https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84121
Bug ID: 84121
Summary: optimizer breaks code without -frwapv, but -Wall
-Wextra show no warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84122
Bug ID: 84122
Summary: Incorrect statement sequence in PDT definition
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84105
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6)
> Created attachment 43283 [details]
> untested patch
>
> Actual untested patch :).
You may have noticed I "fixed" some cases in the rev already by just using
d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83828
--- Comment #8 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Tue Jan 30 08:21:22 2018
New Revision: 257173
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257173&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix AVX-512BITALG test failures
gcc/testsuite
PR target/83828
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84123
Bug ID: 84123
Summary: internal compiler error: in gen_rtx_SUBREG, at
emit-rtl.c:908, alpha linux.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> They are always written but have an undefined value. Adding 2 8-bit values
> results in a 9-bit value with WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS.
If they have an undefined value, then WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS must not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84121
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
You can compile with -fsanitize=undefined then run your code, to understand the
issue.
More warnings are always possible, but at some points, hundreds of "I, the
compiler, assume that the code you have written
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84121
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> You can compile with -fsanitize=undefined then run your code, to understand
> the issue.
Oups, sorry, that doesn't show anything for your code, the problem is not wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84097
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83211
--- Comment #2 from R. Diez ---
I am upgrading my embedded ARM Cortex-M4 toolchain from GCC 6.4 to GCC 7.3, and
Binutils from 2.29.1 to 2.30 (among other minor component upgrades), and I am
not seeing this warning anymore.
I do not know what fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #15 from Leslie Zhai ---
(In reply to Felix Fietkau from comment #10)
> (In reply to Leslie Zhai from comment #9)
> > GCC 8.0 Still reproducible:
> >
> >
> > :
> >0: 8c830008lw v1,8(a0)
> >4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84108
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Component|libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84115
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84116
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
The problem is that reg_nonzero_bits_for_combine returns 0x for (reg:HI
121) when queried for SImode after:
(insn 10 7 11 2 (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI 121) 0)
(sign_extend:SI (mem/c:HI (plus:SI (reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84121
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84087
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84087
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Berni from comment #3)
> hope this will go into gcc 8.0 release!? the current snapshot (some days
> ago) does not seem to be fixed yet.
Of course not, I only created the patch yesterday. As I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84117
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84076
--- Comment #3 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com ---
printf aside, is this thing actually supported in varargs? I thought non-PODs
were not allowed in varargs, period. (If it's not allowed, I'm not sure why the
compiler even tries.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84121
Christian Nassau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Christian N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Jan 30 09:53:29 2018
New Revision: 257179
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257179&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Disable SHF_MERGE on Solaris 10/x86 (PR bootstrap/84017)
gcc/testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- |https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83972
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Reading the log, it gamess regression at 14th should not be gather/scatter
because it reproduces on zen2 where we disable them.
About the 19th regression, it would be nice to also bisect it (hopefully it
will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yes, I have started experiments with adjusting inliner limits: hopefully we can
tune up speedup limit because it is now applied more agresively (due to lack of
capping) and perhaps tune down size limits becaus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665
>
> --- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Yes, I have started experiments with adjus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #6 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I got one file that produces a rather cryptic warning related to this:
In file included from /git/arm-soc/arch/x86/include/asm/page_32.h:35,
from /git/arm-soc/arch/x86/include/asm/page.h:14,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84123
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84123
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That looks good, please send the patch!
What about the third case? The first in the "if" tree. Does that need
this as well? (The third and last case already has a similar check).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84088
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #6)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> > Hmm. Probably this failure would have been picked up by
> > libgomp-plugin-host_nonshm.
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Although my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #8 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6)
> > They are always written but have an undefined value. Adding 2 8-bit values
> > results in a 9-bit value with WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS.
>
> If they have an undefined va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84121
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
What I don't understand is why -fsanitize=undefined does not say anything when
running this program, whether I use gcc or clang...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84123
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> That looks good, please send the patch!
>
> What about the third case? The first in the "if" tree. Does that need
> this as well? (The third and last case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84088
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
> > am unable to reproduce it and do not have access to the target you are
> > using.
> I may have found a way to reproduce the problem without libgomp
Forgot to mention: on x86_64, so you should be able to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83480
--- Comment #12 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Not fully fixed yet, the testcase still ICEs with:
> -O2 -g -gstatement-frontiers -fselective-scheduling2 -fsel-sched-pipelining
> -fgcse-sm -floop-paralle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84123
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 43288
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43288&action=edit
Patch in testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
Arnd Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arnd at linaro dot org
--- Comment #14 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84037
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 43289
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43289&action=edit
patch limiting growth
So I played with a simple hack limiting the amount of growth in a vectorized
loop
based
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 30 11:19:47 2018
New Revision: 257181
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257181&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-30 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/83008
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
The problematic code is the SUBREG case of record_dead_and_set_regs_1:
if (REG_P (dest))
{
/* If we are setting the whole register, we know its value. Otherwise
show that we don't know
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84124
Bug ID: 84124
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr80969-4.c execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The addition is performed on the full 32-bit register, so this obviously
> means that the top 24 bits have an undefined value.
