https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95434
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95434
Bug ID: 95434
Summary: ICE for CTAD in generic lambda within variadic lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On 5/29/20 2:04 PM, Liu Hao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 在 2020/5/29 22:01, Liu Hao 写道:
>> This is necessary as libmsvcrt.a is not a pure import library, but
>> also contains some functions that invoke others in KERNEL32.DLL.
>>
>> * config/i386/mingw32.h: Insert -lkernel32 after -lmsvcrt
>> ---
On 5/28/20 8:46 PM, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> I was able to successfully bootstrap and regression test with
>>> your patch on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. I also verified that the
>>> result of
>> "make
>>> install" was not affected for my configuration.
>>
>> Great.
>>
>>> I've pushed
On Wed, 13 May 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 5/11/20 6:43 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > In the testcase below we're prematurely folding away the
> > requires-expression to 'true' after substituting in the function's
> > template arguments, but before substituting in the lambda's deduced
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94128
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 92652, which changed state.
Bug 92652 Summary: function call to lambda expression that return true does not
satisfy the constraint in requires-clause if using return type deduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92652
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95386
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92652, which changed state.
Bug 92652 Summary: function call to lambda expression that return true does not
satisfy the constraint in requires-clause if using return type deduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93698
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95241
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95241
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:798a9da416bbfd8996da9a5d53955b082d5b94fe
commit r10-8213-g798a9da416bbfd8996da9a5d53955b082d5b94fe
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95386
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6632f2920f08f5b45ffd1ada7006d4591ef9b172
commit r10-8215-g6632f2920f08f5b45ffd1ada7006d4591ef9b172
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92652
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
commit r10-8214-g03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94128
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
commit r10-8214-g03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93698
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
commit r10-8214-g03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
Author: Patrick Palka
On Fri, 29 May 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 5/22/20 10:56 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 May 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >
> > > When comparing two special member function templates to see if one hides
> > > the other (as per P0848R3), we need to check satisfaction which we can't
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
Bug ID: 95433
Summary: Failure to completely optimize simple compare after
operations
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95431
Yibiao Yang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yangyibiao at hust dot edu.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95432
Yibiao Yang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yangyibiao at hust dot edu.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95432
Bug ID: 95432
Summary: inconsistent behaviors at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95431
Bug ID: 95431
Summary: inconsistent behaviors at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95430
Bug ID: 95430
Summary: [UBSAN] doesn't detect out of bounds in a simple case
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95371
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c07c745b1ef62f633024824b7e125027f10c969b
commit r10-8211-gc07c745b1ef62f633024824b7e125027f10c969b
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95181
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e81c820a3e48ead478dabbd6988482747f7a521
commit r10-8212-g9e81c820a3e48ead478dabbd6988482747f7a521
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95386
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aef6e234a8a78db39b4ba034cc4c100c07c294a7
commit r11-738-gaef6e234a8a78db39b4ba034cc4c100c07c294a7
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95429
Bug ID: 95429
Summary: Wrong code generated for -Os with target m68k on
Ubuntu
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95428
Bug ID: 95428
Summary: ABI breakage for "base object constructor" for final
classes
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95427
Bug ID: 95427
Summary: Failure to avoid emitting rbp initialization when
doing 256-bit memory store
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95426
Bug ID: 95426
Summary: libgccjit.so: error: RTL check: expected elt 2 type
'B', have '0' (rtx barrier) in BLOCK_FOR_INSN
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #20 from Richard Smith
---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #19)
> Not that it would make a difference in this particular situation, but is the
> intent of P0593R6 to only allow implicitly creating an object in the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Downing ---
Not that it would make a difference in this particular situation, but is the
