https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90267
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Use either -fno-strict-aliasing or change STRU_CCH_DLTPC_PARA to use an union
and access it via that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85679
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71535
Jose Manuel Monsalve Diaz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josem at udel dot edu
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71535
--- Comment #4 from Jose Manuel Monsalve Diaz ---
Same for Hotspot of the same benchmarks suite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87213
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89695
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I believe this is required by the ABI for trivially copyable types.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66268
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think DR 2094 makes this report invalid, and GCC correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.3.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Smith
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90267
Bug ID: 90267
Summary: [7.3 regression] wrong code generated wth -O2 as
missing data dependence base on memory
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90253
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Africa Oil & Gas Industry: An Africa Business Community
Hi,
Short term business collaboration. Let me know if you have some time to connect
for more details. Contact email: kamhe...@gmail.com.
Skype: live:kamhed44.
Regards,
Kamran Hedayat.
Click the link below to Join:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Created attachment 46250 [details]
> run_fast_dce also for LRA
>
> Sth like this could fix it.
I've verified this patch breaks PR90178 again as well.
I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89432
--- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> (In reply to ibuclaw from comment #6)
> > Author: ibuclaw
> > Date: Wed Apr 24 18:57:36 2019
> > New Revision: 270554
> >
> > URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #20 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Rainer,
Thanks a million. Unfortunately, we just missed the 9.1 release.
Cheers
Paul
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 09:59, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
wrote:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89889
--- Comment #3 from Lokesh Janghel ---
Is there any target hooks for alloca? Should we do the same like
__builtin_alloca_with_align (array allocation) or we assume the problem as a
target based (prologue/epilogue optimization) issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46253
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46253=edit
gcc9-pr90257.patch
Untested patch that fixes PR90178 even when the reversion of reversion of
reversion in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89432
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #6)
> Author: ibuclaw
> Date: Wed Apr 24 18:57:36 2019
> New Revision: 270554
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270554=gcc=rev
> Log:
> libphobos: Fix FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90261
Bug ID: 90261
Summary: FAIL: libphobos.phobos/std/file.d on CentOS 5.11,
Linux 2.6.18
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen ---
Overall 'perf' cycle counts and hot functions.
r270483
---
# Overhead Samples Command Shared Object
# ...
#
91.17%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe the difference is caused by cfg cleanup without the noop move
considering
(code_label 34 6 37 9 1 (nil) [2 uses])
(note 37 34 36 9 [bb 9] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(insn 36 37 53 9 (use (reg/i:DI 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #10 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Created attachment 46250 [details]
> run_fast_dce also for LRA
>
> Sth like this could fix it.
Yes, that restored the performance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 26, 2019 4:18:03 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
>
>--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>Created attachment 46253
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 26, 2019 4:37:24 PM GMT+02:00, rguenther at suse dot de
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
>
>--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de de> ---
>On April 26,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
Bug ID: 90263
Summary: Calls to mempcpy should use memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because then you penalize properly maintained targets which do have efficient
mempcpy. And even if some targets don't have efficient mempcpy right now, that
doesn't mean they can't have it in the future.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90262
Bug ID: 90262
Summary: Inline small constant memmoves
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
--- Comment #2 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> As stated several times in the past, I strongly disagree.
Why? GCC already does this for bzero and bcopy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90178
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
--- Comment #4 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Because then you penalize properly maintained targets which do have
> efficient mempcpy. And even if some targets don't have efficient mempcpy
> right now, that doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264
Bug ID: 90264
Summary: [9/10 Regression] -Wnull-dereference false positive
after r270574
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It doesn't look like a false positive to me.
We set *seq = 0.
Assume we do not return -1 from line A.
The for loop's initial test will be false because out = *seq = 0
out - *seq must also be zero and if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86172
Bug 86172 depends on bug 90264, which changed state.
Bug 90264 Summary: [9/10 Regression] -Wnull-dereference false positive after
r270574
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Which version are you using? (You didn't say)
With trunk I get length_error thrown from the first push_back in f or g:
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::length_error'
what():
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89088
--- Comment #1 from Martin Storsjö ---
FWIW, Clang (when operating in MinGW mode, where it tries to follow what GCC
does) also had the same issue. There this issue was fixed by making dllexport
export inline methods as well, for template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90265
Bug ID: 90265
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in build_call_a at
gcc/cp/call.c:396 since r268377
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90265
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-4-26
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266
Bug ID: 90266
Summary: missing or broken check for vector::size() exceeding
max_size()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264
--- Comment #3 from Roman Zhuykov ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #1)
> We set *seq = 0.
>
> Assume we do not return -1 from line A.
>
> The for loop's initial test will be false because out = *seq = 0
>
> out - *seq must also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89087
--- Comment #1 from Martin Storsjö ---
FWIW, Clang (when operating in MinGW mode, where it tries to follow what GCC
does) also had the same issue. There this issue was fixed by emitting
definitions for nested classes even if a template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think I fixed this in r263789 for PR 78448 and then changed the return value
of max_size() in r265021 for PR 87544.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|config/gettext.m4 and |config/gettext.m4 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
>
> --- Comment #13 from Hongtao.liu ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||26163
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90242
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90259
Bug ID: 90259
Summary: ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: missing
REG_EH_REGION note at the end of bb 4)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90249
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> What difference is there on some code of significant size? Do you see
> regressions then?
>
> Of course there are some tiny examples where it now does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46250=edit
run_fast_dce also for LRA
Sth like this could fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So - is the regression of 8% compared to GCC 8? If only to some development
branch revision then it doesn't count. As I read it the removed code in
question only got added during GCC 9 stage3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258
Bug ID: 90258
Summary: [9 Regression] Missing completion for a target option
since r264052
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Let's revert the offending commit on the branch but keep it on trunk for
further investigation. PR90178 was only a missed optimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89504
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90260
Bug ID: 90260
Summary: function multiversioning: template functions not
supported
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89432
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
FYI, a check for a supported clock type in systemtime.d is also needed,
otherwise the test tries to access unsupported ClockType.coarse:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90243
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90191
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> Actually I think the warning is valid. Ramping up the aggressiveness of the
> threader is what ultimately exposes it.
[...]
>
> But AFAICT the warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90191
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
NP. It happens to all of us at some point :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I committed as r270601, on gcc-9-branch
2019-04-26 Segher Boessenkool
PR other/90257
Revert the revert:
2019-04-21 H.J. Lu
PR target/90178
Revert:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90197
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 26 15:38:33 2019
New Revision: 270606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270606=gcc=rev
Log:
PR debug/90197
* c-tree.h (c_finish_loop): Add 2 further location_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90243
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Apr 26 16:33:02 2019
New Revision: 270610
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270610=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/90243 - orphaned note in uninstantiated constexpr function
gcc/cp:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90173
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE: |[9 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87979
--- Comment #5 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Author: zhroma
Date: Fri Apr 26 16:04:54 2019
New Revision: 270609
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270609=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport modulo-sched fixes from mainline
2019-04-23 Roman Zhuykov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84032
--- Comment #7 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Author: zhroma
Date: Fri Apr 26 16:04:54 2019
New Revision: 270609
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270609=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport modulo-sched fixes from mainline
2019-04-23 Roman Zhuykov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90173
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Apr 26 14:51:00 2019
New Revision: 270603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270603=gcc=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-04-26 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/90173
* decl.c
79 matches
Mail list logo