https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98908
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98907
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98927
Bug ID: 98927
Summary: Code using _mm_extract_epi16 compiles with -O3 but not
on other optimization modes
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98295
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4f8e2fc771bea21aaac44433e75510362e208c1
commit r10-9335-ga4f8e2fc771bea21aaac44433e75510362e208c1
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97582
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98519
--- Comment #21 from Michael Meissner ---
I have patches that fix the problem in the hook.
My original idea of not allowing prefixed insns in the hook doesn't work
because when the hook is called, it only sees pseudo registers.
So what my patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98093
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96374
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a2750086d57d1a2251d9239fa4e6c2dc9ec3a86
commit r11-7029-g8a2750086d57d1a2251d9239fa4e6c2dc9ec3a86
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a2750086d57d1a2251d9239fa4e6c2dc9ec3a86
commit r11-7029-g8a2750086d57d1a2251d9239fa4e6c2dc9ec3a86
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2f639c4a781016ad146d44f463714fe4295cb6e
commit r11-7028-gf2f639c4a781016ad146d44f463714fe4295cb6e
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96374
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2f639c4a781016ad146d44f463714fe4295cb6e
commit r11-7028-gf2f639c4a781016ad146d44f463714fe4295cb6e
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98926
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98921
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98921
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:13ec4505c04c6cadfc22ec1b23fd6edf745ca183
commit r9-9216-g13ec4505c04c6cadfc22ec1b23fd6edf745ca183
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98921
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38c2d9598b1b2f23b24f96fd8f58a89344b93609
commit r10-9334-g38c2d9598b1b2f23b24f96fd8f58a89344b93609
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98921
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a481021a65d6237b0c509a76fcd9c1f32c4558e
commit r11-7027-g6a481021a65d6237b0c509a76fcd9c1f32c4558e
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Tue Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98093
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> It's fixed on master, can we close it now or do we need a backport to active
> branches?
If someone filled in the known-to-work / known-to-fail fields we wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98921
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #2)
> diff --git a/gcc/d/dmd/dmangle.c b/gcc/d/dmd/dmangle.c
> index f6eee52afbf..73d9ac5367f 100644
> --- a/gcc/d/dmd/dmangle.c
> +++ b/gcc/d/dmd/dmangle.c
> @@ -822,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70053
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please open a separate bug for x86 problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98926
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98926
Bug ID: 98926
Summary: [11 regression] several ICEs after r11-7011
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95038
--- Comment #9 from Bill Long ---
The original test is not conforming due to the missing IMPORT statement.
However, the error message , which I assume is for the second non-blank line in
the listing, seems odd. The standard says
"If RESULT do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95192
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=95038
Ev Drikos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drikosev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98847
--- Comment #8 from programmerjake at gmail dot com ---
Can the fix for this be backported to gcc 8 and 9 too? Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98918
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98918
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:11d4ec5d45c02a19b8ff9d7f26800637ad563e05
commit r11-7024-g11d4ec5d45c02a19b8ff9d7f26800637ad563e05
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98925
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
> If I don't overstimate modref and alias analysis destructor should disappear
> completely in the example below (from https://gcc.gnu.org/PR98499#c4):
>
> struct string {
> char * _M_buf;
> // local sto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98499
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98499
--- Comment #12 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Should be fixed in gcc-11.
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
> It is also relatively easy to track the EAF flags here, I will try to get
> quick stats on how often this makes difference (and wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98925
Bug ID: 98925
Summary: Extend modref to handle return slot optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98924
Bug ID: 98924
Summary: Ambiguous name in concept-id diagnosed as parser error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/Txrvos
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98893
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I think the right direction is to use lambdas. That would make the cleanup
function have a scope attached or related to the variable being dtord. Howevr,
we cannot use actual lambdas, as that'd disturb the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98499
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sergei Trofimovich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:11056ab7687f7156846e93557c9171b77713bd7e
commit r11-7022-g11056ab7687f7156846e93557c9171b77713bd7e
Author: Sergei Trofimovich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79009
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stephan.oostveen@nextlevel-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98919
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98919
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is a duplicate of an existing (quite old) bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96840
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98921
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
diff --git a/gcc/d/dmd/dmangle.c b/gcc/d/dmd/dmangle.c
index f6eee52afbf..73d9ac5367f 100644
--- a/gcc/d/dmd/dmangle.c
+++ b/gcc/d/dmd/dmangle.c
@@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ public:
void visit(IntegerExp *e)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98921
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98923
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98923
Bug ID: 98923
Summary: [11 regression] bootstrap on powerpc64 fails after
r11-6995
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98729
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98724
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98921
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98922
Bug ID: 98922
Summary: -fstack-usage not working with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assignee: ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org
Reporter: sch...@linux-m68k.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: powerpc64-*-*
$ /daten/gcc/gcc-20210201/Build/./gcc/gdc
-B/daten/gcc/gcc-20210201/Build/./gcc/ -B/usr/powerpc64-suse-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, r11-5904-g4cf70c20cb10acd6fb1016611d05540728176b60 fixed it. I'll add
the testcase into the testsuite after testing it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97487
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=98920
Bug ID: 98920
Summary: [10/11 Regression] uses regexec without support for
REG_STARTEND with -fsanitize=address
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98884
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
x86-64 is handled correctly according to the psABI, see
https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/-/blob/master/x86-64-ABI/low-level-sys-info.tex
The empty classes will end up with NO_CLASS and thus aren't pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98919
Bug ID: 98919
Summary: auto declaration of multiple variables allows
inconsistent types
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0718336a5284dd5b40fd6691a94d6be93a80f279
commit r11-7018-g0718336a5284dd5b40fd6691a94d6be93a80f279
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98034
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> C++20 adds these typedefs.
