https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95442
Nicholas Krause changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68837
--- Comment #5 from HaoChen Gui ---
I think there are two ways avoiding sign extension for offset loading.
a. Make sure all offsets be positive. There exists backward jumps as well as
STC will reorder the basic block. So the offset might be neg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95631
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95632
Bug ID: 95632
Summary: Redundant zero extension
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95631
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I think this is a bug in the RISCV backend that selects the small data
section for read only constants. Rather than we want to support this
extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95631
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
PR 17887 was the same issue against g77.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95631
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Well we decided long time ago not to support that extension.
See PR 37974 and maybe even some g77 bug reports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95631
Bug ID: 95631
Summary: Unable to redefine a literal with `-std=legacy'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95540
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
to summarise.
This doesn't appear to be a bug in GCC (or clang) but something perhaps that
could benefit from a clarifying note in the std?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95629
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
preliminary analysis on pr95510 (which might be a dup) has the assert failing
because the first operand of the target expression is a CTOR not a call.
However, accepting a CTOR there just leads to a fail later
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95629
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10037
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95630
Bug ID: 95630
Summary: rejects-valid on comparison of pointers to complete vs
incomplete types in C11 mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95628
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|powerpc*-*-*
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95578
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a73051a0ea9ce8281e748a74dd924a6eb8fb3723
commit r11-1186-ga73051a0ea9ce8281e748a74dd924a6eb8fb3723
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93571
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95629
Bug ID: 95629
Summary: consteval operator== crashes compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95628
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95628
Bug ID: 95628
Summary: [11 regression] ICE in gcc build after r11-1181
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94833
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6dce1d8083a2fdc94be167a2465db7fd837ccae
commit r8-10304-gc6dce1d8083a2fdc94be167a2465db7fd837ccae
Author: Carl Love
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95346
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5bb75908cbcc0d2ddfbadedfcd716b33694fd9c4
commit r10-8269-g5bb75908cbcc0d2ddfbadedfcd716b33694fd9c4
Author: Iain Sandoe
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51447
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06ef9c119c56568e5f77a5189aa382cb97c95a9e
commit r11-1185-g06ef9c119c56568e5f77a5189aa382cb97c95a9e
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95440
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9eec9625ea7165292958be04899b057804192fb
commit r11-1184-ga9eec9625ea7165292958be04899b057804192fb
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #32 from Qing Zhao ---
> I would be more interested in overall statistics for your training scenario.
> How much can you get from ~1TB of data?
The profile directory generated by the new executable compiled with this patch
was 112G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #31 from Qing Zhao ---
> The explanation is not sufficient.
You mean the following explanation: (in comment 18)
we tried the scheme that all the processes generate profiling feedback data to
the single directory,
but looks like a lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95627
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95627
Bug ID: 95627
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in rs6000_density_test at
rs6000.c:4992 since
r11-1181-g371cc683371bedb0e53ebcee0c0e89604a1e74b1
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #30 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #29)
> >
> > And you still haven't replied to my essential question: Why can't you merge
> > profiles into one directory during run? Or at least merge to a reasonable
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95596
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95578
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92102
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||godeffroy.valet at m4x dot org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95626
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95560
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95626
Bug ID: 95626
Summary: [concepts] incorrect ambiguous overload with
constraints "A && !B" vs "!B"
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92939
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 92939, which changed state.
Bug 92939 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on negative index from the end
of array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92939
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2c2cee92e5defff9bf23d3b1184ee96e57e5fdd
commit r11-1183-ga2c2cee92e5defff9bf23d3b1184ee96e57e5fdd
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92939
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2c2cee92e5defff9bf23d3b1184ee96e57e5fdd
commit r11-1183-ga2c2cee92e5defff9bf23d3b1184ee96e57e5fdd
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82608
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82608
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 8.4.0, 9.3.0
Last reconfi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82581
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86889
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-08-09 00:00:00 |2020-6-10
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 88992, which changed state.
