https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88322
Bug 88322 depends on bug 88340, which changed state.
Bug 88340 Summary: Implement P0019R8, C++20 std::atomic_ref.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88340
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88340
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88305
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 88340 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88334
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 88334, which changed state.
Bug 88334 Summary: Implement P0482R6, C++20 char8_t.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88334
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88322
Bug 88322 depends on bug 88334, which changed state.
Bug 88334 Summary: Implement P0482R6, C++20 char8_t.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88334
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86899
Sergey Semushin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Predelnik at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14504
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-04-22 23:02:33 |2019-3-4
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
At the minimum guarding those simplifications with something like
expand_vec_cmp_expr_p test for @0 if we can figure out mask type somehow (what
would IFN_COND_* need), and a check whether IFN_COND_* is suppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71425
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87603
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89568
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or perhaps as an alternative, we shouldn't use the match.pd code here to tweak
the conditions of VEC_COND_EXPRs exactly because the conditions themselves
might be valid solely in VEC_COND_EXPR's first argumen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44532
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Last reconfirmed|2010-06-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19792
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
I think for foo the "solution" is to only consider indices with well-defined
behavior, that is, for size_lookup[] indices in [0,257] which means we
should be safely able to truncate the index to unsigned cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19095
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-05 03:54:36 |2019-3-4
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45026
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ia64-unknown-linux-gnu |
Last reconfirmed|2011-02-25 23:15:1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55629
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-12-09 00:00:00 |2019-3-4
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89573
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56770
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|steven at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89574
Bug ID: 89574
Summary: internal compiler error: in conv_function_val, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:3792
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19792
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-08-06 00:00:00 |2019-3-4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88368
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The above change introduced PR89571.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89572
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89566
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89573
Bug ID: 89573
Summary: -fexcess-precision=standard doesn't work for
conversion to integer of multiplication
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89567
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> You are looking for IPA DSE
I'm not a compiler expert and don't know what this means. Even literally, I
don't know what these acronyms stand for.
> by marsha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89572
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89570
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89567
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89560
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66505
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
> I leave that up to you guys, but I would at min probably implement something
> like s390 folks did for gcc, commit db7a90aa0de5 ("S/390: Disable prediction
> of indirect branches"), see s390_case_values_thr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89549
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Unreduced test-case:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fp8OE7frCHNglDQ5CTGyBaQXHkeeD-vZ/view?usp=sharing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89549
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45877
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45877&action=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88652
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Any progress on this please?
101 - 146 of 146 matches
Mail list logo