https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95646
xinyu.zhang at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinyu.zhang at arm dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98813
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #0)
> For the below code:
> ---t.c
> void
> foo (const double* __restrict__ A, const double* __restrict__ B, double*
> __restrict__ C,
> int n, int k, int m)
> {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98813
--- Comment #4 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Thanks, Richard!
One interesting thing: below code is vectorized:
void
foo (const double *__restrict__ A, const double *__restrict__ B,
double *__restrict__ C, int n, int k, int m)
{
if (n > 0 && m > 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
--- Comment #4 from martin ---
Created attachment 50053
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50053&action=edit
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93918
--- Comment #6 from martin ---
Sorry, wrong issue...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93918
--- Comment #5 from martin ---
Created attachment 50052
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50052&action=edit
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
--- Comment #3 from martin ---
The submitted testcase is invalid fortran, see bug 93925. However, with the
same small fix it becomes valid and still fails. Sorry for the mistake.
Instead of a fix, I have attached a much reduced testcase showing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585
Bug 20585 depends on bug 93925, which changed state.
Bug 93925 Summary: Invalid memory reference upon call of a routine taking a
procedure pointer as argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89701
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 50051
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50051&action=edit
tested patch based on latest trunk
Will send patch in GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
--- Comment #5 from martin ---
Sorry for this invalid test case, obviously I did reduce too much. The three
attached variations should hopefully all be conforming to the standard and
still produce the same error. Please reopen if the testcases ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
--- Comment #4 from martin ---
Created attachment 50050
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50050&action=edit
classStar_map4 without target nor pointer attributes for variable x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
--- Comment #3 from martin ---
Created attachment 50049
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50049&action=edit
classStar_map3 with class(*), pointer for variable x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
--- Comment #2 from martin ---
Created attachment 50048
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50048&action=edit
classStar_map2 with pointer attribute for variable x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98832
Bug ID: 98832
Summary: CTAD fails for alias template of aggregate with
specified undeducible template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98809
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98815
--- Comment #2 from Feng Xue ---
If we step into free_dominance_info(dir), it is a wrapper of
free_dominance_info (cfun, dir), which means it assumes a non-NULL "cfun".
Additionally, please go through calling stack of free_dominance_info():
f
mdi 4
=== gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===
# of expected passes6
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes12
/home/luoxhu/workspace/build/gcc/xgcc version 11.0.0 20210125 (experimental)
(GCC)
luoxhu@bns:~/workspace/build$ gcc/xgcc -v
Using built-in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98814
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97566
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98830
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning in pr98646 was determined to be a false positive at least in part
because the cast was guarded by a test for the result of the call being
nonnull, like so:
if (p->f ())
static_cast(p->f ())-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98830
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
I looked at your examples in bug 98646, and the analyzer seems to me to be
working correctly.
Specifically:
Analyzer correctly doesn't warn for:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646#c5
Anal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98801
--- Comment #6 from Jeff Hurchalla ---
I'd be quite satisfied with the simpler option that Peter Cordes wrote:
> a non-memory conditional-select builtin that exposes the much more widely
> available ALU conditional-select functionality like x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98830
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Why is it a false positive? The call to p->f () is a call to
B* B::f ();
and that could return NULL, hence the call to C::g would be passing NULL as
'this'.
Arguably the message would be more readable as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825
--- Comment #3 from max.pd at gmx dot de ---
Here some details to outline the issue:
The problem is affecting
1) "gcc/libgfortran/io/format.c"
2) "gcc/libgfortran/io/transfer.c"
of the gcc source tree.
The feature, implemented as FMT_DOLLAR
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't have access to the box where it happened, I was just lucky somebody
else had and could find the stuck process for me and kill it.
In the past 2 month gcc builds were stuck similar way several times bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98831
Bug ID: 98831
Summary: missing -Wfree-nonheap-object on a conditional
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98830
Bug ID: 98830
Summary: -Wanalyzer-null-argument on static_cast and
inheritance
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98829
--- Comment #3 from Nemanja Boric ---
Changing:
static constexpr std::uint64_t kMagicNumber = 1730;
static constexpr std::uint64_t kCustomNaN = 0x7ff0 |
kMagicNumber;
to
static inline std::uint64_t kMagicNumber = 1730;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98829
--- Comment #2 from Nemanja Boric ---
Indeed, but there's a barrier in the code (is_empty) which doesn't let NaN
values to enter the computation, so they shouldn't propagate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98829
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
NaNs do prograte but as far as I know can change values as long as it is still
a NaN.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98829
Bug ID: 98829
Summary: Different results with -O3 and custom quiet NaN
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87568
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I cannot reproduce the error with r11-6901, but I still see it on 10-branch.
--disable-libvtv
--disable-libitm --disable-libgomp
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 20210125 (experimental) (GCC)
$ ./xg++ -B. ~/m.cc -B
~/x/trunk/powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/ -fsanitize=leak
-B ../powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70913
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|anlauf at gmx dot de |
--- Comment #8 from a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98827
Bug ID: 98827
Summary: [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-builtin-7.c
assembler counts off after r11-6857
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #8 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The test is pretty simple.
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/testsuite/go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue19182.go;h=e1f3ffb4749f4dbb4c2204c4a0f484aea91b4771;hb=HEAD
The interesting thing it does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96386
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Thomas,
When did it get fixed? I seem to have done so many associate fixes that I
barely know where to start - was it even me?
