https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
I hope this is related:
int
compare_exponents_unordered (double exponent1, double exponent2)
{
return __builtin_vec_scalar_cmp_exp_unordered (exponent1, exponent2);
}
(reduced from
gcc/testsuite/gcc.targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2019-04-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon Nov 11 08:38:28 2019
New Revision: 278041
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278041&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR87833] x86: Put -fPIC and -shared the last to create offload imag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon Nov 11 08:39:10 2019
New Revision: 278042
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278042&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR87833] x86: Put -fPIC and -shared the last to create offload imag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon Nov 11 08:39:32 2019
New Revision: 278043
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278043&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR87833] x86: Put -fPIC and -shared the last to create offload ima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92452
Bug ID: 92452
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in vrp_prop::check_array_ref at
tree-vrp.c:4153
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92452
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92451
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92450
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92447
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92441
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92421
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92428
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47208
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47208&action=edit
Reproducer
So using a revision before it disappeared I see:
$ g++ -O2 -flto ice*.ii -c && gcc -O2 -flto *.i -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase that results in the warning also on x86_64-linux with -O2
-Wall:
struct S { void *p; struct S *q; };
void bar (int, ...);
void
foo (struct S *x, int n, int y)
{
void *arg_type[3];
for (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92448
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Also with TARGET_AVX128_OPTIMAL plus -mprefer-vector-width=256, 256-bit
vectorization may be not generated since TARGET_AVX128_OPTIMAL will change
vec_cost.
/* Retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
>
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> Created attachment 47208
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47208&action=edit
> Reproducer
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92442
--- Comment #2 from Ruben Van Boxem ---
I hit the submit button too early, I was still removing commandline options.
Indeed the -gsplit-dwarf option seems the culprit here.
I added it to decrease library link times (seems like it did at least so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> > context
> ...
> > context >
>
> But whoever built the constructor with two differnt types did someting
> wrong.
>
I've probably got it:
$ $14 = void
(gdb) p debug_tree(lhs_type->type_common.context)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92448
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On November 11, 2019 10:20:10 AM GMT+01:00, crazylht at gmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92448
>
>--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
>Also with TARGET_AVX128_OP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92142
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Nov 11 10:18:14 2019
New Revision: 278048
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278048&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/92142 - CFI_setpointer corrupts descriptor
2019-11-11 José R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92142
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92453
Bug ID: 92453
Summary: write buffer overflow in cplus_demangle()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
Bug ID: 92454
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
identify_dead_nodes)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Compiling Boost.Spirit.X3 |Compiling Boost.Spirit.X3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430
Ilya Leoshkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iii at linux dot ibm.com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
if (y)
{
gcc_assert (n == 3);
std::swap (arg_type[1], arg_type[2]);
}
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91851
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Forgot to mention: The task is considered completed when the necessary changes
have been merged upstream so that m68k will be part of GCC-11 and newer
releases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92429
--- Comment #2 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So I had a look at this, the ICE occurs because 'vectorizable_condition' does
not know how to handle a constant cond_expr.
The reason this cond_expr is constant in the epilogue is because
'simpli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
Bug ID: 92455
Summary: Unnecessary memory read in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2019-10-23 00:00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is the usual problem of trying to process node with no summary
attached to it. The following fixes the ICE, but I am not sure if there
is a cleaner approach.
Martin, i suppose the issue here is with thunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
You need partial-PRE to perform the desired transform. With -O3 or -O2
-ftree-partial-pre we do what you suggest (plus also cache *max->ptr in
exchange
for another IV):
f1:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92456
Bug ID: 92456
Summary: libiberty/make-relative-prefix.c: read buffer overflow
in split_directories()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92457
Bug ID: 92457
Summary: [10 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_16.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92457
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> if (y)
> {
> gcc_assert (n == 3);
> std::swap (arg_type[1], arg_type[2]);
> }
>
>
> ?
gcc_assert will work too unless the host compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
Can the -ftree-partial-pre flag be enabled by default for -O2?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #3 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had a look at the first testcase. I think the problem is I was setting the
epilogue's safelen to the loop's safelen, after the loop->safelen had been
cleared, as we do this after vectorization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #2)
> Can the -ftree-partial-pre flag be enabled by default for -O2?
It used to be quite slow in its dataflow compute but that has improved.
It's still quadratic in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92447
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #4 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The second case seems to be because vectorizable_simd_clone_call seems to be
inserting values and phi-nodes on the epilogue's preheader edge which uses a
value defined in the main loop's preheader
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92458
Bug ID: 92458
Summary: Constraints do not work with precompiled headers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92142
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Nov 11 15:35:50 2019
New Revision: 278055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278055&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix commit for PR fortran/92142 - CFI_setpointer corrupts descriptor
201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> But maybe
> you can provide benchmark data (including compile-time/memory-use figures)?
