https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84109
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
AFAIK, specifying attribute const and pure on a function definition has no
effect on the code emitted for the function itself or on its callers in other
translation units, so what you describe doesn't sound m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83530
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #12)
> AFAIK, specifying attribute const and pure on a function definition has no
> effect on the code emitted for the function itself or on its callers in
> other tran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81550
--- Comment #11 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Jan 29 22:30:34 2018
New Revision: 257166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-29 Michael Meissner
PR target/81550
* c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84042
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84087
Berni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871
Yann Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yann.collet.73 at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84091
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure, but some of the mentioned SSA_NAMEs are registered for update and SCEV
code is called before that happens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84096
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 29 23:38:01 2018
New Revision: 257167
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257167&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/84096
* omp.h.in (omp_init_nest_lock_with_hint)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Sure, but some of the mentioned SSA_NAMEs are registered for update and SCEV
> code is called before that happens.
Yes, sure. That still doesn't necessarily mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83937
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually this might be just a missing TARGET_EXPR_DIRECT_INIT_P check in
build_special_member_call:
--- a/gcc/cp/call.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/call.c
@@ -8824,7 +8824,8 @@ build_special_member_call (tree instance, tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84105
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, the attribute affects all callers in the same translation unit and so it
needs to match across both the declarations and the definition.
I (and others) tested Glibc with this patch and if this had been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84118
Bug ID: 84118
Summary: filesystem::path concat does not accept value_type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84105
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84105
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 43282
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43282&action=edit
untested patch
Proposed patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84105
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43282|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84089
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84068
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84089
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82086
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83530
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84068
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83530
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83147
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83530
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81010
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81010
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83828
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82666
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Aldy,
It's less about whether or not there is a cmov (I get one with and without
PRE), but more about what part of the loop we're using the cmov for.
Consider what we get in the .optimized dump at -O3 corr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83828
--- Comment #7 from Kirill Yukhin ---
On the other hand, if masked variant of vpopcnt[w,q] is being issued: there's
no way for reload to put 32/64 bit mask into mask register, since kmov[d,q] are
only available under -mavx512bw switch.
We can i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84119
Bug ID: 84119
Summary: Type parameter inquiry for PDT returns array instead
of scalar
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65968
Leslie Zhai changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lesliezhai at llvm dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84120
Bug ID: 84120
Summary: Syntax for used for PDT constructors is incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
201 - 238 of 238 matches
Mail list logo