On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 14:49 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> My question is simple: can we starting using a scripting language like
> Python and replace usage of the AWK scripts?
I wonder what will be the expected way to obtain a suitable version of
Python if one is not available on the build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86555
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86518
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
cp/mangle.o miscompares due to -Wsign-compare, possibly due to caching in
maybe_constant_value as in the above PR.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Thomas König wrote:
> Hi Kyrlll,
>
> > Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov <
> kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com>:
> >
> > Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable given
> the benefits
> > mentioned above? If so, what would be the
Am 2018-07-18 um 01:50 schrieb Martin Sebor:
If there are no objections I'd like to backport the solution
for PR 85602 to avoid a class of unnecessary warnings for
safe uses of nonstring arrays. With the release coming up
later this week I'll go ahead and commit the patch tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86567
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 18/07/18 14:26, Thomas König wrote:
>
>> Hi Kyrlll,
>>
>> Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov <
>>> kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com>:
>>>
>>> Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable given
>>> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86555
--- Comment #2 from Khem Raj ---
we can avoid the problem by altering the structure, thats not an issue, but do
you think compiler is right here by assuming to generate LDRD on a 4byte
aligned address when it is told that architecture
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 18.07.2018 14:49, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 7:15 AM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 13:06, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jonathan Wakely :
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David
On 07/18/2018 02:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached update takes care of a couple of problems pointed
out by Bernd Edlinger in his comments on the bug. The ICE he
mentioned in comment #20 was due mixing sizetype, ssizetype,
and size_type_node in
On 18.07.2018 14:49, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 7:15 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 13:06, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>>>
>>> Jonathan Wakely :
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #9 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #7)
> I use GCC 4.6 to bootstrap. It appears that the error is caused by the
> "system" bootstrap compiler, which I think is GCC 4.4 in your case. It is
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #8 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #6)
> gcc-5.5.0 and 7.2.0 errored out in the same way but I am able to build
> gcc-8.1.0 successfully. gcc-6.4.0 seems to have built insn-output.c
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
I use GCC 4.6 to bootstrap. It appears that the error is caused by the "system"
bootstrap compiler, which I think is GCC 4.4 in your case. It is generating
code with too large displacements.
Also, some of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86562
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
On 18/07/18 14:26, Thomas König wrote:
Hi Kyrlll,
Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov :
Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable given the
benefits
mentioned above? If so, what would be the recommended adjustment to the
nan_1.f90 test?
I would be a bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86562
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
On 07/18/2018 02:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 07/18/2018 03:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
For purpose of --coverage I would like to distinguish lambda functions
among
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #6 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #5)
> GCC 4.9 is quite old now and out of service. If there is a bug in GCC 4.9,
> it will not be fixed because there are no bug fix releases planned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Anton has been able to work around the problem with a source change (this code
is unnecessarily baroque anyway), so I don't think anybody is urgently awaiting
a fix. If this will be fixed in your eventual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86480
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 07/06/2018 12:28 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:12 PM Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>> On 07/05/2018 01:39 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 1:25 PM Tom de Vries wrote:
[ was: Re: [testsuite/guality, committed] Prevent optimization of local in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86480
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 18 13:42:02 2018
New Revision: 262858
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262858=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86480 - nested variadic lambda and constexpr if.
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #10 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Created attachment 44406 [details]
> Undefine macros for long double math functions
>
> Does this fix the build?
I am trying a similar patch. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #9 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> As I suspected, something is doing:
>
> #define fabsl(X) fabs((double) (X))
> #define acosl(X) acos((double) (X))
> etc.
/usr/include/math.h on this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86190
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regression]|[6/7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 44406
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44406=edit
Undefine macros for long double math functions
Does this fix the build?
This isn't really a proper fix, as it just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
GCC 4.9 is quite old now and out of service. If there is a bug in GCC 4.9, it
will not be fixed because there are no bug fix releases planned.
You never showed an example of the assembly line representing
Hi Kyrlll,
> Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov :
>
> Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable given the
> benefits
> mentioned above? If so, what would be the recommended adjustment to the
> nan_1.f90 test?
I would be a bit careful about changing behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As I suspected, something is doing:
#define fabsl(X) fabs((double) (X))
#define acosl(X) acos((double) (X))
etc.
This would probably be solved by any fix for PR 79700, which would have to add
this to :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #4 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #3)
> (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #2)
> > Group Bull, Perzl, and I have been able to build it. Are you using an up to
> > date AIX Assembler?
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86190
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jul 18 13:13:11 2018
New Revision: 262855
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262855=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86190 - bogus -Wsign-conversion warning
* typeck.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86559
--- Comment #3 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #1)
> > Might be a duplicate of PR64081.