intent of P0593R6 to only allow implicitly creating an object in the relevant
storage location where one hasn't already been
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:20:19AM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Mai 2020 um 23:57 Uhr
> > Von: "H.J. Lu"
>
> > This breaks bootstrap:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-May/072642.html
> >
> > ../../src-master/gcc/fortran/class.c:487:13: error:
There are various VSX insns that do the same job as (older) AltiVec
insns, just with a wider range of possible registers. Many patterns
for such insns have the "v" alternative before the "wa" alternative,
which makes the output less readable than possible (since vs32 is v0,
and most insns before
Snapshot gcc-9-20200529 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20200529/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95425
Bug ID: 95425
Summary: Failure to optimize bit twiddling on statics that does
nothing
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95294
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:20 PM Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Hi H.J.,
>
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Mai 2020 um 23:57 Uhr
> > Von: "H.J. Lu"
>
> > This breaks bootstrap:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-May/072642.html
> >
> > ../../src-master/gcc/fortran/class.c:487:13:
Hi H.J.,
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Mai 2020 um 23:57 Uhr
> Von: "H.J. Lu"
> This breaks bootstrap:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-May/072642.html
>
> ../../src-master/gcc/fortran/class.c:487:13: error: ‘char*
> strncpy(char*, const char*, size_t)’ specified bound 67
On 5/22/20 10:56 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
When comparing two special member function templates to see if one hides
the other (as per P0848R3), we need to check satisfaction which we can't
do on templates. So this patch makes add_method skip the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95181
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c75ebe76ae12ac4020f20a24f34606a594a40d15
commit r11-735-gc75ebe76ae12ac4020f20a24f34606a594a40d15
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95371
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2fb595f8348e164d2f06536ba98322616eeaeeb6
commit r11-734-g2fb595f8348e164d2f06536ba98322616eeaeeb6
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
any_template_parm_r was assuming that the DECL_TEMPLATE_RESULT of a template
will have a suitable TEMPLATE_INFO from which we can look at the generic
arguments for that template. But that wasn't true for a template template
parameter; this patch makes it so.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95181
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Hi!
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: PR target/95347 Correctly identify stfs if prefixed
Please put the PR id at the end of the subject (it is the least
important information). You can also shorten it to "PR95347" -- total
subject length ideally is maybe 50 chars, so something like
"rtl-optimization" would
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> The initial patch for this PR had some fallout which for unknown reason
> did only show up on i686, but not on x86_64. With initial guidance by
> Manfred Schwarb three further locations exhibiting buffer overrun could
> be identified in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #18 from Richard Smith
---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #17)
> Also none of the behavior described in p0593 is required for this C++
> program to be well defined. All objects that are required to exists here are
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Because reg_to_non_prefixed() only looks at the register being used, it
doesn't get the right answer for stfs, which leads to us not seeing
that it has a PCREL symbol ref. This patch works around this by
introducing a helper function that inspects the insn to see if it is in
fact a stfs. Then if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95423
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
We manage it with -fwrapv. This should happen late when we don't care about
overflow anymore, or it needs to introduce casts to an unsigned type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95423
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Could there be overflows which don't happen originally?
>
> ---
> gcc/tree.h | 11 +++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree.h b/gcc/tree.h
> index bd0c51b2a18..86a4542f58b 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree.h
> +++ b/gcc/tree.h
> @@ -6156,6 +6156,17 @@ int_bit_position (const_tree field)
> + wi::to_offset
Hello,
>
>
> ---
> gcc/ipa-ref.c | 22 ++
> gcc/ipa-ref.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-ref.c b/gcc/ipa-ref.c
> index 241828ee973..76459e9cc3d 100644
> --- a/gcc/ipa-ref.c
> +++ b/gcc/ipa-ref.c
> @@ -103,3 +103,25 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Downing ---
Also none of the behavior described in p0593 is required for this C++ program
to be well defined. All objects that are required to exists here are created
explicitly. It's not relying on the implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #7)
> This causes regressions on arm and aarch64:
Followup fix to cure this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-May/054420.html
Sorry for that.
The initial attempt to fix this PR unfortunately produced a regression
in the testsuite that was overlooked. The real fix is to apply this
check in the appropriate place.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Really.