And the __cpp_lib_atomic_lock_free_type_aliases feature test macro.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98504
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
a trunk 20210130 build without LTO did succeed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98835
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c2f8e378d64f65645e5f9c41a8221ca102c71208
commit r11-7014-gc2f8e378d64f65645e5f9c41a8221ca102c71208
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98884
--- Comment #6 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> If GCC and Clang are ABI incompatible on this, then one of the two compilers
> is buggy. So, it is needed to look at the EABI and find out which case it
> is.
I'v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98295
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE |[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98295
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e534fb7d8256a605b6bdc12451d209af1bed329
commit r11-7013-g7e534fb7d8256a605b6bdc12451d209af1bed329
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98918
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Analyzer false positives|[11 Regression] Analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98355
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98355
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c616e86e8bc76f867242b4aba372736d1c8cbf80
commit r10-9332-gc616e86e8bc76f867242b4aba372736d1c8cbf80
Author: Marek Polacek
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98355
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in |[9/10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98355
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bab669f2fc643cb1673aecd177eec1c773e9e48e
commit r11-7012-gbab669f2fc643cb1673aecd177eec1c773e9e48e
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98918
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98884
--- Comment #5 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Note, for ABI compatibility or incompatibility it might be better to check
> what happens when some argument is passed after the empty structs. Because
> at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98918
Bug ID: 98918
Summary: Analyzer false positives due to sm-state involving
UNKNOWN pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98570
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
For varasm.c line 8285 is
for (p = s; p < limit && *p != '\0'; p++)
So either the limit is wrong or there are some un-init bytes in
the string. My money is on option 2 ;->
Maybe a suitable firs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98570
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e0a231a4aa2407bb7167daf98a37795a67364d8
commit r11-7011-g6e0a231a4aa2407bb7167daf98a37795a67364d8
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98093
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
It's fixed on master, can we close it now or do we need a backport to active
branches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98917
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #1)
> Is this a 11 regression?
It's hard to tell given the dependency on --param=aarch64-autovec-preference=2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98915
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Got it stuck again over the weekend:
kojibui+ 9992 101 0.1 884512 29120 ?Sl Jan31 968:04
\_
+/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-11.0.0-20210130/ob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95253
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98917
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84494
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84494
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b303ef6cc8a5913345cbcd91abf13075ab2aec9
commit r11-7007-g1b303ef6cc8a5913345cbcd91abf13075ab2aec9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84494
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96282
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f426e4f63451e937c943606d3142b1ac6b70467a
commit r10-9331-gf426e4f63451e937c943606d3142b1ac6b70467a
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97528
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm backporting stuff to older branches in batches and don't plan to do it for
9 or 8 in the near future. If anyone beats me with the backports, I certainly
won't mind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98863
--- Comment #36 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4311ae206da13a9bfdb4245feb400dbee0f528a0
commit r10-9330-g4311ae206da13a9bfdb4245feb400dbee0f528a0
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97528
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If the patch tests cleanly we should apply it to GCC 9 and 8 too (if
applicable)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97971
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50110
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50110&action=edit
gcc11-pr97971.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98899
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97528
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98899
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98917
Bug ID: 98917
Summary: SVE: wrong code with -O -ftree-vectorize
-msve-vector-bits=128
--param=aarch64-autovec-preference=2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98088
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38319
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #11)
> Related / same issue:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-January/055654.html
Hi Tobias,
Over the weekend, I had a stab at fixing this recent issue. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98863
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|WRF with LTO co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98287
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50108
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50108&action=edit
gcc11-pr98287.patch
I'd be afraid it could be hundreds of patterns potentially affected by this.
So I think it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth ---
I've now managed to test your v2 patch, with mixed results:
* On Solaris 11.4:
the libstdc++ failures are gone
the new tests PASS
however, the old g++.dg/modules tests continue to ICE as before
* On So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98863
--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener ---
So on the gcc-10 branch with 4311ae206da1, 5ea7be5068f17, 99c96e797d9662c8,
99dafea9bfebb and 327ec3ea29b58 cherry-picked we top out at 2.5GB and
RTL forwprop is not measuably increasing RSS footage.
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98863
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo