https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64243
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||10walls at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64243
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This is fixed in gcc-11:
--cut here--
struct TestFloat { float x; };
struct TestDouble { double x; };
struct TestFloat foo (struct TestFloat x) { return x; }
struct TestDouble bar (struct TestDouble x) { retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64243
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98477
Bug ID: 98477
Summary: aarch64: Unnecessary GPR -> FPR moves for conditional
select
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98477
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Or a =r,r,r alternative to the FCSEL pattern instead...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98477
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98477
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #1)
> Or a =r,r,r alternative to the FCSEL pattern instead...
Should most likely add the r alternative to *cmov_insn (GPF) and the w
alternative to *cmov_insn (ALLI). So y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98477
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-30
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98474
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49858
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49858&action=edit
gcc11-pr98474.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f7941ca37001773a36add8119791725aeb823ba
commit r11-6367-g8f7941ca37001773a36add8119791725aeb823ba
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89057
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94994
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98478
Bug ID: 98478
Summary: AVX512 refactoring integer mask with VnBImode
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98470
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=97745
--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
This bug is fixed and can be closed.
This ICE was reduced from our code base
(https://github.com/seqan/seqan3/issues/2236#issuecomment-723194705).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #2 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your investigation.
I have a few questions:
- Since the warning seems to be fully emitted by system headers, shouldn't it
be silenced by default ? Why isn't it the case here ? On co
With: -O2 -std=gnu++20 -Werror=stringop-overread -Wno-system-headers -g
raises:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20201230/include/c++/11.0.0/bits/char_traits.h:402:56:
error: 'void* __builtin_memcpy(void*, const void*, long unsigned int)' reading
10 bytes from a region of size 7 [-W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95401
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|PRINT the array constructed |ICE in
|from implied do-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98479
Bug ID: 98479
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity for unsigned __int128
modulo
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97144
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97144
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98479
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97400
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=97457
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 97400 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97850
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97693
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 97850 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98480
Bug ID: 98480
Summary: [coroutines] ICE on co_await in for-loop end
condition.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98476
--- Comment #2 from Ye Luo ---
@jakub thanks for the quick reply. However, even if I add map(to: a) which is
almost a no-op to satisfy the compiler for 4.5 spec. The printout result is
still wrong. It should be 0 and 1 but the fortran case prints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98481
Bug ID: 98481
Summary: std::vector::size_type as return type
gets tagged with abi:cxx11
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> So if that bisection is accurate, the only way this could be failing would
> be if something with a deprecated attribute is being used.
>
> Maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
On 12/30/20 10:30 AM, glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
>
> --- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz fu-berlin.de> ---
> (In reply to Jef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12)
> On 12/30/20 10:30 AM, glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de wrote:
> > Is that a native bootstrap on qemu with "jit" enabled?
>
> native bootstrap wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98248
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 98248 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 01:40:22PM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> I didn't check for any new postin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482
Bug ID: 98482
Summary: -mfentry creates invalid call for -mcmodel=large
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64243
--- Comment #7 from Bart Janssens ---
Thanks, confirmed that this is also working on GCC 10.2. Unfortunately the
latest in our compiler images is 9.1, and that seems to be still affected, so
we'll have to upgrade.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Romain Geissler from comment #2)
> There seems to be a strange interaction between -Wsystem-headers and -g in
> gcc 11 which I don't understand.
Thanks for the -g hint; with it I can see it on my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98483
Bug ID: 98483
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds for out of bounds accesses in
system headers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98484
Bug ID: 98484
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on a multiply inlined
calls from system header
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98484
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing -Wstringop-overflow |missing -Wstringop-overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98476
--- Comment #3 from Ye Luo ---
I verified that current master has removed the syntax restriction. However, the
printout remains incorrect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98485
Bug ID: 98485
Summary: Symbols for identical constrained specializations have
different linkage
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98474
--- Comment #4 from Jeff Hurchalla ---
Thanks for your fix.
I built/installed gcc from the latest git sources, and prior to applying your
patch, as expected the test cases in this report produced incorrect results.
After I applied your patch, al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98442
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
>
> Define TARGET_USE_BY_PIECES_INFRASTRUCTURE_P for i386?
It's actually determined by MOV_MAX_PIECES and related to MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE
??? We should use TImode in 32-bit mode and use OImode or XImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98442
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98442
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> Please take a look at users/hjl/pieces/master branch:
>
> https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/pieces/master
>
> You may get some ideas.
I got
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98486
Bug ID: 98486
Summary: Variable template specialization doesn't account for
primary's constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/jon9ea
52 matches
Mail list logo