OK for master and backports?
Thanks,
Harald
PR fortran/95373 - ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94749
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a patch but was waiting until after the GCC 11 release.
I'll look into it next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95424
Bug ID: 95424
Summary: Failure to optimize division with numerator of 1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94749
--- Comment #2 from serpent7776 at gmail dot com ---
any update?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95371
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:32:00AM -0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > I wasn't sure if it wouldn't be safer to add some bool flag set to true by
> > the new code and then add gcc_assert in all the other paths, like following
> > incremental patch. I believe none of the asserts can trigger
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95423
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
I've hit a similar thing with this function :
int f(int x)
{
return (x * x * x) - (3 * x) - 1;
}
Which can be optimized to `return (((x * x) - 3) * x) - 1;`, but isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9051b548274bffef9f41e720e1894d12cf68a47c
commit r11-732-g9051b548274bffef9f41e720e1894d12cf68a47c
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri May 29
[6~On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:52:09PM -0700, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Avoid nested save_CFLAGS and save_LDFLAGS by replacing save_CFLAGS and
> save_LDFLAGS with cet_save_CFLAGS and cet_save_LDFLAGS in cet.m4.
Ok, thanks.
Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95423
Bug ID: 95423
Summary: Failure to optimize separated multiplications by x and
square of x
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
Avoid nested save_CFLAGS and save_LDFLAGS by replacing save_CFLAGS and
save_LDFLAGS with cet_save_CFLAGS and cet_save_LDFLAGS in cet.m4.
config/
PR bootstrap/95413
* cet.m4: Replace save_CFLAGS and save_LDFLAGS with
cet_save_CFLAGS and cet_save_LDFLAGS.
gcc/
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95052
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase with -O2 -fconserve-stack:
void bar (char *);
void
foo (void)
{
char buf[70] = "";
bar (buf);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool ---
We are in stage 1 now (for GCC 11), so nothing should be deferred now.
The initial patch for this PR had some fallout which for unknown reason
did only show up on i686, but not on x86_64. With initial guidance by
Manfred Schwarb three further locations exhibiting buffer overrun could
be identified in a gdb session and were fixed.
Committed as 'obvious' to master.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7deca8c0b3765787627b11387b56b97b01a8bf33
commit r11-731-g7deca8c0b3765787627b11387b56b97b01a8bf33
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
On 5/28/20 7:23 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Barry pointed out to me that our braced-init-list as a template-argument
extension doesn't work as expected when we aggregate-initialize. Thus
fixed by calling digest_init in convert_nontype_argument so that we can
actually convert the CONSTRUCTOR.
I
On 5/29/20 1:40 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/29/20 11:59 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
In the testcase below, the satisfaction value of fn1's constraint
is INTEGER_CST '1' of type BOOLEAN_TYPE value_type, which is a typedef
to the standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
> I am testing this:
[...]
Seems to work fine: at least configuring and building the 32 and 64-bit
libgomp multilibs now succeeds.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manfred Schwarb from comment #10)
> Is there a way to get useful backtraces? "--enable-checking=yes,extra"
> seems not to be enough...
Maybe some "fortify" option or a "sanitized"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95399
Evan Nemerson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48635|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95421
--- Comment #1 from Evan Nemerson ---
> Several functions are actually present in arm but not aarch64, I'm guessing
> that will be an easy place to start. Here is that list:
I pasted the wrong list here; that is actually the list of functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #19 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #18)
> @egallager: Why did you add 'deferred' keyword? I sent a patch for it to GCC
> patches mailing list.
because:
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
>
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:02 PM Tom Tromey wrote:
> This patch changes gcc's spell checker to prefer simple case changes
> when possible.
>
> I tested this using the self-tests. A new self-test is also included.
