Note, isn't a problem, rather, it's something that puzzles me.
On walking a function types argument types this way
for ( arg = TYPE_ARG_TYPES ( func_type);
arg != NULL;
arg = TREE_CHAIN ( arg))
{
.
.
}
I noticed an extra void argument that didn't exist
-Original Message-
From: Qing Zhao
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 12:55 PM
To: Kees Cook
Cc: Segher Boessenkool , Jakub Jelinek
, Uros Bizjak , "Rodriguez Bahena, Victor"
, GCC Patches
Subject: Re: PING [Patch][Middle-end]Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96911
--- Comment #6 from zhen...@compiler-dev.com ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> (In reply to zhen.xu from comment #0)
> > Dealing with Intrinsic shifta/shiftl/shiftr, gfortran refuses proper numbers
> > in the code below and throws "Error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96911
--- Comment #5 from zhen...@compiler-dev.com ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> (In reply to zhen.xu from comment #0)
> > Dealing with Intrinsic shifta/shiftl/shiftr, gfortran refuses proper numbers
> > in the code below and throws "Error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96911
--- Comment #4 from zhen...@compiler-dev.com ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> (In reply to zhen.xu from comment #0)
> > Dealing with Intrinsic shifta/shiftl/shiftr, gfortran refuses proper numbers
> > in the code below and throws "Error:
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 11:02:50PM +0200, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Excerpts from Alan Modra's message of September 3, 2020 3:01 pm:
> > Running the libiberty testsuite
> > ./test-demangle < libiberty/testsuite/d-demangle-expected
> > libiberty/d-demangle.c:214:14: runtime error: signed integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96911
--- Comment #3 from zhen...@compiler-dev.com ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> Error: Integer too big for its kind at (1). This check can be disabled with
> the option '-fno-range-check'
>
> Why don't you read what gfortran is telling
I am working a instrumention tool, and need get the location info for a gimple
statement. I use the location structure to get the info, and it can work when i
use -O1. When I use -O2, sometimes the info seems to be lost and I get line num
is zero. anyone can tell me how to get the info?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53784
Evan Nemerson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@coeus-group.com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96900
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:24:21AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2020/9/2 下午6:25, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 11:16:00AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >> on 2020/9/1 上午3:41, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:46:55PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> 1)
Snapshot gcc-8-20200903 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20200903/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Excerpts from Alan Modra's message of September 3, 2020 3:01 pm:
> Running the libiberty testsuite
> ./test-demangle < libiberty/testsuite/d-demangle-expected
> libiberty/d-demangle.c:214:14: runtime error: signed integer overflow:
> 922337203 * 10 cannot be represented in type 'long int'
>
> On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96918
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or the generic code could try to expand vector rotates by multiplies of
BITS_PER_UNIT as vector permutations, perhaps only if there is no optab for it.
Or trying to expand both permutation and rotate and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96820
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ad3fc6ca46c603d9c3efe8e6d4a8f2ff1a893a4
commit r11-3003-g8ad3fc6ca46c603d9c3efe8e6d4a8f2ff1a893a4
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62191
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96930
Bug ID: 96930
Summary: Failure to optimize out 64-bit arithmetic when it
can't happen with division transformed into right
shift
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96929
Bug ID: 96929
Summary: Failure to optimize right shift of -1 to -1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96918
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
typedef unsigned short v8i16 __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
v8i16 bswap_epi16(v8i16 x)
{
return (x << 8) | (x >> 8);
}
We do recognize a rotate already in GENERIC
return x r<< 8;
But this is
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> IMHO stepping into the .md really isn't helpful. Even a pattern
> name in a comment in the generated code would be better.
