[Bug middle-end/95021] [10 Regression] Bogus -Wclobbered warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Known to fail||10.5.0 Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|10.5|11.0 --- Comment #20 from Richard Biener --- Fixed in GCC 11.
[Bug middle-end/95021] [10 Regression] Bogus -Wclobbered warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.4|10.5 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
[Bug middle-end/95021] [10 Regression] Bogus -Wclobbered warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.3|10.4 --- Comment #18 from Richard Biener --- GCC 10.3 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.4.
[Bug middle-end/95021] [10 Regression] Bogus -Wclobbered warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021 Bug 95021 depends on bug 98676, which changed state. Bug 98676 Summary: [11 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98676 What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug middle-end/95021] [10 Regression] Bogus -Wclobbered warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a512079ef40e442c1269ea1cc55f18790ba68449
commit r11-6669-ga512079ef40e442c1269ea1cc55f18790ba68449
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Jan 14 06:56:17 2021 -0800
i386: Update PR target/95021 tests
Also pass -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4 -mno-stackrealign to avoid
disabling STV by:
/* Disable STV if -mpreferred-stack-boundary={2,3} or
-mincoming-stack-boundary={2,3} or -mstackrealign - the needed
stack realignment will be extra cost the pass doesn't take into
account and the pass can't realign the stack. */
if (ix86_preferred_stack_boundary < 128
|| ix86_incoming_stack_boundary < 128
|| opts->x_ix86_force_align_arg_pointer)
opts->x_target_flags &= ~MASK_STV;
PR target/98676
* gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c: Add -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4
-mno-stackrealign.
* gcc.target/i386/pr95021-3.c: Likewise.
[Bug middle-end/95021] [10 Regression] Bogus -Wclobbered warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||98676 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #15) > > --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- > > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13) > >> The failures reported in Comment 11 still exist on master, though. > >> Maybe it's too early to remove 11 from the regression list? > > > > But that seems to be a new issue with the added testcases. Can you open a > > separate PR for this? > > Done now as PR testsuite/98676. I was just a bit worried that the patch > would be backported to the gcc-10 branch as is, together with the (so > far ignored) failures. Sure. We have dependencies to track this. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98676 [Bug 98676] gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL
[Bug middle-end/95021] [10 Regression] Bogus -Wclobbered warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021 --- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13) >> The failures reported in Comment 11 still exist on master, though. >> Maybe it's too early to remove 11 from the regression list? > > But that seems to be a new issue with the added testcases. Can you open a > separate PR for this? Done now as PR testsuite/98676. I was just a bit worried that the patch would be backported to the gcc-10 branch as is, together with the (so far ignored) failures.
[Bug middle-end/95021] [10 Regression] Bogus -Wclobbered warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13) > The failures reported in Comment 11 still exist on master, though. > Maybe it's too early to remove 11 from the regression list? But that seems to be a new issue with the added testcases. Can you open a separate PR for this?
[Bug middle-end/95021] [10 Regression] Bogus -Wclobbered warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021 --- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- The failures reported in Comment 11 still exist on master, though. Maybe it's too early to remove 11 from the regression list?
[Bug middle-end/95021] [10 Regression] Bogus -Wclobbered warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95021 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Known to work||11.0 Summary|[10/11 Regression] Bogus|[10 Regression] Bogus |-Wclobbered warning |-Wclobbered warning
