https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86910
--- Comment #3 from Steffen Schuemann ---
Sorry, g++-8 -v:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-8
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nvptx-none
OFFLOAD_TARGET_DEFAULT=1
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86915
Bug ID: 86915
Summary: Segmentation fault for an array of auto in template
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Snapshot gcc-8-20180810 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20180810/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-8
On 08/10/2018 02:55 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 03:34:26PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/25/2018 05:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Sam McCall wrote:
> json::Value in JSON.h is a discriminated union.
> The storage is a char array of appropriate type and alignment. The storage
> holds one object at a time, it's initialized (and for nontrivial types,
> destroyed) at the right times to ensure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86914
Bug ID: 86914
Summary: gcc 8.1 -O2 generates wrong code with strlen() of
pointers within one-element arrays of structures
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 03:34:26PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/25/2018 05:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >>> 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool
> >>>
> >>> PR rtl-optimization/85645
> >>> * regcprop.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86913
Bug ID: 86913
Summary: Sending a nil message using a method signature
returning a struct corrupts the stack
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86197
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
For floating point types, the question is what MAX(a, NaN) or MIN(a,
NaN) should return (where "a" is a normal number). There are valid
usecases for returning either one, but the Fortran standard doesn't
specify which one should be chosen. Also, there is no consensus among
other tested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86197
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Aug 10 20:46:04 2018
New Revision: 263479
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263479=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-06-19 Segher Boessenkool
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 06:32:27AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:45:59AM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > The existing code allows only 4 vectors worth of ieee128 homogeneous
> > aggregates, but it should be 8. This happens because at one spot it
> > is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84094
Bug 84094 depends on bug 57160, which changed state.
Bug 57160 Summary: short-circuit IF only with -ffrontend-optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57160
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Aug 10 20:20:27 2018
New Revision: 263478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263478=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/68210 adjust operator new and delete for LWG 206
Ensure that nothrow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57160
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
See Also|
Ensure that nothrow versions of new and delete call the ordinary
versions of new or delete, instead of calling malloc or free directly.
These files are all compiled with -std=gnu++14 so can use noexcept and
nullptr to make the code more readable.
PR libstdc++/68210
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86197
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Aug 10 20:14:11 2018
New Revision: 263477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263477=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-06-19 Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or maybe:
int main ()
{
void *p = operator new (1, std::nothrow);
VERIFY (p != 0);
VERIFY (1 == new_called);
VERIFY (0 == new_handler_called);
VERIFY (!bad_alloc_thrown);
operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan
On 08/08/2018 08:19 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 07:09:16AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> On 08/07/2018 06:52 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
Thanks for review. This version should address all of the following
remarks. However, one thing to note ...
>> [nvptx] Use CUDA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86131
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So, what is happening at all? What is different during/after combine, etc.?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86908
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Frumkin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Kostya Frumkin from comment #3)
> > Hi, for example msvc2013 calls base class's virtual method when msvc2015
> > calls derived class's virtual
On 08/08/2018 11:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/02/2018 09:42 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The warning bits are definitely not okay by me. The purpose
of the warnings (-W{format,sprintf}-{overflow,truncation} is
to detect buffer overflows. When a warning doesn't have access
to string length
json::Value in JSON.h is a discriminated union.
The storage is a char array of appropriate type and alignment. The storage
holds one object at a time, it's initialized (and for nontrivial types,
destroyed) at the right times to ensure this. The cast is only to the type
of object that's already
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:39:21AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> This patch adds an insn to load a LABEL_REF into a GPR. This is needed so the
> FWPROP1 pass can convert the load the of the label address from the TOC to a
> direct load to a GPR.
I don't see why you need a separate RTL insn
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 17:01, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Yvan Roux wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 14:31, Yvan Roux wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 13:45, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Yvan Roux
Hello Rasmus,
> On 28 Jun 2018, at 10:43, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
> Assume that if the user passed --enable-initfini-array when building
> gcc, the rest of the toolchain (including the link spec and linker
> script) is set up appropriately.