>
> Wrong bug number?
I was looking at bug 64081 comment 31.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86560
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.llvm.org/show_
Hi,
The below patch fixes an ICE for the avr target when the setmemhi
expander is involved.
The setmemhi expander generated RTL ends up as an unrecognized insn
if the alignment of the destination exceeds that of a QI
mode const_int (127), AND the number of bytes to set fits in a QI
mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86563
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86557
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 18 12:57:15 2018
New Revision: 262854
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262854=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-07-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/86557
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #5 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44405=edit
Preprocessed source for math_stubs_long_double.cc
The following fixes the vectorizer part of PR86557, vectorizing
of EXACT_DIV_EXPR. The x86 backend still lacks arithmetic DImode
right shift support for vectors without AVX512.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2018-07-18 Richard Biener
PR
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 7:15 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 13:06, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan Wakely :
> > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python 3.*. and is
> about
> > > > to be 10 years
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 07/18/2018 03:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> For purpose of --coverage I would like to distinguish lambda functions
>>> among DECL_ARTIFICIAL functions.
>>
>> I'm curious, why?
>
>
Hi Nagy/Ramana,
Please help us to review the attached patch and do let me know your comments .
No regress in the gcc.target suite for arm target.
Thank you
~Umesh
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Will do, thanks.
> Thanks
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 3:24 PM Ramana
OK.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:34:30AM +1000, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > The standard says:
>> > "In the decl-specifier-seq of the lambda-declarator, each decl-specifier
>> > shall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86561
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 13:06, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Jonathan Wakely :
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python 3.*. and is about
> > > to be 10 years old. (IIRC it was the system python implementation in
> > > RHEL 6).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45996
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Jonathan Wakely :
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python 3.*. and is about
> > to be 10 years old. (IIRC it was the system python implementation in
> > RHEL 6).
>
> It is indeed. Without some regular testing with Python 2.6
Hi again!
Well, since this hasn't been reviewed and I'm about to overhaul the
TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS code anyhow, might as well lump it all in one patch.
On 07/16/2018 09:19 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Howdy!
I've abstracted out the cross product calculations into its own
function, and have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86562
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Hi!
This patch adds support for C++ range for loops, including range for loops
with structured bindings for OpenMP constructs.
Tested on x86_64-linux, committed to gomp-5_0-branch.
2018-07-18 Jakub Jelinek
gcc/
* tree.h (OMP_CLAUSE_FIRSTPRIVATE_NO_REFERENCE): Define.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86471
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Surely static_cast is good enough, and doesn't rule out making the function
constexpr?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86567
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.1.1
Target Milestone|---
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:50 AM Kyrill Tkachov
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18/07/18 10:44, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:46 PM Kyrill Tkachov
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi Richard,
>> >>
>> >> On 17/07/18 14:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86559
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #1)
> Might be a duplicate of PR64081.
Wrong bug number?
You might need -mcmodel=large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86518
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
GCC 7 sadly has a similar list of miscomparing files. Did not check GCC 6 yet.
So far I managed to catch one set of misbehaving warnings by checking testsuite
fallout with -fcompare-debug=-Wall, but
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python 3.*. and is about
> to be 10 years old. (IIRC it was the system python implementation in
> RHEL 6).
It is indeed. Without some regular testing with Python 2.6 it could be
easy to introduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86567
Bug ID: 86567
Summary: [8/9 Regression] -Wnonnull/-Wformat/-Wrestrict affect
code generation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38935
--- Comment #2 from Paweł Zacharek ---
GCC behaves correctly, according to OpenMP 4.0
(https://www.openmp.org/wp-content/uploads/OpenMP4.0.0.pdf#page=175) and OpenMP
4.5 (https://www.openmp.org/wp-content/uploads/openmp-4.5.pdf#page=211)
Hi all,
Thank you for the feedback so far.
This version of the patch doesn't try to emit fmin/fmax function calls but
instead
emits MIN/MAX_EXPR sequences unconditionally.
