I've been trying to build Linux kernel with gcc 10 since Fedora 32 was
released, but keep failing. The kernel (5.6.8 x86_64) builds fine, but
doesn't boot/work at all.
Today I tried with gcc version 10.0.1 20200506 downloaded via git
(commit dcfafc02782d0cffcb62e99365b5adbcfe51c1b9), but it
On Tue, 5 May 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, the previous fix to PR94038 is fragile. When the
> > argument to fold_for_warn is a bare CALL_EXPR, then all is well: the
> > result of maybe_constant_value from fold_for_warn (with
> >
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:17 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:23 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >
> > Hi:
> > This patch is about to enable GCC support for SERIALIZE which would
> > be in GLC. There's only 1 instruction: SERIALIZE, more details please
> > refer to
> >
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:58 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> The part above is OK, but you are missing support for
> __attribute__((__target__("..."))). Please see how for example -msgx
> is handled in isa2_opts in i386-options.c and in
> gcc.target/i386/funcspec-56.h test source.
>
> Please repost the
Hello, this is the mail server on ap.apidicity.live.
I am sending you this message to inform you on the delivery status of a
message you previously sent. Immediately below you will find a list of
the affected recipients; also attached is a Delivery Status Notification
(DSN) report in standard
On Fri, 1 May 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 05:01:34PM -0500, will schmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 15:53 -0400, Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > +unsigned long
> > > +load_us_offset1 (unsigned char *p)
> > > +{
> > > + return *(unsigned short *)(p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94924
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
Erich Keane changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erich.keane at intel dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #44 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This commit also introduces bug 94963 which breaks the glibc build (and is
*not* fixed by the commit that fixed bug 94949).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94963
Bug ID: 94963
Summary: [11 Regression] Spurious uninitialized warning for
static variable building glibc
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Hi!
The following testcase gets a bogus warning during build_base_path,
when cp_build_indirect_ref* calls strict_aliasing_warning with a dependent
expression. IMHO calling get_alias_set etc. on dependent types feels wrong
to me, we should just defer the warnings in those cases until
An ICE arises here because we call cp_get_callee_fndecl_nofold in a
template, and we've got a CALL_EXPR whose CALL_EXPR_FN is a BASELINK.
This tickles the INDIRECT_TYPE_P assert in cp_get_fndecl_from_callee.
Jakub said in the PR that he'd hit a similar problem too and dealt
with it in
> From: Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
> Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 17:05:01 +0200
> On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 07:47 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > I just rebased and updated the vendors/axis branch
> > axis/cris-decc0 with the following commits, which should bring
> > back compare-elimination results to
> From: Jeff Law
> Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 16:52:07 +0200
> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 17:55 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > * config/cris/cris.c (cris_reduce_compare): New function.
> > * config/cris/cris-protos.h (cris_reduce_compare): Add prototype.
> > * config/cris/cris.md ("cbranch4",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94962
Bug ID: 94962
Summary: Suboptimal AVX2 code for
_mm256_zextsi128_si256(_mm_set1_epi8(-1))
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90212
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04b89192ace3a766a17374d5bef8fb19d9be2d7c
commit r11-122-g04b89192ace3a766a17374d5bef8fb19d9be2d7c
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
Issue 2235 removed the rule previously added for issues 1391/1847 that had
partial ordering completely ignore function parameters with no deducible
template parameters.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog
2020-05-05 Jason Merrill
CWG 2235
* pt.c
This is the same issue as PR86429, just in potential_constant_expression_1
rather than cxx_eval_constant_expression. As in that case, when we're
trying to evaluate a constant expression within a lambda, we don't have a
constant closure object to refer to, but we can try to refer directly to the
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:18:57PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 5/4/20 7:32 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Here we ICE with -std=c++98 since the newly added call to
> > uses_template_parms
> > (r10-6357): we hit
> > 26530 gcc_assert (cxx_dialect >= cxx11
> > 26531
On Tue, 5 May 2020, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> This version of the fix uses __getauxval instead of getauxval.
> The whole thing is guarded simply on __GLIBC__ >= 2.
> __getauxval was introduced in 2.16 but the aarch64 port was added in 2.17 so
> in practice I expect all aarch64 glibcs to support
On Tue, 5 May 2020, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > A design principle is that glibc built with libgcc configured without
> > glibc headers but with --with-glibc-version should produce an identical
> > stripped binary to the glibc resulting from a longer alternating sequence
> > of GCC and glibc
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 22:29 -0400, Aaron Merey via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is the right mailing list for this patch but it
> > modifies
> > the top level directory of binutils-gdb for which I understand GCC to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
g:1a289fa36294627c252492e4c18d7877a7c80dc1 changed that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #18 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually it might be better to make it out to a function and use that in both
places, otherwise I'm either duplicating code or it's just too ugly.