I think that's great, but it should be mentioned in the comment that
the distance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95422
Bug ID: 95422
Summary: Possible false positive for
-Waddress-of-packed-member.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95421
Bug ID: 95421
Summary: [AArch64] Missing NEON functions documented on ARM's
web site
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #16 from Richard Smith
---
Per p0593, memcpy implicitly creates objects (of any implicit lifetime type) in
the destination. It does not propagate the objects in the source memory to the
destination memory, and can therefore be used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
I am testing this:
diff --git a/config/cet.m4 b/config/cet.m4
index 2bb2c8a95ac..911fbd46475 100644
--- a/config/cet.m4
+++ b/config/cet.m4
@@ -7,13 +7,14 @@ GCC_ENABLE(cet, auto, ,[enable Intel CET in target
On Fri, 29 May 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 5/29/20 11:59 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > In the testcase below, the satisfaction value of fn1's constraint
> > is INTEGER_CST '1' of type BOOLEAN_TYPE value_type, which is a typedef
> > to the standard boolean_type_node. But satisfaction_value
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:26:55PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > Most patterns *do* FAIL on some target. We cannot rewind time.
>
> Sure. But the point is that FAILing isn't “explicitly allowed” for vcond*.
> In fact it's the opposite.
It has FAILed on
---
gcc/ipa-ref.h| 2 +-
gcc/ipa-visibility.c | 5 ++---
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-ref.h b/gcc/ipa-ref.h
index 95e29605548..9ff26e2693c 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-ref.h
+++ b/gcc/ipa-ref.h
@@ -139,5 +139,5 @@ public:
const char *
This pass is a variant of constant propagation where global
primitive constants with a single write are propagated to multiple
read statements.
ChangeLog:
2020-05-20 Erick Ochoa
gcc/Makefile.in: Adds new pass
gcc/passes.def: Same
gcc/tree-pass.h: Same
---
gcc/ipa-utils.c | 33 +
gcc/ipa-utils.h | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-utils.c b/gcc/ipa-utils.c
index 23e7f714306..bd3e79bd2e2 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-utils.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-utils.c
@@ -781,3 +781,36 @@
---
gcc/tree.h | 11 +++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/tree.h b/gcc/tree.h
index bd0c51b2a18..86a4542f58b 100644
--- a/gcc/tree.h
+++ b/gcc/tree.h
@@ -6156,6 +6156,17 @@ int_bit_position (const_tree field)
+ wi::to_offset (DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET
---
gcc/ipa-ref.c | 22 ++
gcc/ipa-ref.h | 3 +++
2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-ref.c b/gcc/ipa-ref.c
index 241828ee973..76459e9cc3d 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-ref.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-ref.c
@@ -103,3 +103,25 @@ ipa_ref::referred_ref_list (void)
{
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:05:14PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 02:43:12PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Segher - do you actually know this code to guess why the patterns are
> >> defensive?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> In that case, can you
Hello everyone,
I wanted to highlight this ticket on bugzilla [0]. It is a missed
optimization that I worked on. It involves propagating constants across
function calls at link-time. I am relatively new to GCC and this would
be my first significant contribution. I have developed a prototype
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 05:57:13PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 02:17:00PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> Now it looks like that those verification also simply checks optab
>> >> availability only but
On 5/29/20 6:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr had a check for reinterpret_casts from
pointers (well, it checked from ADDR_EXPRs) to integral type, but that
only caught such cases at the toplevel of expressions.
As the comment said, it should be done even inside
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 05:57:13PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 02:17:00PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Now it looks like that those verification also simply checks optab
> >> availability only but then this is just a preexisting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95390
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Am 24.05.20 um 20:55 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Fortran:
Hello world,
this patch fixes a 8/9/10/11 regression, where finalized types
were not finalized (and deallocated), which led to memory
leaks.
Hi,
OK for trunk? The patch is simple enough (and the regression bad enough)
that I'll commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95390
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f123dbb2dd2b3f7be81c90258ade9e6099ba19e3
commit r10-8209-gf123dbb2dd2b3f7be81c90258ade9e6099ba19e3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
1 - 100 of 302 matches
Mail list logo