OK. Is there any GCC specific tool or flag for that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I think the patch is (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
> This is the usual problem of trying to process node with no summary
> attached to it. The following fixes the ICE, but I am not sure if there
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91828
--- Comment #6 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Nov 11 15:59:48 2019
New Revision: 278058
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278058&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Bump minimum MPFR version to 3.1.0
Bump the minimum MPFR version to 3.1.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91935
--- Comment #2 from Dimitar Yordanov ---
Probably already clear, but to write down what I read so far and did not write
with the initial report:
PR lto/83452. is actually not the regression, it is just a workaround to "Make
discarded global symb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92459
Bug ID: 92459
Summary: out of class method definition did not match (when
declaration contains expression that uses in class
defined enum)
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 11 16:07:54 2019
New Revision: 278059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-11 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The first testcase has (at expand time)
if (_13 unord _14)
which doesn't mean anything with -ffast-math (-Ofast): unordered does
not *exist*.
The second testcase is similar, but we generate that unord
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92452
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92457
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92452
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
See also bug 92333, comment #4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710
--- Comment #4 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> @@ -4908,7 +4908,8 @@ aarch64_function_arg_boundary (machine_mode mode,
> const_tree type)
>bool abi_break;
>unsigned int alignment = aarch64_fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Findings so far: when we forward an edge like this:
#0 redirect_edge_succ (e=0x76d73cc0, new_succ=0x76c2aa90) at
../.././gcc/cfg.c:368
#1 0x00a776ff in redirect_edge_succ_nodup (e=0x7fff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Not quite sure the third case has anything to do with epilogue vectorization
though... It still manifests itself with it turned off. Seems to be a lack of
"folding" again.
I think it would be use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92461
Bug ID: 92461
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: excess
use operand for statement)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #5)
> I think it would be useful to split testcases 2 and 3 into two new PR's as
> they are unrelated issues to 1.
PR92460 and PR92461, then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92460
Bug ID: 92460
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error:
definition in block 13 does not dominate use in block
22)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #7 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92460
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
Bug ID: 92462
Summary: [arm32] -ftree-pre makes a variable to be wrongly
hoisted out
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92458
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92234
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92235
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
same with 20191109
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92463
Bug ID: 92463
Summary: Cleanups due to minimum MPFR version bump to 3.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92464
Bug ID: 92464
Summary: [10 regression] r 278033 breaks
gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47214
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47214&action=edit
gcc10-pr92449.patch
Untested patch not to emit UNORDERED_EXPR if !HONOR_NANS from complex lowering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92420
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Nov 11 19:43:52 2019
New Revision: 278064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix SLP downward group access classification (PR92420)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 11 20:05:49 2019
New Revision: 278066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278066&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/92433
* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92438
--- Comment #2 from sagebar at web dot de ---
The c++ standard may not cover it, however in the interest of compatibility
with other compilers, g++ for cygwin actually defines the following predefined
macros (among others):
g++ -dM -E -x c++ - <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91828
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92463
Bug 92463 depends on bug 91828, which changed state.
Bug 91828 Summary: gcc/fortran/check.c requires mpfr_set_z_2exp from MPFR
3.0.0, unavailable in mpfr-2.4.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91828
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92465
Bug ID: 92465
Summary: [10 regression] r278034 breaks gcc.dg/pr47763.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92466
Bug ID: 92466
Summary: new test case gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_15.f90
in r278025 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92447
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 11 21:31:29 2019
New Revision: 278068
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278068&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92447
* decl.c (finish_function): Move ctype initia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92447
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92467
Bug ID: 92467
Summary: gcc miscompiles ternary expression with omitted first
operand ?: involving C++ prvalues
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 92433, which changed state.
Bug 92433 Summary: [10 regression] r276645 breaks bootstrap on powerpc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91975
Bug 91975 depends on bug 92433, which changed state.
Bug 92433 Summary: [10 regression] r276645 breaks bootstrap on powerpc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92467
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.2.0/gcc/Conditionals.html#Conditionals
If I understand the extension correctly, we have:
({
auto &tmp = get1();
(tmp ? tmp: get2()).release();
})
This means the tmp var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92467
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the question becomes what is the semantics of the extension. I think GCC
here is doing one that would be similar to what C++ would normally do with
respect of the tmp variable. So not extending the life
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92467
--- Comment #3 from Stephan Tolksdorf ---
Calling release on tmp should set the internal pointer member to null so that
the destructor won't call the deleter on the (void*)1 ptr.
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