I think a source of confusion in the original proposal (for me at least) was
that on aarch64 (that I primarily work on) we
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 06:56:31AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > alternatively we could handle the generated files like those we still
> > need flex for:
We can't, because unlike the flex output, the option handling is heavily
target specific and storing in the tarball a collection of
On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 11:51 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > I've recently touched AWK option generate machinery and it's quite
> > unpleasant
> > to make any adjustments. My question is simple: can we starting
> > using a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jul 18 10:27:12 2018
New Revision: 262851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262851=gcc=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-07-18 Paolo Carlini
* class.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We might need something like:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/math_stubs_long_double.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/math_stubs_long_double.cc
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
extern "C"
{
#ifndef _GLIBCXX_HAVE_FABSL
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 06:53:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:24:02PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > On 07/13/2018 09:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I'd like to ping the following C++ patches:
> > >
> > > - PR c++/85515
> > >make range for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:50 AM Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
>
> On 18/07/18 10:44, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:46 PM Kyrill Tkachov
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Richard,
> >>
> >> On 17/07/18 14:27, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:35 PM Kyrill Tkachov
> >>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #2 from The Written Word
---
gcc-6.4.0 on AIX 5.3 exhibits a similar failure.
On 18/07/18 10:51, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I've recently touched AWK option generate machinery and it's quite unpleasant
>> to make any adjustments. My question is simple: can we starting using a
>> scripting
>> language like
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:53 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> This patch is a rewrite of an earlier patch submitted at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02340.html
>
> With -gnateS, the Ada compiler sets itself up to output discriminators
> for different instantiations of generics, but
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:19 AM Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
>
> Attached patch fixes phi-opt not optimizing c++ testcase where we have
>
> if (b_4(D) == 0) instead of if (b_4(D) != 0) as shown in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86544
>
> Patch bootstrapped and regression tested
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I've recently touched AWK option generate machinery and it's quite unpleasant
> to make any adjustments. My question is simple: can we starting using a
> scripting
> language like Python and replace usage of the AWK scripts? It's
On 18/07/18 10:44, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:46 PM Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 17/07/18 14:27, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:35 PM Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
Hi all,
This is my first Fortran patch, so apologies if I'm missing something.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85624
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:46 PM Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 17/07/18 14:27, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:35 PM Kyrill Tkachov
> > wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> This is my first Fortran patch, so apologies if I'm missing something.
> >> The current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86532
--- Comment #26 from Bernd Edlinger ---
../../gcc-9-20180715-1/gcc/expr.c:11360 is:
while (TREE_CODE (chartype) != INTEGER_TYPE)
chartype = TREE_TYPE (chartype);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86532
--- Comment #25 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Sorry again Martin,
but with the latest patch I see the following:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx-vdppd-2.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx-vdppd-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86558
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86557
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
ICC seems to emulate this even for SSE2 where I'm not sure this is profitable:
..B1.2: # Preds ..B1.2 ..B1.1
# Execution count [1.02e+03]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86566
--- Comment #2 from Yuri ---
Replacing cpp with gcc6 -cpp fails:
$ gcc6 -cpp -fno-omit-frame-pointer -D__FFTW3
-I/usr/ports/science/quantum-espresso/work/q-e-qe-6.3/include
-I/usr/ports/science/quantum-espresso/work/q-e-qe-6.3/FoX/finclude
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86334
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
On 07/18/2018 03:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> For purpose of --coverage I would like to distinguish lambda functions
>> among DECL_ARTIFICIAL functions.
>
> I'm curious, why?
>
> Jason
>
It's important for GCOV to report coverage for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86544
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86555
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86523
--- Comment #11 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r262850 works for me.
Thanks!
On 07/18/2018 05:52 AM, Michael Collison wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Your alignment patch breaks the arm port. In the file arm.c, function
> 'get_label_padding' the code uses:
>
> static HOST_WIDE_INT
> get_label_padding (rtx label)
> {
> HOST_WIDE_INT align, min_insn_size;
>
> align = 1 <<
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The attached update takes care of a couple of problems pointed
> out by Bernd Edlinger in his comments on the bug. The ICE he
> mentioned in comment #20 was due mixing sizetype, ssizetype,
> and size_type_node in c_strlen(). AFAICS, some of it predates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86532
--- Comment #24 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hope you don't mind, but may I suggest to do the comparison in unsigned
arithmetics, like:
/* We don't know the starting offset, but we do know that the string
has no internal zero bytes.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:34:30AM +1000, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > The standard says:
> > "In the decl-specifier-seq of the lambda-declarator, each decl-specifier
> > shall
> > either be mutable or constexpr."
> > and the C++ FE has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
Summary|Incorrect
OK.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the below resolves the bug report and its duplicates by implementing - in a
> rather straightforward way, I believe - the resolution of DR 136, which also
> made into C++17. Note that in the patch I used permerror instead of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The issue seems to be that we do
Value numbering ret_10 stmt = ret_10 = (int) _9;
Setting value number of ret_10 to ret_11 (changed)
so we correctly figure both ret are the same. We then continue
Value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86566
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
101 - 200 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