Not if the entire registers have a defined value before the addition. The
po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84097
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83942
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sylvestre at debian dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84096
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #15 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi Arnd,
What's the original error you're seeing without using the pragma?
That should have worked fine still.
I wasn't able to reproduce the failure using the default flags to the compiler,
are you by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83828
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
r257175 gave:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512bitalgvl-vpopcntb-1.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512bitalgvl-vpopcntw-1.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512bitalg-vpopcntb-1.c execution test
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #16 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Here is a simplified version of the file in question, to try as standalone:
typedef unsigned int u32;
asm(".arch armv5te\n");
extern int cpuid;
static _Bool cpu_is_xscale_family()
{
/* this code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84037
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, and if you don't disable inlining then you get down to sizes of 148
(SSE and SLP) and 91 and 75 (SSE and no SLP). So you won't get rid
of two instances of vectorization regardless of the parameter
(for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84121
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> It does:
Ah, of course, it prints it only for the first occurrence, and since this
quickly disappears, I missed it. My bad, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #17 from Tamar Christina ---
Ah!, thanks for that repro.
I see what's changed. I'll work on a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78022
--- Comment #3 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Interestingly, clang-5 no longer compiles this code:
:28:15: error: constexpr variable 'b1' must be initialized by a
constant expression
constexpr B b1{0};
preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180130 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84125
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84125
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
commit e00197cb8789a850b76bfc2bed83d1c510aa65bb
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 11 19:08:41 2018 +
PR c++/82728 - wrong -Wunused-but-set-variable
PR c++/82799
PR c++/8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83986
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Test included in comment 0 is part of bigger test which I performed. In full
version code was also computing bitmask and stored in 3rd array. For test1 gcc
was able to vectorize inner loop to series of loa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Jan 30 13:17:40 2018
New Revision: 257183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/83954
* lto-symtab.c (warn_type_compatibility_p):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] LTO: |[6/7 Regression] LTO: Bogus
/gcc/cfgexpand.c:5810
0xa7ad67 execute
../../gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:6416
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84125
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
finish_static_assert is called with condition = {}. Before r256550
instantiate_non_dependent_expr would turn this into TARGET_EXPR ,
but now we just pass {} down to perform_implicit_conversion_flags and that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Jan 30 13:23:39 2018
New Revision: 257184
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257184&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/81360
* ipa-inline.c (can_inline_edge_p): Break o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84126
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84126
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r257018:
commit 2100de5308865b06be2b235ed159b5af9a9a67a5
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 24 15:20:53 2018 +
PR c++/82249 - wrong mismatched pack length error.
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84127
Bug ID: 84127
Summary: pragmas to disable -Wexpansion-to-defined compiler
warnings seems to be broken since 7.x
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, so the testsuite template scanning for ipa-inline-1.c is fixed on all
targets and this PR is about the vectorizer ICE?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84128
Bug ID: 84128
Summary: i686: Stack spilling in -fstack-clash-protection
prologue neglects %esp change
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Jan 30 13:50:45 2018
New Revision: 257186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/83179
* gcc.dg/ipa/inline-2.c: Fix template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84128
--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer ---
Also seems to affect -fstack-check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84129
Bug ID: 84129
Summary: GCC on AArch32 no longer compiles files which change
architectures using in-line assembly.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83706
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84064
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84129
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, bugzi...@poradnik-webmastera.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106
>
> --- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
> Test included in comment 0 is par
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84037
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
So discussion lead to the proposal to add another unroll parameter, for example
--param small-loop-size which serves as a "barrier" we may not cross when
optimizing a loop. Thus for all loops <= small-loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
--- Comment #20 from Alexander Nesterovskiy ---
I've made test runs on Broadwell and Skylake, RHEL 7.3.
410.bwaves became faster after r256990 but not as fast as it was on r253678.
Comparing 410.bwaves performance, "-Ofast -funroll-loops -flto
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84130
Bug ID: 84130
Summary: excessive compile time with -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84129
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||assemble-failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80899
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fro
(:, :, :)
logical :: l
allocate (intvla (11,22,33))
l = allocated(intvla) ! vlas-allocated
intvla(:,:,:) = 1
intvla(5,5,5) = 42 ! vlas-initialized
end program vla_primitives
In gfortran 8.0.1 20180130, the intvla debug info is,
<2>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84131
Yao Qi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.2.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #18 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #14)
> It looks like r255468 broke compilation of a couple of files in the Linux
> kernel,
> which use a top-level statement like
>
> linux/arch/arm/kvm/hyp/banked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84129
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84068
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84058
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
I noticed it while checking how well hot/cold partitioning works. Generally it
seems to work well and brings measurable reduction of code cache misses on
cc1plus runs. Still doing such stupid moves is a regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems -traditional-cpp behavior varies a lot.
E.g. on
#define m1(a,b,c,d)a/**/b/**/c/**/d
m1(/,*,foo,*/)
#define foobar 123
#define m2(a,b)a/**/b
m2(foo,bar)
$ gcc-3.2/obj/gcc/tradcpp0 -E -traditional-cpp pr6
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
