https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94931
Bug ID: 94931
Summary: request: print include path
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94922
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94930
Bug ID: 94930
Summary: Failure to optimize out subvsi in expansion of
__builtin_memcmp with 1 as the operand with -ftrapv
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94923
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 8.4.0, 9.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94929
Bug ID: 94929
Summary: GCC 8 chokes on std::max in alignas
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94923
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
Bug ID: 94928
Summary: Doc comments in gcov-io.h do not show cwd and unexec
blocks in the Notes file format
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94912
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68531
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94927
Bug ID: 94927
Summary: cortex-m7: Incorrect insn_reservation for
vmaxnm/vminnm instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94926
Bug ID: 94926
Summary: [9 regression] invalid use of incomplete type not
recogniced for static self reference of templated
struct
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #44 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6abe1c3084798d3e5f32926c352643e557073e01
commit r11-27-g6abe1c3084798d3e5f32926c352643e557073e01
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat May 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94918
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 8.4.0, 9.3.0
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93861
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93861
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7df457899078c5889194c1736cffcfd4d50f5305
commit r11-26-g7df457899078c5889194c1736cffcfd4d50f5305
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93861
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-darwin*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94925
Bug ID: 94925
Summary: Undesired runtime warning message
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94923
--- Comment #2 from dawid_jurek at vp dot pl ---
Yeah, that's the correct reproducer of issue I reported.
I noticed missing bracket after pasting it from godbolt but unfortunately
couldn't edit my comment after posting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94923
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #43 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:116784bbde9ed391393320d936ae2fff37442779
commit r11-25-g116784bbde9ed391393320d936ae2fff37442779
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #210 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-05-02 12:14 a.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> Looks like we might have to get the fix into GNU AS first to get PCREL60B
> working. I will try to look into how we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94924
Bug ID: 94924
Summary: Default equality operator for C-array compares
addresses, not data
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94923
Bug ID: 94923
Summary: False positive -Wclass-memaccess with trivially
copyable std::optional
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
x + y ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94922
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Another testcase that exhibits the 10/11 regression:
struct base {};
struct derived : base {};
void
foo()
{
derived a = derived(base());
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94922
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
The above appears to be a 10/11 regression, but note that all versions of GCC
>= 4.7 also incorrectly accept the following testcase:
struct base {};
struct derived : base {};
template
void foo();
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94922
Bug ID: 94922
Summary: Functional cast from base class to derived class
incorrectly accepted with -std=c++2a
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
Bug ID: 94921
Summary: Failure to optimize nots with sub into single add
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #34 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #33)
> What's going to happen with the fix? It works for me on
> sparc-sun-solaris2.11
> and obviously several other targets. This has been open for months now with
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94919
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
This seems related to another one you reported, in the category: i&-b == b?i:0
(for b∈{0,1}). The first form has the advantage of no branch, while the second
is less obfuscated and simplifies more naturally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94920
Bug ID: 94920
Summary: Failure to optimize abs pattern from arithmetic with
selected operands based on comparisons with 0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94919
Bug ID: 94919
Summary: Failure to recognize max pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94918
Bug ID: 94918
Summary: Ada bootstrap errors on Cygwin64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93114
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 48430
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48430=edit
Preliminary partial patch
Here is a very preliminary implementation, which only looks at
the return values of maxloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94917
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94917
Bug ID: 94917
Summary: Ada bootstrap errors on Cygwin64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94916
Bug ID: 94916
Summary: Failure to optimize pattern into difference or zero
selector
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94915
Bug ID: 94915
Summary: MAX_EXPR weirdly optimized on x86 with -mtune=core2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
38 matches
Mail list logo
