https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93864
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71837f64ab07ed915ac333f620826668566b9cfb
commit r10-6833-g71837f64ab07ed915ac333f620826668566b9cfb
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93919
Bug ID: 93919
Summary: [10 Regression] vectorization of 18 char to char16_t
conversion is miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93858
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b60f3ba7660ad8697843ed8d0198449b9ea0a90
commit r10-6834-g7b60f3ba7660ad8697843ed8d0198449b9ea0a90
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93763
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:103bc4db7665a03bf2390ccc8ceca0dc5a7a81b7
commit r10-6835-g103bc4db7665a03bf2390ccc8ceca0dc5a7a81b7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93920
Bug ID: 93920
Summary: Wrong comments preprocessing using -E and -CC with
escaped end-of-line
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93905
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93921
Bug ID: 93921
Summary: -Os generates much bigger code than -O{1,2,3,fast} for
std::string::size
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93921
--- Comment #1 from Bjørnar Snoksrud ---
Created attachment 47903
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47903&action=edit
godbolt output for -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
Bug ID: 93922
Summary: Fails to emit inline class template destructor
instantiation, but which is called
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93921
--- Comment #2 from Bjørnar Snoksrud ---
Created attachment 47904
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47904&action=edit
godbolt output for -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93919
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*|x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93923
Bug ID: 93923
Summary: [Regression 10] std::is_copy_constructible raises
compilation error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
Bug ID: 93924
Summary: ICE in gfc_class_len_get at trans_expr.c:231 with
function returning a procedure pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93921
--- Comment #3 from Bjørnar Snoksrud ---
Using '--std=c++20 -Os' generates minimal code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93909
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93913
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
Bug ID: 93925
Summary: Invalid memory reference upon call of a routine taking
a procedure pointer as argument
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93858
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93874
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2473c81cb2d4627f2d72310f4eca951c6084b596
commit r10-6837-g2473c81cb2d4627f2d72310f4eca951c6084b596
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93874
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93864
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93921
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
_S_copy_chars is just a wrapper function around _S_copy
And _S_copy is a wrapper function around either assign or copy based on the
size k1-k2 of the original _S_copy_chars.
assign is just an assignment of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93858
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93868
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Guenther :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81c833b311b16cfd87a947374d5ffbbd48facd03
commit r10-6838-g81c833b311b16cfd87a947374d5ffbbd48facd03
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93917
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93868
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 93868, which changed state.
Bug 93868 Summary: [10 Regression] wrong-code with permuted SLP reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93868
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93918
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
-Ofast enables -fstack-arrays so this is a user error IMHO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93919
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93923
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4efe90aec0a5f722341c1070680d2ab3a438a7d
commit r8-10058-ge4efe90aec0a5f722341c1070680d2ab3a438a7d
Author: Richard Sand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92420
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:785eda9390473e42f0e0b7199c42032a0432de68
commit r8-10057-g785eda9390473e42f0e0b7199c42032a0432de68
Author: Richard Sandi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93926
Bug ID: 93926
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed (error:
malloc attribute should be used for a function that
returns a pointer)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93767
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a6378029183005ff05865496975ff706d91853d8
commit r8-10060-ga6378029183005ff05865496975ff706d91853d8
Author: Richard Sandi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93434
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50c7f76eb30041a9b219cd6535c8c09583cc052b
commit r8-10059-g50c7f76eb30041a9b219cd6535c8c09583cc052b
Author: Richard Sand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90313
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a2f576c3b40eca0a846553af5b1dfb05d84eb71
commit r8-10056-g7a2f576c3b40eca0a846553af5b1dfb05d84eb71
Author: Richard Sandi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93919
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Sounds like a dup of PR93843
Yes it does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93918
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90313
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Bug 93734 depends on bug 92420, which changed state.
Bug 92420 Summary: [8 Regression] Vectorization miscompilation with negative
strides since r238039
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92420
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92420
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|link-failure|
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916
--- Comment #4 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
Are you saying that implementation is allowed to not preserve unused storage
state upon construction and assignment? Because I don't think this is what the
standard says.
Is there any other way to ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93434
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93918
--- Comment #3 from martin ---
But there should not be an temporary array in the first place, which is causing
the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93767
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93014
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93919
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Yes, this is the same issue.