>
> Note that configuring with
On 09/08/18 06:48, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/07/2018 02:11 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
Thanks for the patch.
Vlad Lazar writes:
Hi.
This patch optimises the choice of immediates in integer comparisons. Integer
comparisons allow for different choices (e.g. a > b is equivalent to a >=
On 08/10/2018 05:30 AM, Liu Hao wrote:
> Only an lvalue of a pointer to (possibly CV-qualified) `void` or a
> pointer to a character type (in C) / any of `char`, `unsigned char` or
> `std::byte` (in C++) can alias objects.
Yes.
> That is to say, in order to eliminate the aliasing problem an
>
Wilco,
On 10.08.2018 18:04, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Hi,
A quick benchmark shows it's faster up to about 10 bytes, but after that it
becomes extremely slow. At 16 bytes it's already 2.5 times slower and for
larger sizes its over 13 times slower than the GLIBC implementation...
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So, ignoring all the configury stuff: the problem is that TARGET_VSX does
not imply TARGET_FPRND. It should.
Hi,
A quick benchmark shows it's faster up to about 10 bytes, but after that it
becomes extremely slow. At 16 bytes it's already 2.5 times slower and for
larger sizes its over 13 times slower than the GLIBC implementation...
> The implementation falls back to the library call if the
> string
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Yvan Roux wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 14:31, Yvan Roux wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 13:45, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Yvan Roux wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > This patch adds Linaro version string and
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 14:31, Yvan Roux wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 13:45, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Yvan Roux wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This patch adds Linaro version string and release macros to ARM GCC 8
> > > vendor branch.
> > >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86908
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kostya Frumkin from comment #3)
> Hi, for example msvc2013 calls base class's virtual method when msvc2015
> calls derived class's virtual method.
It's undefined behaviour. Anything can
Hi,
this patch should fix merging of PIC and PIE options so we always resort
to the least common denominator of the object files compiled (i.e.
linking together -fpic and -fPIE will result in -fpie binary).
Note that we also use information about format of output passed by linker
plugin so we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ppc64le-linux-gnu |powerpc*-*-*
Richard,
On 10.08.2018 16:54, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 10/08/18 14:38, Anton Youdkevitch wrote:
The patch inlines strlen for 8-byte aligned strings on
AARCH64 like it's done on other platforms (power, s390).
The implementation falls back to the library call if the
string is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57160
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Aug 10 14:08:53 2018
New Revision: 263471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263471=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-08-10 Janus Weil
PR fortran/57160
* invoke.texi
On 05/29/2018 11:25 AM, Mike Gulick wrote:
> On 03/04/2018 02:27 PM, Mike Gulick wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/09/2018 05:54 PM, Mike Gulick wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Here is a new version of the linemap patch (see my earlier emails for an
>>> updated
>>> version of the test code).
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi
Hi Alexandre,
On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 03:23:12AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > Then you get sdata2 used (via srodata in generic code), and it is accessed
> > via GPR2 (via the sda21 reloc and linker magic). It is hard to trace down
> > :-)
>
On 10/08/18 14:38, Anton Youdkevitch wrote:
> The patch inlines strlen for 8-byte aligned strings on
> AARCH64 like it's done on other platforms (power, s390).
> The implementation falls back to the library call if the
> string is not aligned. Synthetic testing on Cavium T88
> and Cavium T99
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85640
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
The patch inlines strlen for 8-byte aligned strings on
AARCH64 like it's done on other platforms (power, s390).
