https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86722
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
code-gen should go thorough simplify_gen_* which should perform constant
folding.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86687
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> The foo::foo function starts at label .LFB1520, which brings us to:
> ...
> .uleb128 0x8b # (DIE (0x5a99) DW_TAG_subprogram)
> .long 0x5a75 #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
Bug 25829 depends on bug 34705, which changed state.
Bug 34705 Summary: Reuse I/O structures to save memory and help the ME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34705
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34705
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86729
Bug ID: 86729
Summary: address of vector element requested
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86714
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86730
Bug ID: 86730
Summary: use of deleted copy constructor (I am not using it)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86729
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86714
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86711
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86710
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
Bug ID: 86731
Summary: [8 Regression] Miscompiles vec_sl at -O3 with -fwrapv
on ppc64el
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86705
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86706
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86707
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86702
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86547
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Jul 30 08:30:06 2018
New Revision: 263063
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263063&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
lra: consider clobbers when selecting hard_regno to spill
The idea be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> I did try that.
>
> Can you please give your config? Some repro instructions, maybe on a given
> cfarm machine?
I used gcc14 machine. Download latest tarba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86472
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > Yes indeed with respect to the declaration of 't'. However, since the
> > submodule
> > is a separate compilation unit, I believe that it also must contai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
Bug ID: 86732
Summary: Potential nullptr dereference does not propagate
knowledge about the pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: miss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
--- Comment #1 from Antony Polukhin ---
Probably a more fair example< without taking an address of a reference:
static const int* get_if(const int* v) {
if (v && *v == 0) return v;
return nullptr;
}
int example(const int* a) {
retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86706
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 44463
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44463&action=edit
gcc9-pr86706.patch
Thanks, that seems to work. I've bootstrapped/regtested it successfully on
x86_64-linux and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86733
Bug ID: 86733
Summary: c++17 and #pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-Wall"
resurrect pre-c++11 warnings.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
While I would also like to see this optimized better, ISTR that this was done
on purpose, you may want to look at the old discussions. Some languages may
have things set up to catch null dereferences, but that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86718
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86724
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64243
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bart at bartjanssens dot org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86727
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86728
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86718
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> note how it doesn't eliminate the actual load which probably causes the
> odd code-generation.
The code says:
/* We want the NULL pointer dereference to actua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64243
--- Comment #2 from Bart Janssens ---
Any chance that this can be upgraded to "confirmed"? Seems this has been around
for a while...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86734
Bug ID: 86734
Summary: [DR 2188] reverse_iterator::operator-> does not
support overloaded operator&
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86733
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
Bug ID: 86735
Summary: [8/9 Regression] Bad wrong-code bug with
"-march=skylake-avx512 -Ofast"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
Bug ID: 86736
Summary: [9 regression] g++.dg/asan/pr81021.C -O2 -flto
-flto-partition=none ICE at dwarf2out.c:3
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86734
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86506
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Jul 30 11:23:26 2018
New Revision: 263064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Resync inline implementation of ceil_log2 (PR 86506)
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
--- Comment #10 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi Segher, bootstrap is ok and I found no regressions testing testing a softfp
and hard configuration.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||belyshev at depni dot
sinp.msu.ru
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86673
--- Comment #18 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Jul 30 12:26:37 2018
New Revision: 263065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263065&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
doc: discourage const/volatile on register variables (PR 86673)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86608
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> With 8.2.0 and trunk, however, the second line has varying random numbers
> when the code is compiled with "-march=skylake-avx512 -Ofast".
>
> -march=skylake w
View this email in your browser
(https://mailchi.mp/7365eb78bd0d/last-day-of-summer-offer-from-emaar-80-post-handover-5-year-payment-plan?e=1c93265448)
http://aquaproperties.com/emaar/zia.html
http://aquaproperties.com/emaar/zia.html
Emaar is delighted to announce an exclusive 20/80 offer on vi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |tree-optimization
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86687
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 44464
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44464&action=edit
Tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85160
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Jul 30 13:18:17 2018
New Revision: 263067
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Allow combining two insns to two insns
This patch allows c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
Steinar H. Gunderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steinar+gcc at gunderson dot no
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35543
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84142
--- Comment #3 from simon at pushface dot org ---
All three test cases compile OK with 8.1.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86738
Bug ID: 86738
Summary: gcc 8.2: Internal compiler error memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86739
Bug ID: 86739
Summary: [9 Regression] Bootstrap broken with host GCC 4.1.2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86739
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Regressed between r262525 (good) and r262545 (bad). Thus probably caused by
r262539.
/usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_pair.h:84 is
/** Two objects may be passed to a @c pair constructor to be copied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86739
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 44466
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44466&action=edit
preprocessed source
For reference, here's preprocessed source.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steinar H. Gunderson from comment #17)
> Base needs to have a virtual destructor since it has virtual member
> functions (or half the world will give you warnings).
Or a protected destructor,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> An observation in case it might help to narrow down the problem: gcc-8
> changed to prefer 256-bit-wide vectors on skylake-avx512, so adding
> -mpre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86725
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
--- Comment #19 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Thanks for confirming; so GCC is absolutely right here, it's the standard that
makes a choice with surprising ramifications (to me, at least). I wonder if I
should try to ask someone in the standards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86740
Bug ID: 86740
Summary: ICE with hana and nested lambdas (tsubst_copy, at
cp/pt.c:15325)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steinar H. Gunderson from comment #19)
> Thanks for confirming; so GCC is absolutely right here, it's the standard
> that makes a choice with surprising ramifications (to me, at least). I
Yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
P.S. it's arguable whether abstract base classes should be copyable in the
first place:
https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#Rc-copy-virtual
https://github.com/isocp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86739
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The code is well-formed according to
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#106 but that
doesn't seem to be implemented in GCC 4.1.2
template
struct X {
X(T&) { }
};
X f(int& i)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86739
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See PR 7412
"Fixed on mainline for GCC 4.3.0. DR 106 is implemented for C++0x mode and for
non-strict C++98 mode."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58407
--- Comment #22 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
C.67 would seem only to apply to non-abstract base classes, no? The code
doesn't compile if B has pure virtual member functions. (Well, it doesn't
compile as-is already, but change (d) to (*d) and it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86721
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86741
Bug ID: 86741
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in vrp_prop::check_mem_ref building
glibc for i686-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86687
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86741
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86741
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
#4 0x01250010 in vrp_prop::check_mem_ref (this=0x7fffced0,
location=102528417, ref=
, ignore_off_by_one=false) at
/home/marek/src/gcc/gcc/tree-vrp.c:5097
5097 arrbounds[1] = wi::to_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86741
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
So I think this ought to fix it:
--- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
@@ -5051,7 +5051,8 @@ vrp_prop::check_mem_ref (location_t location, tree ref,
bool ignore_off_by_one)
to identify the member w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86741
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced:
struct S
{
int s;
};
void fn2 (void);
void
fn1 ()
{
extern void a;
struct S *b = &a;
if (b->s)
fn2 ();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
Ryan Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at ryandesign dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85160
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Jul 30 16:11:44 2018
New Revision: 263072
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263072&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
testcase for 2-2 combine
gcc/testsuite/
PR rtl-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86742
Bug ID: 86742
Summary: Documented function std::to_chars(char* first, char*
last, double value) is not implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86714
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I didn't overlook anything. I replied and explained what happens here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg01272.html
Since the undefined behavior in this case is at compile time, rejecting the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79010
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
There was a change to how some of the larger-than warnings are controlled (bug
82063) but it hasn't affected this report. The top of GCC 9 trunk still issues
the same warnings:
$ gcc -O2 -S -Wall -DN=123456
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86734
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jul 30 17:13:05 2018
New Revision: 263074
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263074&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/86734 make reverse_iterator::operator-> more robust
Impleme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71625
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Jul 30 17:50:26 2018
New Revision: 263075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263075&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
arm: Generate correct const_ints (PR86640)
In arm_block_set_aligne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86685
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86743
Bug ID: 86743
Summary: Compilation failure when initializing POD structs
containing constant member
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index fc3d6f0aebc..a8709972e9c 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -40402,6 +40402,10 @@ ix86_multiplication_cost (const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86741
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85458
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
On linux with 8.2.1 20180729, we have:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/
/home/dave/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr83480.c
-fno-diagnostics-show
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86741
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor -
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: i?86-*-*, x86_64-*-*
Between 20180729 (r263050) and 20180730 (r263069), gcc.target/i386/addr-sel-1.c
started to XPASS on 32-bit x86. Originally seen on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86744
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: i?86-*-*, x86_64-*-*
Between 20180729 (r263050) and 20180730 (r263069), two tests started to XFAIL
on 64-bit x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86745
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85458
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
The ICE occurs because pa_adjust_priority reduces priority from 1 to 0.
The documentations for TARGET_SCHED_ADJUST_PRIORITY states:
@deftypefn {Target Hook} int TARGET_SCHED_ADJUST_PRIORITY (rtx_insn
*@
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
