compiler internal error: in tsubst at
cp/pt.c:13657
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87441
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87441
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79759
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 79759, which changed state.
Bug 79759 Summary: [concepts] ICE in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:13509
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79759
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80746
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80746
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 80746, which changed state.
Bug 80746 Summary: [concepts] ICE evaluating constraints for concepts with
dependent template parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80746
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80773
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 80773, which changed state.
Bug 80773 Summary: [Concepts] Internal Compiler error on template parameter
pack expansion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80773
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82740
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 82740, which changed state.
Bug 82740 Summary: [concepts] requires clause evaluated early
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82740
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from David Malco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wilson at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
--- Comment #12 from Jim Wilson ---
A bisection on mainline between the gcc-8 and gcc-9 releases shows that this
testcase was fixed by a combine patch for PR87600 that stops combining hard
regs with pseudos to reduce register pressure. The comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93609
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Hello, it's a known and reported issue:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2020-01/msg00022.html
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 47793
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47793&action=edit
Fix
This patch fixes the pre-P1825 bug, but breaks the PR58051 test which is not
actually allowed by DR 1579 (b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91638
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That isn't documentation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93497
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 03:38:05AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 02:06:01AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
> apl.washingt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
> I think this is a bug in pre-P1825R0 handling of the restriction that the
> first overload resolution fails "if the type of the first parameter of the
> selected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93618
Bug ID: 93618
Summary: [10 Regression] : unknown array size in delete when
using C++20 standard
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
I think this is a bug in pre-P1825R0 handling of the restriction that the first
overload resolution fails "if the type of the first parameter of the selected
constructor is not an rvalue reference to the obje
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93617
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Definitely invalid, even with the standard [[noreturn]] attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #66 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bba0c624c8b1d6e54dc58091dd21b0c2ab000434
commit r10-6485-gbba0c624c8b1d6e54dc58091dd21b0c2ab000434
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #66 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bba0c624c8b1d6e54dc58091dd21b0c2ab000434
commit r10-6485-gbba0c624c8b1d6e54dc58091dd21b0c2ab000434
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #65 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b65a1eb3fae53f2e1ea1ef8c1164f490d55855a1
commit r10-6484-gb65a1eb3fae53f2e1ea1ef8c1164f490d55855a1
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93617
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93597
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93617
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I doubt we are going to accept an extension here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93617
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93597
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a136a214ede91ef05caac017814b142883dc80d
commit r10-6482-g4a136a214ede91ef05caac017814b142883dc80d
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93617
Bug ID: 93617
Summary: Ternary operator calling a noreturn function should
not cause type errors
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93578
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Whoops, that was not supposed to go to bz. Sorry about that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
--- Comment #1 from wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com ---
Hi Martin,
Could you please CC me on all ppc bugs as well as Segher? I do all of
the "project management" activities for the IBM GCC team.
Thanks!
Bill
On 2/6/20 8:28 AM, marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93616
Bug ID: 93616
Summary: Missed chance to use alias checks to vectorise
invariant indirection
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93561
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting this. It seems the bug did not manifested itself
before as the most targets have virtual hard registers as the last hard regs.
I'll commit your patch today.
Thank you again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93611
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47788|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93615
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested fix:
2020-02-06 Jakub Jelinek
PR target/93615
* config/arm/unwind-arm.h (gnu_Unwind_Find_got): Rename to ...
(_Unwind_gnu_Find_got): ... this. Use __asm instead of asm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93615
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93615
Bug ID: 93615
Summary: [10 Regression] unwind.h on arm can't be compiled with
-std=c11
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93581
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93614
Bug ID: 93614
Summary: C++ compile error with struct in template class and <
operator
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93498
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 07:24:36AM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93498
>
> --- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93594
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> if we change the cast patterns so that they are a
> vec_concat of the operand and UNSPEC_CAST that then represents just the
> uninitialized higher part, simplify-rt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93613
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried:
--- gcc/config/i386/sse.md.jj 2020-02-06 13:40:27.485007762 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/sse.md 2020-02-06 15:24:35.097743017 +0100
@@ -81,7 +81,6 @@ (define_c_enum "unspec" [
;; For AVX2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93594
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
_mm256_permute2x128_si256 issue moved to separate PR93613.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55971
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93613
Bug ID: 93613
Summary: Missed optimization with _mm256_permute2x128_si256
intrinsic
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90746
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90753
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo