https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100466
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.1.0 |12.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100466
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
clang-12 handles this correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100466
Bug ID: 100466
Summary: compilation of assignment from initialization list to
std::array with non-trivial constructor of T is
very slow
Product: gcc
Version: 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Starke ---
Created attachment 50772
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50772&action=edit
rdtsc.c
Please find attached the mingw-w64 file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #15)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
> > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > > > Last touched in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100465
--- Comment #1 from Ramchandra Apte ---
(In reply to Ramchandra Apte from comment #0)
> Created attachment 50771 [details]
> Minimal example
>
> Adding an templated function overload for operator+= and including
> causes a compilation error ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100465
Bug ID: 100465
Summary: Overloading operator+= and including filesystem causes
conflicting overload compilation error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98348
--- Comment #22 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Dávid Bolvanský from comment #20)
> Some small regression (missed opportunity to use vptestnmd):
>
> Current trunk
>
> compare(unsigned int __vector(16)):
> vpxor xmm1, xmm1, xmm1
> vpcmpd k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94680
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/568571.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99908
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/568785.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100310
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
a patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/569248.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100267
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
a patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/569248.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100435
--- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think it's just an omission and indeed a bug.
I can write a patch easily enough, but I don't have a good way to test it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97604
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83873
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97604
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f51cf38bb9628546effe66c070188d10f80b5ca
commit r12-580-g8f51cf38bb9628546effe66c070188d10f80b5ca
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Thu M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83873
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f51cf38bb9628546effe66c070188d10f80b5ca
commit r12-580-g8f51cf38bb9628546effe66c070188d10f80b5ca
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Thu M
inux-gnu
Configured with: /tmp/tmp.PQ1fNP1RKJ-gcc-builder/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto --enable-multiarch
--prefix=/scratch/software/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210506 (experimental) [master revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
What is in mingw-w64-crt/intrincs/rdtsc.c?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 09:31:49PM +, David.Smith at lmu dot edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440
>
> --- Comment #2 from David.Smith at lmu dot edu ---
> > With neither acces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100462
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Running GCC under strace (with -f option since GCC forks off to exec cc1plus).
Should be able to see where the files are being tested for.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 50770
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50770&action=edit
Patch to complete GTY support for hash_map.
Patch to add support for GTY hash_map for all integer types.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440
--- Comment #2 from David.Smith at lmu dot edu ---
> With neither access to the actual code nor a reduced testcase,
> it will be virtually impossible to debug this problem.
Right, I have enclosed a small program pulled out of my real applicati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
So besides the hash_map GTY support being incomplete it also seems like ggc.h
support is missing something. The following change to the header lets the
whole patch below compile:
diff --git a/gcc/ggc.h b/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
As it turns out, the hash_map primary template is incomplete. Defining the
following member fixes that error only to expose another:
index 0779c930f0a..c07bd04704f 100644
--- a/gcc/hash-map.h
+++ b/gcc/hash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
But suppose I change my mind and want to define a map from HWI_INT to int:
diff --git a/gcc/except.c b/gcc/except.c
index a7902bbd555..a47841cf395 100644
--- a/gcc/except.c
+++ b/gcc/except.c
@@ -149,6 +149,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Adding the two missing function like below fixes the errors.
diff --git a/gcc/except.c b/gcc/except.c
index a7902bbd555..913632f5199 100644
--- a/gcc/except.c
+++ b/gcc/except.c
@@ -149,6 +149,21 @@ static G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
Bug ID: 100463
Summary: many errors using GTY and hash_map
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
liblfds admin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liblfds_gccbz at winterflaw
dot ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100462
--- Comment #1 from Marco Trevisan ---
Some verbose logging:
unstable /data/GNOME/gjs
❯ echo $PWD
/data/GNOME/gjs
unstable /data/GNOME/gjs
❯ ls _build/libgjs.so.0.0.0.p -lht
total 119M
-rw-rw-r-- 1 m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100462
Bug ID: 100462
Summary: g++ fails to find the a pre-compiled header
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
Bug ID: 100461
Summary: [11/12 Regression] mingw build broken due to change of
rdtsc implementation
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100460
Bug ID: 100460
Summary: [11/12 Regression] mingw build broken due to use of
unsupported open() flags
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #31 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #30)
> I got bit by this GCC regression today at work. Consider
> https://godbolt.org/z/M9fd7nhdh where std::atomic<__int128> is compare
> exchanged with -march=sandyb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
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=100450
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50769
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50769&action=edit
gcc12-pr100450.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #18)
> ever since Nathan's r11-2876. As this commit mentions, should we enable the
> maybe_save_operator_binding / push_operator_binding mechanism for all
> templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
Niall Douglas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s_gccbugzilla at nedprod dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100459
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100459
Bug ID: 100459
Summary: [10/11 regression] constexpr decltype(auto) variable
declaration bogus cv qual error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100441
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100443
--- Comment #6 from gnzlbg ---
>From [basic.scope.scope]/p3.3.2 http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.scope.scope#3.3.2
I think that A::f and B::f don't correspond because they are function templates
but their return types differ.
Since they don't corr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99928
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, I've noticed that when looking at combined constructs because otherwise
the 2.14 rule that in_reduction when on target shall be also
map(always,tofrom:) doesn't make any sense.