...and JFTR, yes I noticed there is, or rather line indicator
for example /path/to/mmix.md:211 above gen_adddi3 in
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020, Pip Cet via Gcc wrote:
> I may be missing an obvious workaround, but it seems we currently emit
> a #line directive when including lines from machine description files
> in C files, but never emit a second directive when switching back to
> the generated C file. This makes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Will Schmidt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8f3474ff81b07fd2e758337957711db17eb801e
commit r11-3002-gd8f3474ff81b07fd2e758337957711db17eb801e
Author: Will Schmidt
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96901
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba6730bd18371a3dff1e37d2c2ee27233285b597
commit r11-3001-gba6730bd18371a3dff1e37d2c2ee27233285b597
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
On Sep 3, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:17:04PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> > Oh, I meant what was in your patch. From a grep, all of mn10300, nds32,
>> > arm, cris, pdp11, rs6000, i386, visium, aarch64 have
On Sep 3, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:07:24PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 07:03:53AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> On Sep 2, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> >> >> we might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96922
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96905
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried
--- gcc/cp/semantics.c.jj 2020-09-01 09:17:50.0 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/semantics.c 2020-09-03 21:20:20.678830381 +0200
@@ -4517,7 +4517,7 @@ expand_or_defer_fn_1 (tree fn)
return false;
> On Sep 3, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 6:13 PM Kees Cook via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 09:29:54AM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> On average, all the options starting with “used_…” (i.e, only the
>>> registers that are
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:17:04PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Oh, I meant what was in your patch. From a grep, all of mn10300, nds32,
> > arm, cris, pdp11, rs6000, i386, visium, aarch64 have default clobbers.
> > Hrm, what you said was the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96890
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 94774, which changed state.
Bug 94774 Summary: Uninitialized variable retval in function
try_substitute_return_value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94774
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94774
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94905
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Bogus warning |[10 Regression] Bogus
On 9/1/20 1:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/11/20 12:19 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
-Wplacement-new handles array indices and pointer offsets the same:
by adjusting them by the size of the element. That's correct for
the latter but wrong for the former, causing false positives
*ping*
> Gesendet: Montag, 24. August 2020 um 23:08 Uhr
> Von: "Harald Anlauf"
> An: "fortran" , "gcc-patches"
> Betreff: [PATCH] PR fortran/96711 - ICE on NINT() Function
>
> When rounding a real to integer(16) an ICE happened due to an unhandled
> case in build_round_expr. The attached patch
Committed as obvious after regtesting.
The m4 template for the IALL library functions erroneously had a 0
as initial value for the case when the DIM and MASK arguments were
present instead of a -1. This was unfortunately not tested in the
testsuite before. Fixed and testcase added.
Thanks,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94905
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96890
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8cbcc17041fdfd3ccc928161ae86e7f9b456
commit r11-3000-g8cbcc17041fdfd3ccc928161ae86e7f9b456
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 92812, which changed state.
Bug 92812 Summary: Implement P1975R0: Fixing the wording of parenthesized
aggregate-initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:07:24PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 07:03:53AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Sep 2, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> >> we might succeed, but only if we had a pattern
> >> >> that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:753b4679bc46f6806cf45d9afc3783c6d3b63589
commit r11-2999-g753b4679bc46f6806cf45d9afc3783c6d3b63589
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95848
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
On 9/3/20 4:20 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
The recent libstdc++ changes caused lots of libstdc++-v3 tests FAILs
on i686-linux, all of them in the same spot during constexpr evaluation
of a recursive _S_gcd call.
The problem is yet another hash_map that used the default hasing of
tree keys
On 9/2/20 6:08 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 05:06:45PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/2/20 4:37 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
I've added do_aggregate_paren_init to factor some common code. It's not
perfect because the enclosing conditions couldn't really be factored out,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 49180
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49180=edit
Manually reduced code
On 9/2/20 6:43 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 9/1/20 6:13 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
As discussed in the PR, fold-const.c punts on floating point constant
evaluation if the result is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96928
Bug ID: 96928
Summary: Failure to optimize one's complement abs pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96629
--- Comment #3 from Yichao Yu ---
Just curious, is it some particular structure that is upsetting it or did it
simply hit some depth limit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96629
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|spurious uninitialized |spurious maybe
On September 3, 2020 7:59:12 PM GMT+02:00, Gary Oblock
wrote:
>>This is absolutely not enough information to guess at the
>>issue ;)
>
>That's fair, I was hoping some mad genius out there would confess to a
>fubar_adjustment phase that was probably at fault.