Lots of the recent PRs are low lying fruit. It's plea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
Perhaps the test is blocking or ignoring SIGTERM, or handling it in some
incompatible way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056
Bug 33056 depends on bug 70070, which changed state.
Bug 70070 Summary: ICE on initializing character data beyond min/max bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a61efd469371b71483d42afa1038e6a8c16baf4a
commit r11-6901-ga61efd469371b71483d42afa1038e6a8c16baf4a
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825
--- Comment #2 from max.pd at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> AFAIU $ fin format is a DEC(?) extension: see e.g.
> http://www.gf.uns.ac.rs/~hidro/download/CVF_LREF.PDF
>
> Thi is not implemented in gfortran.
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94236
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks. So, unix_load does seem to have a timeout by default, and as far as I
can see the Go testsuite code isn't doing anything to change that. Why isn't
the timeout working?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #9 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> I say nothing like that. I say that
> .text.hot.
> is nasty (is easily mistaken for .text.hot).
>
> I also say that and that named-per-function sections a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug 95507 depends on bug 98646, which changed state.
Bug 98646 Summary: [11 Regression] A static_cast confuses -Wnonnull, causing
false positives
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512
--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer ---
Note, patch has been superseded:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564060.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
And for the unix board, its implementation is in
/usr/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6f1cf644c45b76a27b6a6869dedaa030e3c7570
commit r11-6900-gd6f1cf644c45b76a27b6a6869dedaa030e3c7570
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94660
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
That's standard part of dejagnu.
/usr/share/dejagnu/standard.exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I'm sure I'm missing something, but what I see in lib/gcc-dg.exp is code that
says "if ${tool}_load already exists, then wrap it." I don't see the original
implementation of ${tool}_load.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96386
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96843
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98801
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97031
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
go_load is defined in lib/gcc-dg.exp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I say nothing like that. I say that
.text.hot.
is nasty (is easily mistaken for .text.hot).
I also say that and that named-per-function sections are better as
.text%name
than as
.text.name
(just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98826
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
As I said on the WG14 reflector, I think the natural handling of anonymous
structs and unions for C is that anonymity provides only a shorthand for
name lookup (member access, designated in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The Go testsuite is intended to have timeouts for all tests.
The test gcc/testsuite/go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue19182.go is just passed off
to the TCL function go-torture-execute. Running the executable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98826
Bug ID: 98826
Summary: [gcc vs g++] qualified type of members of anonymous
struct
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #7 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> I was under the impression this unique section thing needed the trailing
> dot thing. This probably is not true.
>
> I still think the old "%" thing is much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98819
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98228
--- Comment #18 from Marius Hillenbrand ---
The fix looks good -- bootstrap succeeded on s390x, both regular and the
4-stage profiledbootstrap-lean. Still running the test suite...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825
Bug ID: 98825
Summary: Unexpected behavior of FORTRAN FORMAT expressions when
suppressing new line with '$'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98819
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Yeah, adding restrict there is just wrong; the constructor is called outside
the function, and could e.g. stash a pointer to the object in a global
variable. What we actually want is to treat this reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I was under the impression this unique section thing needed the trailing
dot thing. This probably is not true.
I still think the old "%" thing is much superior to the trailing dot thing,
but that then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98824
Bug ID: 98824
Summary: [C++-20] function template non-type-class-arg
deduction fails with a reason that looks bogus
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98616
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
> cat mips64el-unknown-linux-gnu/libgcc/config.log
...
configure:3778: checking for suffix of object files
configure:3800: /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.2.0-r5/work/build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/var/tmp/portage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97260
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97683
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97683
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:94ff4c9dd98f39280fba22d1ad0958fb25a5363b
commit r11-6895-g94ff4c9dd98f39280fba22d1ad0958fb25a5363b
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
Bug ID: 98823
Summary: go testsuite and timeouts
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98803
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++20] ICE on invalid code |[10/11 Regression] [C++20]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98472
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98800
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-25
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98472
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97164
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
|i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98767
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98822
Bug ID: 98822
Summary: Rejects-valid: instantiation of class template
instantiates (all) constrained non-template friend
definitions (, even those) with unsatisfied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|rsandifo at sou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98811
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe5cb7f94d4e9b6fc932017d4ee74ba4f9f417b9
commit r11-6893-gfe5cb7f94d4e9b6fc932017d4ee74ba4f9f417b9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98821
Bug ID: 98821
Summary: modules : c++tools configures with CC but code
fragments assume CXX.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98563
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98739
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e05a117dc4b98f3ac60851608f532ba7cee7343a
commit r11-6892-ge05a117dc4b98f3ac60851608f532ba7cee7343a
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98739
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5089df534b85b795bfcdca8f4f1957ad15a60558
commit r11-6891-g5089df534b85b795bfcdca8f4f1957ad15a60558
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98807
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98807
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:defc40db9e09ecceb2d71727031fe9579bce1b11
commit r11-6890-gdefc40db9e09ecceb2d71727031fe9579bce1b11
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97627
--- Comment #12 from bin cheng ---
a. why the loop is considered as infinite
b. we need to skip fake exit edges in niter analysis?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97627
--- Comment #11 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #10)
> hmm,
> For below basic block:
> 128 ;; basic block 4, loop depth 2, maybe hot
> 129 ;;prev block 3, next block 9, flags: (NEW, VISITED)
> 130 ;;pred: 3
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
