https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98845
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98847
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.1, 11.0
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98846
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, rejects-valid
Ever conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98839
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98434
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 50065
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50065&action=edit
Local patch with Bootstrap and regression test on i386/x86_64 is ok.
Will send for review in gcc12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
> For avx2_gt we actually use the expander in one spot, but don't use the
> builtins.
Just note, there're also
modified libcpp/lex.c
@@ -391,10 +391,10 @@ search_line_sse2 (const uchar *s, const uchar *end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98847
Bug ID: 98847
Summary: Miscompilation with c++17, templates, and register
keyword
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98801
--- Comment #7 from Jeff Hurchalla ---
It might be good to ignore my suggestion to satisfy security needs - if for no
other reason than I can't speak well to those needs. I get the sense crypto's
need to avoid optimizations can be complicated, f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98846
Bug ID: 98846
Summary: Spurious -Wregister warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98845
Bug ID: 98845
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption (Unable to
coalesce ssa_names 2 and 23 which are marked as MUST
COALESCE.)
Product: gcc
Version: 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98813
--- Comment #7 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #0)
> > > For the below code:
> > > ---t.c
> > > void
> > > foo (const doub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at charter dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98827
--- Comment #3 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I know it now, the r11-6858 did some changes the P8 code generation, so the
latest failure also changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-January/651154.html
current failures ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98844
Bug ID: 98844
Summary: Deduction guides don't inhibit the aggregate deduction
candidate
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/EWs4rd
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98843
--- Comment #1 from gazzatav ---
Created attachment 50064
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50064&action=edit
mod.ii, main.ii - tmp files required by guidelines, a-iostream.ii too large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98843
Bug ID: 98843
Summary: Building simple c++ modules example fails but
successful with -save-temps
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97874
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=98842
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98784
--- Comment #10 from Romain Naour ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #8)
> > OK, this makes sense now and this looks like a bootstrap problem, e.g. the
> > code setting up _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ in the libc might be trying to access
> > i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96253f069ead0736536de803b06a8053a85039a6
commit r11-6919-g96253f069ead0736536de803b06a8053a85039a6
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98842
--- Comment #2 from g...@nicholas-schwab.de ---
Created attachment 50063
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50063&action=edit
Patch operator<=>
The operator<=>(optional<_Tp>, _Up) is currently underconstrained. cf
http://eel.is/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91862
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Current status is that there is testcase coverage for this in git, but the test
requires:
/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-analyzer-too-complex
-fno-analyzer-feasibility" } */
(a) It happens to successfu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98784
--- Comment #9 from Romain Naour ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> > The previous gcc command line was from the busybox build (without -fPIC) but
> > this is not busybox that crash... this is the libc.
> >
> > See how the libc (u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82150
--- Comment #13 from david.welch at netronome dot com ---
Very sorry it has been years since I did this research, a simple nop wont fix
it but a branch to self will.
bad
TEST:
push {r4,lr}
pop {r4,pc}
bx r0 /*.hword 0x470
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98840
--- Comment #4 from Dmitriy Ovdienko ---
What if introduce new ABI version and encode into function name (function name
mangling).
And then have two options:
* Either compile code and store both versions into lib file (ABI v1 and v2).
Applies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97566
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98737
--- Comment #8 from Ulrich Drepper ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> The sub fix won't be the same as would add, perhaps xor/or/and can be
> handled by the same peephole2, but even for that I'm not sure.
Just a proposal, but I ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97566
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4dfd0f089af33f2af57bf422f9859405b9b4a16
commit r11-6918-ga4dfd0f089af33f2af57bf422f9859405b9b4a16
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4dfd0f089af33f2af57bf422f9859405b9b4a16
commit r11-6918-ga4dfd0f089af33f2af57bf422f9859405b9b4a16
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98835
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98753
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@sf-mail.de,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #34 from Eric Botcazou ---
"cmp -i 256" seems to be a way out though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98841
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98841
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
-Weffc++ is really a bad option in general
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98842
g...@nicholas-schwab.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@nicholas-schwab.de
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98840
--- Comment #3 from Dmitriy Ovdienko ---
> This is not a GCC bug.
No it is not. But can we improve that?
That approach increases the binary size. In case if `baz` is called from many
places, that is going to increase the binary size.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98228
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98842
Bug ID: 98842
Summary: optional's spaceship operations generates wrong code
when operator== is not present
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98228
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29f721366b718b60d4c72d82e42e1e3d0a6405c2
commit r9-9205-g29f721366b718b60d4c72d82e42e1e3d0a6405c2
Author: Eric Botcazou
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98228
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3e3fc277502626677c59e2a7f3dcefa9f9123b5
commit r10-9303-gf3e3fc277502626677c59e2a7f3dcefa9f9123b5
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98228
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9c41bcc59c237aaa629e271f88c20a90cb8e0af5
commit r11-6916-g9c41bcc59c237aaa629e271f88c20a90cb8e0af5
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98840
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHIkrotSwcc discusses exactly this problem.
See also https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2018/05/02/trivial-abi-101/
This is not a GCC bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98840
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The ABI requires it. The caller is responsible for constructing and destroying
the argument.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98841
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-26
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98841
--- Comment #3 from Olaf Mandel ---
Created attachment 50062
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50062&action=edit
Preprocessed source file of version 10.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98841
--- Comment #2 from Olaf Mandel ---
Created attachment 50061
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50061&action=edit
Console output of version 10.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98841
--- Comment #1 from Olaf Mandel ---
Created attachment 50060
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50060&action=edit
Preprocessed source file of version 8.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98841
Bug ID: 98841
Summary: wrong ‘operator=’ should return a reference to ‘*this’
[-Weffc++]
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80460
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98839
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e44c09b2df7282e0b519f241cf54438ab183b5e
commit r11-6915-g6e44c09b2df7282e0b519f241cf54438ab183b5e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98737
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The sub fix won't be the same as would add, perhaps xor/or/and can be handled
by the same peephole2, but even for that I'm not sure. Though e.g. trying
__atomic_or_fetch (&a, b, ...) == 0 doesn't seem to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95038
--- Comment #6 from Bill Long ---
Is there a released version with the fix noted in this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98839
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried that and it now compiles ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98737
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Drepper ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 50058 [details]
> gcc11-pr98737.patch
>
> Untested fix.