Anyway, we have some kn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100441
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[ICE] |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99928
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I think we should start by checking what we are missing from the handling of
> the harder clauses on combined/composite constructs against the 5.0 2.14
> section.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100458
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100458
Bug ID: 100458
Summary: [10 Regression] arm: ICE in change_address_1 with
-march=armv7-m -fstack-protector-all -mpure-code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99928
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50768
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50768&action=edit
pr99928.tar.xz
I think we should start by checking what we are missing from the handling of
the harder clauses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100442
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100138
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100456
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The CWG issue is
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#2237 and the C++20
standard even calls it out as an incompatibility with C++17.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100456
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100455
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100456
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 100455 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100450
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Likewise with g++ - nonsurprising as it is common code
in c-ppoutput.c's token_streamer::stream. First called with
token->type == CPP_PRAGMA
fprintf (print.outf, "%s %s", space, name);
is the pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100456
--- Comment #2 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Created attachment 50767
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50767&action=edit
Test source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100445
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Following patch fixes the failures:
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.c
index 4dfe7d6c282..61b2f921f41 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.c
+++ b/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100457
Bug ID: 100457
Summary: [meta bug] Enabling O2 vectorization in GCC 12
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97937
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Bernd Edlinger :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e69ac0203725fb8da83a1cc88d32191b7a0b2c0c
commit r12-574-ge69ac0203725fb8da83a1cc88d32191b7a0b2c0c
Author: Bernd Edlinger
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100456
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100441
--- Comment #7 from Alex Coplan ---
So I'd guess the PR99037 fix just needs backporting to GCC 9, but we'll need to
confirm that it's the same issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100454
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100454
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f442f1378f4e9866793309504e38467f34c5d61
commit r12-573-g0f442f1378f4e9866793309504e38467f34c5d61
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #3 from Florin Iucha ---
Tried it with current HEAD of https://github.com/google/googletest
(f5e592d8ee5ffb1d9af5be7f715ce3576b8bf9c4), with the cmake patched to add
"-fsanitize=undefined -fno-omit-frame-pointer -std=c++2a" and the b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100454
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target|sparc-sun-solari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100456
Bug ID: 100456
Summary: [11 regression] Obsolete Template parameter Causes
Compile Error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100454
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100454
Bug ID: 100454
Summary: gnat.dg/opt93.adb FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100455
Bug ID: 100455
Summary: [11 regression9 Obsoltee Template paraeter Cann
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210506 (experimental) [master revision
1698f496c5e:27b373b33d4:a1ac9ffb5a7f44b2e2633b7265c21ce803c8e854] (GCC)
[514] %
[514] % gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
[515] % gcc110 -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[516] %
[516] % gcctk -O1 small.c
[517] % ./a.out
Segmentation fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100441
--- Comment #6 from Alex Coplan ---
On the GCC 10 branch it was the backport of the PR99037 fix which stopped the
ICE (r11-7888-g37d9074e12082132ae62c12fbe958c697f638c0a on trunk,
r10-9628-g1a92899b08e61d503a2897f2f66b064eb84706bc on the branch)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100445
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
ix86_use_mask_cmp_p should be refined, it has an early return for 64bit modes:
if (GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) == 64)
return true;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100452
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100452
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 50766
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50766&action=edit
32-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 slp-pr99971.cc.179t.slp2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100452
Bug ID: 100452
Summary: g++.dg/vect/slp-pr99971.cc FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100445
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451
Bug ID: 100451
Summary: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C XPASSes
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2c593009fef1564dbef2237ee71e9fd08f5361e
commit r12-570-ga2c593009fef1564dbef2237ee71e9fd08f5361e
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Thu May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2c593009fef1564dbef2237ee71e9fd08f5361e
commit r12-570-ga2c593009fef1564dbef2237ee71e9fd08f5361e
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Thu May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91400
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Erik Schnetter from comment #13)
> The failing GCC 11.1.0 is built by Apple Clang 12.0.5 via Spack. Looking at
> debug output, I see that Spack inserts a "-march=skylake" command line
> option. (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100450
Bug ID: 100450
Summary: Missing ' ' space for '-E' preprocessing output, works
with direct compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100445
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I have no XOP CPU either, normally I bootstrap on Intel i9-7960X and on my
desktop I have AMD Ryzen 5 3600, but that doesn't have XOP either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99692
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> > The __rvalue_ostream_type constraints are going away soon:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80675
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca7d2f2ec9142995179a5d832a946b50de05e659
commit r11-8369-gca7d2f2ec9142995179a5d832a946b50de05e659
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e99763ee6da8e378073b847243d9ac2538903534
commit r11-8363-ge99763ee6da8e378073b847243d9ac2538903534
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100445
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> ix86_expand_sse_movcc has special TARGET_XOP path, so the following patch is
> needed:
Ah, you beat me by the second ;)
Anyway, I have no XOP target, so probably y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100445
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
ix86_expand_sse_movcc has special TARGET_XOP path, so the following patch is
needed:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/mmx.md b/gcc/config/i386/mmx.md
index 347295afbb5..667dd057e0d 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/mm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
--- Comment #13 from Erik Schnetter ---
The failing GCC 11.1.0 is built by Apple Clang 12.0.5 via Spack. Looking at
debug output, I see that Spack inserts a "-march=skylake" command line option.
(I was not aware of this before.) It does so by cr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100263
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100445
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100445
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly more readable testcase without warnings, -O3 -mxop:
int a, b[3];
void bar (int *);
void
foo (void)
{
for (; a < 3; a++)
b[a] = (a - 1) / 2;
bar (b);
}
IMHO we can either avoid the TARGET_X
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
