In 1998 Jeff created this as a dump from an e-mail (hence all the
contents in a environment).
Since then we haven't really change any contents, though it's interesting
to review the commit log which reflects general changes around our web
site (to XHTML, later reducing preprocessing, now HTML
Committed.
The test makes sense only for targets that return the
"struct { int a, b, c; }" in registers (not in memory).
Starting a skip-construct is IMHO better than another iteration of
that obscuring "{ ... && { ! mytarget-*-* } }". New targets can just
append to the list without additional
Committed.
IV (loop2_unroll) doesn't like the mmix port. The feelings are mutual.
For mmix, gcc.dg/pr30957-1.c fails (runtime and rtl-scan) for these
reasons:
- IV doesn't handle the zero-extension-by-shift sequences generated by
middle-end (expr.c:convert_mode_scalar) in the absence of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96539
Bug ID: 96539
Summary: Unnecessary no-op copy with Os and tail call with
struct argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Snapshot gcc-10-20200808 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20200808/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On 8/6/20 10:29 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 8/5/20 6:06 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Ok, updated patch pushed to trunk. I'll push to GCC10 after a day or two.
And now pushed to GCC 10.
Peter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96446
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38b240a9dc7186a51e577dd3ff73c31af3cfb0ab
commit r10-8594-g38b240a9dc7186a51e577dd3ff73c31af3cfb0ab
Author: Peter Bergner
Hi all,
recently have been working on a new version of the plf::colony container
(plflib.org) and found GCC9 was giving 10-12% worse performance on a
given benchmark than GCC8.
Previous versions of the colony container did not experience this
performance loss going from GCC8 to GCC9.
However
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96492
--- Comment #5 from Rich Townsend ---
So, given that gcc 4.1.2 is really ancient, I've tried building 10.2 using gcc
9.3.0 instead (but still inside the Docker container). This builds fine, and in
fact I'm happy to go with this workaround.
Just another thought.
In Fortran, we have the possibility to define KIND numbers for
numeric types however we want.
So, it would be no problem to have two long double types
with distinct kind numbers, let's say KIND=16 for
one type and KIND=17 for the other. We can then let
selected_real_kind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96538
--- Comment #1 from Prateek Khade ---
(In reply to Prateek Khade from comment #0)
> I am trying to add int values present in the vector and store in long int
> type variable. If I am using for loop for calculating the sum of vector
> elements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96538
Bug ID: 96538
Summary: Integer overflow when there are multiple operands in
addition operation.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96530
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner
On 8/7/20 8:59 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 8/7/20 6:52 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Okay for trunk if that is true (or with the necessary adjustments), and
>> okay for 10 after letting it soak for a bit. Thanks!
>
> Ok, I did s/element_mode/TYPE_MODE/g here and am retesting.
> I'll commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96530
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2882e76089cecdc268d0835c54cabfa80b5b0be
commit r11-2616-ge2882e76089cecdc268d0835c54cabfa80b5b0be
Author: Peter Bergner
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86535
--- Comment #35 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I don't know that anybody has looked at the BSD support recently.
Thanks for your efforts. I agree that this is work for a programmer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96537
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.5.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96537
Bug ID: 96537
Summary: Missing std::pair constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486
--- Comment #28 from Susi Lehtola ---
Harald, Andreas, thanks for clarifying: yes, "crash" == Fortran runtime error.
The program should run just fine, since the return array has the proper size
given by get_environment_variable. Instead, it ends
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86535
--- Comment #34 from Curtis Hamilton ---
Do you know if anyone has actively worked on the BSD code recently?
I'm abandoning my effort go get this working on freebsd. I'm not a really a
programmer and this is beyond my meager abilities.
So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Started with r6-3986-g38217d3ee7c6e1fe.
Hi Martin,
As Gerhardt says, it compiles OK with version 7.4.1 20191027.
The patch you reference is dated 2015-10-18!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96312
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96532
Christian Zietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||czietz at gmx dot net
--- Comment #5
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:57 PM Michael Meissner via Gcc wrote:
>
> I want to discuss changes that I think we need to make across the open source
> toochain to allow us to change the long double type on PowerPC hardware from
> using the IBM extended double (i.e. a pair of doubles) to the IEEE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96532
--- Comment #4 from Thorsten Otto ---
Might be caused by x86 and s390 having a machine dependant pattern for
setmem/cpymem, possibly eliminating the library call again, while other
target's don't have such a pattern.
Hi Michael,
I have shortened the distribution list somewhat for the Fortran-relevant
parts.
I want to discuss changes that I think we need to make across the open source
toochain to allow us to change the long double type on PowerPC hardware from
using the IBM extended double (i.e. a pair of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96424
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96536
Bug ID: 96536
Summary: -fcf-protection code in i386.md:restore_stack_nonlocal
uses invalid compare-and-jump rtl
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96535
Bug ID: 96535
Summary: GCC 10 ignoring function __attribute__ optimize for
all x86
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Hi!
The following valid testcase is rejected, because cxx_eval_binary_expression
is called on the SPACESHIP_EXPR with lval = true, as the address of the
spaceship needs to be passed to a method call.
After recursing on the operands and calling genericize_spaceship which turns
it into a
Hi!
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 07:44:12PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Can you try that? Or do you want me to try?
If the walk_body on the various sequences of reduction, lastprivate and/or
linear
clauses needs to create a temporary variable, we should declare that variable
in
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs with -fexceptions -fnon-call-exceptions because
in that mode floating point comparisons should not be done at the end of bb
in GIMPLE_COND. Fixed by forcing it into a bool SSA_NAME and comparing that
against
false.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93553
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:676b5525e8333005bdc1c596ed086f1da27a450f
commit r11-2615-g676b5525e8333005bdc1c596ed086f1da27a450f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96424
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87d6dae308d604bad111b1c0bfea7835888eed8d
commit r11-2614-g87d6dae308d604bad111b1c0bfea7835888eed8d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96532
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
---
Hi Kewen,
Sorry for the late reply.
The patch's most important change is below cost computation:
> @@ -5890,6 +5973,10 @@ determine_iv_cost (struct ivopts_data *data, struct
> iv_cand *cand)
> cost_step = add_cost (data->speed, TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (base)));
> cost = cost_step +
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:36:59PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Euclidean_algorithm is the most
> > > common way to compute the modular multiplicative inverse of a number. For
> > > 3
> > > and 2^32, it could tell us that 2863311531*3-2*2^32=1, so modulo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92139
--- Comment #3 from Mateusz Pusz ---
Oh sorry, it seems I forgot to attach a preprocessed file. I am not able to
find it now so please close this issue.
Sorry for the trouble.
Best
Mat
pt., 7 sie 2020, 18:52 użytkownik redi at gcc dot
39 matches
Mail list logo