This only handles sub?
The same applies to add, or, and, xor. Maybe nand? Can thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640
--- Comment #20 from Bill Long ---
Original customer is asking about the status of this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98814
Ivan Sorokin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98840
Bug ID: 98840
Summary: Why does baz call the delete operator for moved
unique_ptr
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98839
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is because most targets define POINTER_SIZE as (condition ? 64 : 32) or
constant while rs6000 as a variable holding it, therefore whether it chooses
unsigned or signed type for it then matters in these c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98839
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98839
Bug ID: 98839
Summary: [11 regression] compilation failure for dwarf2asm.c
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #9)
> Created attachment 50057 [details]
> Patch that "fixes" all versions of the problem
>
> The attached patch has a fragment of my finalize on assignment patch in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98811
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98827
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On power 8 I used:
configure --enable-languages=c,fortran,c++ --with-cpu=power8
--disable-bootstrap --disable-multilib
On power 7 it was the same but --with-cpu=power7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98737
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82150
--- Comment #12 from david.welch at netronome dot com ---
I my case this was found with a hang, but the problem exists as a read, which
means it can cause a read to a read sensitive peripheral causing adverse
affects.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82150
--- Comment #11 from david.welch at netronome dot com ---
I wish I had know this when I filed this ticket, there is an ARM Errata for
this issue that was issued before or in 2009.
720247: Speculative Instruction fetches can be made anywhere in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98681
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
|a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98681
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17ad8cdebe65b47d257d85849747b806af0a85fd
commit r11-6914-g17ad8cdebe65b47d257d85849747b806af0a85fd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
-fno-tree-ter improves things quite a bit. With -DNAILED_REGS gimple doesn't
do much because we treat registers as memory here.
For trunk
-O2 has 52 spills
-O2 -fno-tree-ter has 35 spills
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98563
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> > I'm afraid no.
> > The vectorization can handle addresses into the simd arrays, but right now
> > only if it acce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98726
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
RTL expansion ICE remains.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98726
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b59dbb5d6759e43bfa23161a8d3feb9ae969e1a
commit r11-6912-g4b59dbb5d6759e43bfa23161a8d3feb9ae969e1a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98838
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Indeed: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/2021-January/727161.html
It was discussed when we moved to the new list software and it was suggested
that simply replacing "@" with " at " and ".com" with "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98563
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> I'm afraid no.
> The vectorization can handle addresses into the simd arrays, but right now
> only if it accesses the whole element, i.e. when we can turn the si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98228
--- Comment #19 from Marius Hillenbrand ---
Eric, I have bootstrapped and successfully reg-tested your proposed fix on
s390x and x86-64. fwict, it works as intended.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98828
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98828
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e81b16c24367d7cc92f6d369606dca5575f6b5f
commit r11-6911-g2e81b16c24367d7cc92f6d369606dca5575f6b5f
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've reported this as https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/119 but
I haven't tried to fix the spec, or fix G++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98819
--- Comment #6 from Jonny Grant ---
Godbolt %u example
https://godbolt.org/z/sc7K6T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also, the note in that section of the ABI is wrong:
> (Note: if the usual array deallocation function takes two arguments,
> then it is a member function whose second argument is of type size_t.
That was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I think the ABI needs fixing. In this example Foo has a trivial destructor
and Foo::operator delete[](void*, size_t, align_val_t) does not have two
parameters. According to the ABI, no cookie is needed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98563
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm afraid no.
The vectorization can handle addresses into the simd arrays, but right now only
if it accesses the whole element, i.e. when we can turn the simd array into a
vector register (or set thereof) th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I wonder if https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#array-cookies
needs to be updated for aligned new[] expressions, or if G++ is just not
accounring for them correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98819
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> In comment #0, the bottom-most "%u" is a fix-it hint, giving the nonsensical
> suggestion to the user that they replace the "%u" with itself. Clearly we
> shouldn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 50057
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50057&action=edit
Patch that "fixes" all versions of the problem
The attached patch has a fragment of my finalize on assignment pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98726
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So looks like induction vectorization is the culprit here but I also guess
that's actually supported?
-fdisable-tree-fre4 -fdisable-tree-fre5 -fdisable-tree-dom3
makes the testcase compile since we only re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
#include
using std::size_t;
struct alignas(32) Foo
{
char x;
void * operator new[ ] (size_t s, std::align_val_t a)
{
void* p = aligned_alloc(static_cast(a), s);
__builtin_pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98838
Christoph Conrads changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98838
Bug ID: 98838
Summary: Spam sent to dedicated Bugzilla e-mail address
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> I think it's a bug in libstdc++ and one can see it with valgrind:
But there's no error when compiled with clang and libstdc++, so that suggests
the problem is g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98726
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 50056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50056&action=edit
patch to make dumping not ICE
The attached avoids ICEing during dumping (it seems there's no reason to export
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98726
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98828
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm that even on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Thanks for the report!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98798
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely at redhat dot com
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98563
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> That change included an important bugfix for the simd handling of
> addressable locals, when they escape they would be then mishandled during
> vectorization.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98837
Bug ID: 98837
Summary: SLP discovery does not consider all lane permutes
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