The implementation falls back to the library call if the
string is not aligned. Synthetic testing on Cavium T88
and Cavium T99 showed the following performance gains:
T99: up to 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Also happens on native builds:
~/build/tot/gcc/f951 -quiet -Wall -W -O2 bounds_check_19.f90 -mabi=elfv2
-mlittle -mno-fprnd
Error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 79 78 80 6 (set (reg:DI 175)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Segher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86911
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Sounds very probable, this is what I see in GDB:
$ Breakpoint 1, get_visual_column (exploc=..., loc=2147489278,
out=0x7fffca24, first_nws=0x0) at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86133
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc |powerpcspe-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86911
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86908
Kostya Frumkin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Version|unknown
在 2018-08-10 18:53, Kim Gräsman 写道:
I'm worried that this might only serve to trick the compiler.
It shouldn't. If it was merely a trick then `std::aligned_storage` would
be completely unusable.
Explicitly using `-fno-strict-aliasing` for GCC < 6 would seem more
direct to me -- as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86912
Bug ID: 86912
Summary: Function pointer imposes an optimization barrier
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 13:45, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Yvan Roux wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patch adds Linaro version string and release macros to ARM GCC 8
> > vendor branch.
> >
> > Ok to commit?
> >
>
>
> Ok if no regressions. (I'm assuming you've
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86896
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> Something wrong with that tarball then, maybe? Please try trunk.
I see it day by day on my periodic tester machine that pulls GCC tip.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86911
Bug ID: 86911
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in gcc/c-family/c-indentation.c:403
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Something wrong with that tarball then, maybe? Please try trunk.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Yvan Roux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch adds Linaro version string and release macros to ARM GCC 8
> vendor branch.
>
> Ok to commit?
>
Ok if no regressions. (I'm assuming you've built and eyeballed that
the pre-processor macros are being produced). (I have a
This option is fairly ineffective, and in the light of CET, nobody
seems interested to improve it. Deprecate the option, so it won't lure
developers to the land of false security.
2018-08-10 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/i386.opt (mmitigate-rop): Mark as deprecated.
* doc/invoke.texi
On 08/10/2018 01:12 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/08/2018 12:44, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 08/10/2018 12:38 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 10/08/2018 12:35, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
This removes one extra line that's a typo.
>>> It's not ;) The complete line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86728
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
On 10 August 2018 at 13:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Doing a test like this with TSan should be the absolute minimum
> required for any change to the mutex locking policy.
Agreed. Concurrency code is something that our test suite is not
well-equipped to test (because
it doesn't support TSan and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86910
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steffen Schuemann from comment #0)
> std::filesystem::create_directories should create all directories that don't
> exists in the given path. It is not an error if some of the directories
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86910
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
Hi,
On 10/08/2018 12:44, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/10/2018 12:38 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 10/08/2018 12:35, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
This removes one extra line that's a typo.
It's not ;) The complete line is "c++ runtime libs special modes". See?
Admittedly, we may want to have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86910
Bug ID: 86910
Summary: std::filesystem::create_directories doesn't set error
code or throw while violating postcondition.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On 10/08/18 12:32 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
After we introduced new non-NULL malloc predictor, we can remove these
__builtin_expects.
Predictors will change in following way:
Before:
Predictions for bb 5
first match heuristics: 10.00%
combined heuristics: 10.00%
__builtin_expect
Hi LH_Mouse,
Thanks!
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Liu Hao wrote:
>
> When I used to do such type punning in C, I got similar warnings. Then I
> looked for some solutions... I can't recall the principle now and I fail to
> find it in the C or C++ standard. Despite that, the solution is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86909
--- Comment #1 from Antony Polukhin ---
Another std::variant related example where GCC fails to eliminate
subexpressions and generates 6 times bigger assembly:
using size_t = unsigned long long;
struct A {} a;
static const size_t variant_npos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86909
Bug ID: 86909
Summary: Missing common subexpression elimination for types
other than int
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
On 10/08/18 11:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This valid program shows data races with -fsanitize=thread after your
patch is applied:
#define _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
#include
#include
void thrash(std::vector::iterator& iter)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
{
auto jiter = std::move(iter);
iter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86843
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Hmm, many of the checks in algorithms rely on the fact that the iterators are
Debug Mode iterators (e.g. to check that the end iterator is reachable from the
begin one, or that the iterators are not
On 08/10/2018 12:38 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/08/2018 12:35, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> This removes one extra line that's a typo.