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:27 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> The popcount* testcases show yet another creative way to write popcount,
> but rather than adjusting the popcount matcher to deal with it, I think
> we just should canonicalize those (X + (X << C) to X * (1 + (1 <<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84324
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84324
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0aed8d5ba77e0756f3c9ebcd65eba1bfb11f24b
commit r11-121-gd0aed8d5ba77e0756f3c9ebcd65eba1bfb11f24b
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue May 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93366
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Tue, 5 May 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> Unfortunately, the previous fix to PR94038 is fragile. When the
> argument to fold_for_warn is a bare CALL_EXPR, then all is well: the
> result of maybe_constant_value from fold_for_warn (with
> uid_sensitive=true) is reused via the cv_cache in the
Hi Tobias,
> Two points regarding future patches:
>
> Please attach files with a file suffix – such that the MIME
> type is "text/..." and not "application/octet-stream".
> (.patch, .diff or even a simple .txt should do.)
noted.
> Additionally, given that we now use GIT and start to move
> to
Hi!
Ping.
Grüße
Thomas
On 2020-04-27T15:33:10+0200, I wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is the attached patch for "libgomp: Allow overriding via
> 'GOMP_OFFLOAD_PLUGINS' the configured set of libgomp plugins" OK for
> master and release branches? If approving this patch, please respond
> with "Reviewed-by:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93366
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a26ea7e0f8b9a00a2eb0a5e8f70efa04056f167
commit r11-120-g5a26ea7e0f8b9a00a2eb0a5e8f70efa04056f167
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Bug ID: 94961
Summary: [11 regression] internal compiler error: in
df_refs_verify, at df-scan.c:4002
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
Bug ID: 94960
Summary: extern template prevents inlining of standard library
objects
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
I discovered that libitm:
(a) declares __cxa_allocate_exception and friends directly,
(b) doesn't mark them as 'throw()'
(c) doesn't mark the replacment fns _ITM_$foo as nothrow either
We happen to get away with it because of code in the compiler that,
although it checks the parameter types,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94913
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94913
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 48458
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48458=edit
Prototype patch
Prototype patch for missed optimization, described in Comment #0.
Following testcase:
--cut here--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, omp_declare_variant_finalize_one. I think I'll do something similar, but
not the same: if we see a CALL_EXPR whose CALL_EXPR_FN is a BASELINK, we know
it's not the std::is_constant_evaluated call we're
I had reason to wander into libitm's testsuite, and discovered gcc
emitting colorized diagnostics. Those are hard to read in a log file.
This patch disables colorizing.
pushed as obvious
--
Nathan Sidwell
2020-05-05 Nathan Sidwell
* testsuite/lib/libitm.exp (libitm_init): Add
Hi,
The lowering of co_yield to a promise method call and a co_await
was moved to the initial analysis phase with the intention of
avoiding the need to handle the two cases later.
Before removing the later checks entirely, this patch replaces
them with checking asserts.
tested on
Unfortunately, the previous fix to PR94038 is fragile. When the
argument to fold_for_warn is a bare CALL_EXPR, then all is well: the
result of maybe_constant_value from fold_for_warn (with
uid_sensitive=true) is reused via the cv_cache in the subsequent call to
maybe_constant_value from cp_fold
On Tue, 5 May 2020, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> this patch adds mention of -fprofile-prefix-path and symver attribute.
Thank you, Honza!
> + href="https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-10.1.0/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-fprofile-prefix-path;>-fprofile-prefix-path
> + can be used in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced:
struct B {
static constexpr bool foo() { return false; }
};
template
struct C {
static void bar ()
{
if constexpr (B::foo()) ;
}
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #37 from Niels Möller ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #35)
> There is no such place. Dead code is identified in the middle-end and by
> then, there is no parse tree, only GIMPLE and SSA:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #36 from Niels Möller ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #34)
>
> The front ends can eliminate simple subexpressions (as in '0 ? x >> 32 : x
> >> 1') but they don't do the same for statements. Moving the warning from
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another option would be to fold FFS (x) for x known non-zero into CTZ (x) + 1
in match.pd.
While bootstrapping GCC on S/390 with --enable-checking=release several
warnings about use of uninitialized variables bitpos, bitregion_start, and
bitregion_end of function pass_store_merging::process_store are raised.