FWIW, a vectorization with SSE4.1 could do:
pxor xmm0, xmm0
pinsrw xmm0, WORD PTR in[rip], 0
pmovsxbw xmm0, xmm0
movd DWORD PTR out[rip], xmm0
Whether that's fast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|Fails to emit in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38595
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93927
Bug ID: 93927
Summary: ICE: 'verify_gimple' failed (error: invalid conversion
in gimple call)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93923
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This started to fail with r271806 which enforces a requirement from the
standard that the template arguments for is_constructible must be complete
types. This program violates that requirement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63401
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38716
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93927
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||93926
Known to fail|10.0, 6.3.0, 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910
--- Comment #8 from Frederic Marchal ---
Regarding the pointer vs pointeur typo in French, it will be fixed with the
next translation update. Thanks for reporting it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51729
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93763
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #7)
> Seems the test has been badly reduced (if the original doesn't emit
> warnings, it is always better in the reduction script avoid introducing
> new on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93923
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can make the program valid by ensuring you do not try to do the
is_constructible when performing overload resolution for copy initialization of
B:
#include
class A;
template
struct B {
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52152
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52155
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||xfail
Status|N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note here is a C++11 testcase which shows the problem and shows it is a
regression:
template struct sk_sp {
template sk_sp(sk_sp const &);
~sk_sp() {}
};
struct SkPicture {};
struct Wrapped: SkPictur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52154
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93912
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93763
--- Comment #9 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #8)
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #7)
> > Seems the test has been badly reduced (if the original doesn't emit
> > warnings, it is always better in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93843
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kretz at kde dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93923
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Sorry, that wasn't a correct fix, I missed a ! in the variable template, and
adding that means it gives an error again.
I still think GCC is right to reject the program, because it has an
unresolvable cycl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93891
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So FRE/PRE see
_91 = __MEM ((const struct A &)__first_58).p;
__MEM (__cur_59).p = _91;
_92 = __MEM (_91);
if (_92 <= 0)
goto __BB5(precise(0));
else
goto __BB6(precise(134217728));
_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, andysem at mail dot ru wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916
>
> --- Comment #4 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
> Are you saying that implementation is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93921
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bjørnar Snoksrud from comment #3)
> Using '--std=c++20 -Os' generates minimal code.
That disables the explicit template instantiation declarations for std::string,
so the compiler performs imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #0)
> It doesn't say anything about modifying padding bits,
It also doesn't say anything about leaving them with their previous values. I
think your expectation is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93927
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47906
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47906&action=edit
gcc10-pr93927.patch
We could do something like this, which is what we already do in
tree-ssa-strlen.c. Or chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93918
--- Comment #4 from martin ---
After playing around a bit I am really confused about why and when array
temporaries are created.
The variant ppp_1 with a non-contiguous array pointer p works fine (with
-Ofast), but the variation ppp_2 (this time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93843
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #5)
> Simpler variant. I couldn't come up with a better barrier to force the last
> line to load from out than inline asm.
>
> char in[2] = {2, 2};
> short out[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #4)
> Are you saying that implementation is allowed to not preserve unused storage
> state upon construction and assignment? Because I don't think this is what
> the standa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93891
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
While the last_vuse thing was originally added for PRE it's also useful for
FRE as the following testcase shows:
int foo(int *p, int b, float *q)
{
int tem;
if (b)
{
*q = 0;
tem = *p;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916
--- Comment #8 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> > Is there any other way to achieve the effect of initializing padding in a
> > struct?
>
> The only way I see would be to do that inside the constru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916
--- Comment #9 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
Ok, so it seems then that what I need cannot be implemented portably. In that
case, this bug can be closed. Thanks to everyone.
But we do need a solution for bug #88101 (and Boost.Atomic) eventually.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88101
--- Comment #3 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
As discussed in bug #93916, the approach of zeroing the storage before
constructing the object with internal padding doesn't work and is not required
to work by the C++ standard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93872
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It looks like those parameters have always been wrong (for more than a decade
anyway). When we optimized them to a memmove for both copies and moves it
didn't matter because memmove doesn't alter the source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93928
Bug ID: 93928
Summary: Is there any interface to define the map of two
register in one pattern ?
Product: gcc
Version: new-ra
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93905
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #27 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #26)
> I wouldn't be surprised if such a test could be constructed in the absence
> of -funsafe-math-optimizations, that does a single conversion of an
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93872
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b904f175ff26269615f148459a8604f45880591
commit r10-6842-g5b904f175ff26269615f148459a8604f45880591
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #28 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
A slightly modified version of the example, showing the issue with GCC 5 to 7
(as the noipa attribute directive has been added in GCC 8):
#include
int main (void)
{
volatile double d = 50.0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #29 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
And with unsigned too (this should be a bit more readable):
#include
int main (void)
{
volatile double d = -1.0;
double x = d;
unsigned int i = x;
printf ("%u\n", i);
if (x == -1.0)
print
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86827
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93872
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #30 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #28)
> A slightly modified version of the example, showing the issue with GCC 5 to
> 7 (as the noipa attribute directive has been added in GCC 8):
Correction: Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93786
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried:
--- gcc/gimplify.c.jj 2020-02-09 08:16:19.399581468 +0100
+++ gcc/gimplify.c 2020-02-25 13:46:51.166409528 +0100
@@ -886,7 +886,29 @@ mostly_copy_tree_r (tree *tp, int *walk_
/* Cope with th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93908
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:73dc4ae47418aef2eb470b8f71cef57dce37349e
commit r10-6844-g73dc4ae47418aef2eb470b8f71cef57dce37349e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93927
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Change the frontends. Most definitely. Finally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93908
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eeb31391b7f223e6ca8cbd4452b99b55f4afdb1c
commit r9-8276-geeb31391b7f223e6ca8cbd4452b99b55f4afdb1c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