Ah, well. It's probably your own
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96862
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6641d6d3fe79113f8d9f3ced355aea79bffda822
commit r11-2998-g6641d6d3fe79113f8d9f3ced355aea79bffda822
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
Hi!
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:37:33AM -0500, will schmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-09-02 at 05:13 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:00:20PM -0500, will schmidt wrote:
> > > This corrects an issue with the powerpc vector long long
> > > subtypes.
> > > As reported by
>This is absolutely not enough information to guess at the
>issue ;)
That's fair, I was hoping some mad genius out there would confess to a
fubar_adjustment phase that was probably at fault.
>I suggest you break at the return stmt of make_ssa_name_fn
>looking for t->base.u.version == 101 to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96927
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96927
Bug ID: 96927
Summary: [11 regression] ICE in
libstdc++-v3/include/chrono:442
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 6:13 PM Kees Cook via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 09:29:54AM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > On average, all the options starting with “used_…” (i.e, only the
> > registers that are used in the routine will be zeroed) have very low
> > runtime overheads,
> On Sep 3, 2020, at 12:13 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 09:29:54AM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> On average, all the options starting with “used_…” (i.e, only the registers
>> that are used in the routine will be zeroed) have very low runtime
>> overheads, at most 1.72%
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 09:09:40PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:34:01AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > +// Maximum number of insns to scan between the load address and the load
> > that
>
> Please don't mix /* and // comments. Just stick to /*
On Sep 3, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 07:03:53AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> > (And aarch, but not the other targets with default clobbers).
>>
>> And arm. I didn't look very hard for others yet; I wasn't sure
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 09:29:54AM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
> On average, all the options starting with “used_…” (i.e, only the registers
> that are used in the routine will be zeroed) have very low runtime overheads,
> at most 1.72% for integer benchmarks, and 1.17% for FP benchmarks.
> If all
[dropping port maintainers for combine-mostly subthread]
On Sep 3, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 07:03:53AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> >> we might succeed, but only if we had a pattern
>> >> that matched
On September 3, 2020 5:39:18 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew MacLeod
wrote:
>On 9/3/20 3:43 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:21 AM Aldy Hernandez
>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/31/20 2:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:10 AM Aldy Hernandez
>wrote:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90129
Thiago Macieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago at kde dot org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96911
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
This patch updates the BPF back end to generate indirect calls via
the 'call %reg' instruction when targetting xBPF.
Additionally, the BPF ASM_SPEC is updated to pass along -mxbpf to
gas, where it is now supported.
2020-09-03 David Faust
gcc/
* config/bpf/bpf.h (ASM_SPEC): Pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86419
--- Comment #7 from Dimitrij Mijoski ---
I think a found a related bug in the UTF8 to UCS2 codecvt,
codecvt_utf8. It can be tested with the following example:
#include
auto test_u8_ucs2_in()
{
// 2 code points, one is 3 bytes and the
Looks like that the PDF attachments do not work with this alias either.
H.J. LU helped me to upload the performance data and code size data to the
following wiki page:
https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/wikis/Zero-call-used-registers-data
Please refer to this link for the data.
thanks.
Qing
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Hmm, this might be a bad reduction. __is_constructible_impl really *is*
incomplete here. In the real code it isn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
Bug ID: 96926
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] Tuple element w/ member reference
to incomplete template type rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96925
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||56456
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96922
Rene Rahn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #3 from Rene Rahn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96925
Bug ID: 96925
Summary: missing warning on sprintf into destination at
negative offset
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96592
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As further evidence the compile is confused, the preprocessed source from GCC
10 can be compiled by GCC 8, but not GCC 9, 10 or trunk.