Bug 88992 Summary: missing -Warray-bounds indexing into a zero-length array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88992
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88992
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95625
Bug ID: 95625
Summary: missing detail in -Waddress initializing a function
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95576
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95576
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36e95a9e539a08275a0a6ef542a7fae5baa5710f
commit r11-1180-g36e95a9e539a08275a0a6ef542a7fae5baa5710f
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95523
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95523
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5cebc9ab7f6ab47067dc04cae17bf9921a62a18
commit r11-1179-gb5cebc9ab7f6ab47067dc04cae17bf9921a62a18
Author: z00219097
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95562
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95562
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:977a173c196dc5ba5ac2e1b890083beb0451cf60
commit r10-8268-g977a173c196dc5ba5ac2e1b890083beb0451cf60
Author: Marek Polacek
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #26 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #25)
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #24)
> > The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
> I can confirm that the reduced testcase is now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #25 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #24)
> The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
Thanks!
I can confirm that the reduced testcase is now fixed. On the original test I
still get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #29 from Qing Zhao ---
>
> And you still haven't replied to my essential question: Why can't you merge
> profiles into one directory during run? Or at least merge to a reasonable
> number of folders that you'll merge later?
Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95562
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4fed5d5dd85e3f5d812d125f692351646a0417cb
commit r11-1176-g4fed5d5dd85e3f5d812d125f692351646a0417cb
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95559
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Marek Pola
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88572
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haoxintu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95559
--- Comment #5 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> That's the same case, initializing an int with {{}}. GCC 8 compiled the
> second testcase, but that was fixed in r269045.
Ok, got it. At least this was a bug, can y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95559
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
That's the same case, initializing an int with {{}}. GCC 8 compiled the second
testcase, but that was fixed in r269045.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95624
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||86976
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95621
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95576
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It's also odd vectorization.
t.c:14:3: note: Detected interleaving store this_3(D)->D.2378._vptr.S and
_1->_vptr.S
t.c:14:3: note: Queuing group with duplicate access for fixup
t.c:14:3: missed: not c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95624
Bug ID: 95624
Summary: std::put_time() and std::strftime() don't recognize %e
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b6731e674c76cb48a417f2eef74ced92a17f469
commit r11-1145-g8b6731e674c76cb48a417f2eef74ced92a17f469
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95623
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95623
Bug ID: 95623
Summary: #include fails to define this_thread
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #44 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #43)
> To handle vectorization for this kind of code, it needs to overcome the hard
> issue mentioned in comment #5: the loop has 2 exits.
Yes and that also implies vector loads
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95606
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And probably one or both of the basic_json and json_ref constructors should be
explicit, so that you can't implicitly convert them both to each other.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95606
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #43 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
To handle vectorization for this kind of code, it needs to overcome the hard
issue mentioned in comment #5: the loop has 2 exits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95606
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The testcase is:
#include
#include
template
class basic_json;
using json = basic_json;
class json_ref
{
public:
template ::value>
json_ref(T &&){}
};
template
class basic_json
{
public:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95109
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93993
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95622
Bug ID: 95622
Summary: force_output flag on a variable prevents optimization
/ regresses
c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-alias-ipa-pta-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95569
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d9ef0621f8e1aaafd458dba1a8b5476e655b479
commit r11-1142-g6d9ef0621f8e1aaafd458dba1a8b5476e655b479
Author: Qian Chao
Date: Wed Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95617
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #26)
> > --- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
> >> I will try to get more data on our real application.
> >>
> >> one question: why not just delete the entire records w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #27 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #24)
> with the patch added to gcc11, I tested it with the small testing case, and
> got the following data:
>
I would be more interested in overall statistics for your tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc6d15eaa23cbae1468a6ef92371b1c856c14819
commit r11-1141-gdc6d15eaa23cbae1468a6ef92371b1c856c14819
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95607
--- Comment #1 from Andrzej Krzemienski ---
Note that the behavior of GCC cannot be called non conformant with the C++
Standard, as the Standard is very unclear: it does not define the term
"immediate context", but later refers to it.
The proble
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95620
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95606
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Keywords|
88 matches
Mail list logo