> It's not ;) The complete line is "c++ runtime libs special modes". See?
> Admittedly, we may want to have something clearer, but just removing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86904
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to richard.earnshaw from comment #1)
> On 09/08/18 21:08, dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
[...snip...]
> > Maybe:
> > -fdiagnostics-x-coord=bytes : count of bytes
> >
Hi,
On 10/08/2018 12:35, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
This removes one extra line that's a typo.
It's not ;) The complete line is "c++ runtime libs special modes". See?
Admittedly, we may want to have something clearer, but just removing
that line isn't the way to go.
Paolo.
Hi.
This removes one extra line that's a typo.
Martin
ChangeLog:
2018-08-10 Martin Liska
* MAINTAINERS: Remove extra line.
---
MAINTAINERS | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index f96ab622146..8d42c91b2d7 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++
Hi.
After we introduced new non-NULL malloc predictor, we can remove these
__builtin_expects.
Predictors will change in following way:
Before:
Predictions for bb 5
first match heuristics: 10.00%
combined heuristics: 10.00%
__builtin_expect heuristics of edge 5->6: 10.00%
call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86908
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This makes the program correct:
strategyPtr = new() AStrategy;
static_cast(std::launder())->doIt();
strategyPtr->doIt();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86908
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Fri Aug 10 10:13:37 2018
New Revision: 263467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263467=gcc=rev
Log:
i386: do not use SImode mul-highpart on 64-bit (PR 82418)
PR
Hi,
This patch adds Linaro version string and release macros to ARM GCC 8
vendor branch.
Ok to commit?
Thanks
Yvan
gcc/ChangeLog
2018-08-10 Yvan Roux
* LINARO-VERSION: New file.
* configure.ac: Add Linaro version string.
* configure: Regenerate.
* Makefile.in (LINAROVER,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
On 09/08/18 20:41 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Here is a patch to improve Debug mode safe iterator move semantic.
To summarize where we used to have N mutex locks we now have N -
1. For instance move constructor used to lock mutex twice, now it only
does it once. Note that move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86908
Bug ID: 86908
Summary: static_cast(
bject)->virtualMehod() calls base version of
virtualMethod()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85559
Bug 85559 depends on bug 83610, which changed state.
Bug 83610 Summary: Come up with __builtin_expect_with_probabilty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83610
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83610
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 09/08/18 21:08, dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86904
>
> Bug ID: 86904
>Summary: Column numbers ignore tab characters
>Product: gcc
>Version: unknown
> Status: UNCONFIRMED
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86904
--- Comment #1 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
On 09/08/18 21:08, dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86904
>
> Bug ID: 86904
>Summary: Column numbers ignore tab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83610
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Aug 10 09:43:06 2018
New Revision: 263466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263466=gcc=rev
Log:
Introduce __builtin_expect_with_probability (PR target/83610).
2018-08-10 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86900
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Created attachment 44523
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44523=edit
1.cc.xz
Sorry, the 1.cc file somehow did not get attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85799
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85799
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Aug 10 09:31:51 2018
New Revision: 263465
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263465=gcc=rev
Log:
Strip only selected predictors after early tree passes (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> I cannot reproduce this, not on gcc14 either. I notice you use
> ppc64le-linux,
> while the canonical name is powerpc64le-linux; maybe that matters?
No it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
.. an additional clarification (I told you that over the years we
changed this code quite a bit...): I originally added the testcase that
I'm adjusting here, I did that when, back in 2014, I worked on 63558:
the test uses -fpermissive -w and was meant to check, as requested by
Manuel in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85904
--- Comment #11 from sh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sh
Date: Fri Aug 10 06:31:57 2018
New Revision: 263463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263463=gcc=rev
Log:
libstdc++-v3: Have aligned_alloc() on Newlib
While building for Newlib, some
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