It started to be rejected with r262172 (fixing PR c++/80290), but the
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 07:03:53AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > (And aarch, but not the other targets with default clobbers).
>
> And arm. I didn't look very hard for others yet; I wasn't sure it would
> be worth pursuing any further.
Oh, I
On 9/3/20 3:43 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:21 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 8/31/20 2:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:10 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 8/31/20 10:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 10:20 AM Aldy Hernandez
This "fix" makes no sense, but it avoids an error from G++ about
std::is_constructible being incomplete. The real problem is elsewhere,
but this "fixes" the regression for now.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
PR libstdc++/96592
* include/std/tuple (_TupleConstraints): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96592
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] Tuple|[10 Regression] Tuple
On Wed, 2020-09-02 at 05:13 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:00:20PM -0500, will schmidt wrote:
> > This corrects an issue with the powerpc vector long long
> > subtypes.
> > As reported by SjMunroe in PR96139. When building some code with
> > -Wall
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96592
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:032a4b42cc5f2105f622690ce2552f1c30e1d227
commit r11-2997-g032a4b42cc5f2105f622690ce2552f1c30e1d227
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83591
--- Comment #6 from twan at vitestro dot com ---
I ran into this same issue on gcc 7.2.0.
This issue seems to be resolved in gcc 9.3.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83591
twan at vitestro dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||twan at vitestro dot com
---
On 28/08/2020 13:04, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
Hi all,
This patch introduces DWARF CFI support for architectures that require
multiple registers to hold pointers, such as the stack pointer, frame
pointer, and return address. The motivating case is the AMD GCN
architecture which has 64-bit address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96808
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 8:08 AM Kirill Yukhin via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 06 июл 09:58, Hongyu Wang via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > This patch is about to support Intel Advanced Matrix Extensions (AMX)
> > which will be enabled in GLC.
> >
> > AMX is a new 64-bit programming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96592
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is a compiler bug. The same libstdc++ code compiles OK with clang.
The error doesn't really make any sense. std::is_constructible is certainly not
incomplete.
In file included from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96808
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abd9341c2f1ae5f7aa73950cdaac58ef3a2f0190
commit r10-8706-gabd9341c2f1ae5f7aa73950cdaac58ef3a2f0190
Author: Peter Bergner
Hi,
Looks like both attached .csv files were deleted during the email delivery
procedure. Not sure what’s the reason for this.
Then I have to copy the text file here for you reference:
benchmarks:
C 500.perlbench_r
C 502.gcc_r
C 505.mcf_r
C++
Hello,
On 06 июл 09:58, Hongyu Wang via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi:
>
> This patch is about to support Intel Advanced Matrix Extensions (AMX)
> which will be enabled in GLC.
>
> AMX is a new 64-bit programming paradigm consisting of two
> compo nents: a set of 2-dimensional registers (tiles)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96890
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4)
> Ping Thomas. I recall seeing that he recently was
> asking about --enable-maintainer-mode in a git
> world.
Hacking the Makfile in
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 04:55:14PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> C++ says that division by zero has undefined behavior, and that an
> expression with undefined behavior is not constant, so we shouldn't fold
> 1./0 to inf anyway. The same is true of other trapping operations. So
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
_Bool f2(_Bool a, _Bool b)
{
return a ? !b : 1;
}
This similar pattern can be optimized to `return !(a & b);`. This
transformation is done by LLVM, but not by GCC.
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 03:53:35PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> But is that an issue in practice? I usually do not do make -j32 cc1plus
> in a tree that was configured for bootstrap, nor do I use
> --enable-link-serialization in that case.
Guess most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96911
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96890
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:32:32PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96890
>
> --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96890
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> At one point, you did it by using --maintainer-mode with configure.
> With the move to git and other changes, I don't know if this has
> changed.
Well,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96922
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-03
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96918
--- Comment #4 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Oh, now I realise that those headers are actually in fact part of directly
GCC-provided headers and not some external package. I must say though, if those
functions are internal implementation detail and
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
