https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92488
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92488
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a8c2573568aa17ada6163f90991701bc4470976
commit r11-2206-g8a8c2573568aa17ada6163f90991701bc4470976
Author: Peter Bergner
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96239
Bug ID: 96239
Summary: Failure to recognize __builtin_bswap16 pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96238
Bug ID: 96238
Summary: [i386] cpuid.h header needs include guards
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95538
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #13 from vvinayag at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #12)
> I managed to bootstrap and regtest upstream commit 6e41c27bf549 on gcc113
> farm machine.
>
> Two questions:
>
> - What is your system compiler ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96237
Bug ID: 96237
Summary: Failure to recognize and pattern composed of and+or
after shift
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96236
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96236
Bug ID: 96236
Summary: __builtin_mma_disassemble_acc() doesn't store elements
correctly in LE mode
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96217
--- Comment #4 from LE GARREC Vincent ---
I know that building the world with -O0 can be strange but it really helps me
when a software crashes.
Thanks, -lgcc_eh solves the problem. I will create a bugreport to glibc and
hope they will fix it.
Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] Maybe a |[11 Regression] spurious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95720
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48886|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93553
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
The variable ("D.3940") is produced via the following route.
Contrary to variables processed in gimplify.c, which use
/* When within an OMP context, notice uses of variables. */
if (gimplify_omp_ctxp &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93121
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oh, and the patch doesn't differentiate between storing of indeterminate values
into unsigned char or std::byte and other stores, all of them are treated as
problematic. Will defer that to PR96223, but the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48883|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47819
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
The following bugs might be added to this meta-bug. But they seemed not very
urgent because they involve non-default -g/-f debug flags:
- -flto -g -gsplit-dwarf is broken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79815
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7f0873a9c4ebccd078fc5330866efe0cd4c1309
commit r11-2202-ge7f0873a9c4ebccd078fc5330866efe0cd4c1309
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79815
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
em will not occur. And if I
reduce any one of "-fno-dce -fno-tree-dce -finline-small-functions -fipa-sra",
this problem will not occur as well.
Looking forward to your reply, Thanks!
$ gcc --version
$ gcc (GCC) 11.0.0 20200717 (experimental)
$
$ gcc -O2 -Wall -Wextra -fno-strict-aliasin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94311
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Mark Wielaard -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95720
--- Comment #11 from Andrea Corallo ---
Hi Alexandre,
thanks for the patch, the version attached does the job here for the
mentioned testcase.
I touched a couple of lines, please have a look as my tcl is quite
limited.
Andrea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96234
Bug ID: 96234
Summary: Sub-optimal register allocation with a signed integer
literal.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Will Schmidt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eba1113dbdf4b1d0d88755b2538327a1d09837b3
commit r8-10362-geba1113dbdf4b1d0d88755b2538327a1d09837b3
Author: Will Schmidt
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96233
Bug ID: 96233
Summary: XGCC-10.1.0 for Target RX: internal compiler error: in
dwarf2out_frame_debug_adjust_cfa, at dwarf2cfi.c:1189
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
> > (I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78871
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
>
> --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > Please this patch.
>
> /* Merge and update the -fcf-protection option. */
>
> but here you take the setting from the la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96186
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #60 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:737355072af4cd0c24a4a8967e1485c1f3a80bfe
commit r11-2200-g737355072af4cd0c24a4a8967e1485c1f3a80bfe
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Jul 13 09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96186
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:737355072af4cd0c24a4a8967e1485c1f3a80bfe
commit r11-2200-g737355072af4cd0c24a4a8967e1485c1f3a80bfe
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Jul 13 09:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96232
Bug ID: 96232
Summary: Failure to optimize bool pattern equivalent to minus 1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96231
Bug ID: 96231
Summary: Can't generate ORR instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96226
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The combine produces:
Trying 7, 8 -> 9:
7: r89:SI=0x1
8: {r88:SI=r89:SI<3_mask"
[(set (match_operand:SWI48 0 "nonimmediate_operand")
(any_rotate:SWI48
(match_operand:SWI48 1 "nonimm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96225
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Dup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96186
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96225
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93121
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48887
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48887&action=edit
gcc11-pr93121-me.patch
Middle-end patch to handle bit-fields (except for PDP11 and those that lack
DECL_BIT_FIE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85304
--- Comment #4 from Trupti Pardeshi
---
(In reply to Trupti Pardeshi from comment #3)
> Hi,
>
> May I know whether this bug is fixed? And if fixed, in which version of
> binutils this fix has gone?
>
> Any heads up will be appreciated.
>
> Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93553
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93720
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9c87e6f9c795bb36e4570a07501fc182eaad035
commit r11-2192-gc9c87e6f9c795bb36e4570a07501fc182eaad035
Author: Dmitrij Pochepko
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82199
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7efc03fd2cb69fa0f790d32627a3e8131724e7e1
commit r11-2191-g7efc03fd2cb69fa0f790d32627a3e8131724e7e1
Author: Dmitrij Pochepko
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96217
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96228
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96230
--- Comment #2 from z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> But then an empty dumpbase should be OK?
The case ic-misattribution-1.c in the gcc testsuite contains an empty string
-dumpbase "".
However
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96127
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andreas Krebbel :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80029561822fe4f010f72940527c4ee9ff8dbf56
commit r11-2188-g80029561822fe4f010f72940527c4ee9ff8dbf56
Author: Andreas Krebbel
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96217
--- Comment #2 from LE GARREC Vincent ---
Are you sure ?
I thought it the fault of GCC because :
- glibc can be build if gcc was built with -O2
- glibc can't be build if gcc was built with -O0
I think the build of glibc should not depend on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> Please this patch.
/* Merge and update the -fcf-protection option. */
but here you take the setting from the last file rather than merging it,
I'd have expected a
51 matches
Mail list logo