According to PR94952 these seem to be false positives which are silenced by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94943
--- Comment #2 from Andrea Mastellone ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> There is very little we can do without a minimum example that shows the
> problem. What you have attached cannot be compiled by anyone as
> deallocate_vars.f90
On вторник, 5 май 2020 г. 19:00:29 EEST Jeff Law wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-05-03 at 19:11 +0300, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> > One of the changes frees a previously fixed register, per
> > ABI clarification from TI, for local usage from function.
> > The change is backwards compatible.
> >
> > Rest of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #35 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Niels Möller from comment #32)
> 1. There's similar code in c_fully_fold_internal, in gcc/c/c-fold.c, close
> to line 400. But that code does *not* emit any warning for the example
>
Hello,
I am pleased to announce that three students will be working on GCC or
GCC-related Google Summer of Code (GSoC) projects in 2020:
- Giuliano Belinassi will be working on "Automatic Detection of
Parallel Compilation Viability." This project will be mentored by
Richard Biener and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94959
SRINATH PARVATHANENI changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sripar01 at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94959
Bug ID: 94959
Summary: Wrong code gen for MVE intrinsics vldrbq_s32 which
fails with assembler `Error: lo register required`
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94943
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94958
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fanfarillo.gcc at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94958
Bug ID: 94958
Summary: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:9797: possible typo ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 22:29 -0400, Aaron Merey via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not sure if this is the right mailing list for this patch but it modifies
> the top level directory of binutils-gdb for which I understand GCC to be the
> upstream. The purpose of this patch is to use
OK for mainline and GCC 10?
The LASTPRIVATE part is trivial, but as C→Fortran porting
the test case revealed an SIMD issue, it is a bit longer.
Tobias
On 4/23/20 8:52 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
As found via sollve_vv: the Fortran OpenMP parser missed
'lastprivate' as permitted clause in
OK for mainline and (once it opens) the GCC 10 branch?
This is a simple & quick to review patch.
Tobias
On 4/23/20 3:43 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 4/20/20 11:33 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Really 'GOMP_MAP_DELETE', or should that rather be 'GOMP_MAP_RELEASE'?
Depends on the previous item,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Summary|[10 regression]
On Mon, 2020-05-04 at 14:11 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> This patch sits in my trees for quite some years and I always forget
> to push it - it usually gets triggered by weird targets (PSImode
> pointers/sizetype) which run into GIMPLE IL checking asserts for
> pointer -> integer conversions and
On Mon, 2020-05-04 at 12:01 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> my_exception_matcher must return int. Otherwise, this test fails.
>
> PR testsuite/84324
> * objc/execute/exceptions/matcher-1.m (my_exception_matcher):
> Change return type to int.
OK
jeff
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 14:38 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> This patch updates install.texi for GCC 10 on Solaris. It includes some
> general cleanup and updates and includes a couple of caveats, some of
> them found when testing GCC 10.1.0 RC1 with only the bundled tools.
>
> The reference to
On Sun, 2020-05-03 at 22:31 +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 03.05.20 18:27, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> > On 01.05.2020 21:49, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > FreeBSD does not have the alloca.h header. Do not include it in the test
> > > cases which do include alloca.h.
> > >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94906
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 48455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48455=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-05
Use "clobber (scratch:M)" instad of "clobber (match_scratch:M N)" in expanders.
2020-05-05 Uroš Bizjak
* config/i386/i386.md (fixuns_truncsi2): Use
"clobber (scratch:M)" instad of "clobber (match_scratch:M N)".
(addqi3_cconly_overflow): Ditto.
(umulv4): Ditto.
On Sun, 2020-05-03 at 19:11 +0300, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> One of the changes frees a previously fixed register, per
> ABI clarification from TI, for local usage from function.
> The change is backwards compatible.
>
> Rest of changes are cleanups.
>
> Testsuite did not reveal any regressions.
On Tue, 5 May 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Ok for wwwdocs?
> + Version 5.0 of the https://www.openmp.org/specifications/;
> +>OpenMP specification is still only partially supported in the C
> and C++
> + compilers. GCC 10 release has various newly implemented features (not
> +
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 02:58:51PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 4:07 PM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 03:19:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:44 PM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 15:42, Victor Rodriguez via Gcc wrote:
> Has someone found issues on common packages that require patches for GCC 10?
Yes, several. See https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html for the
known issues (the first one being a problem with "common" packages!)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|should not warning with |should not warn in dead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
Bug ID: 94957
Summary: Compilation slowww for simple code with -O1/2/3 and -g
in GCC 8 and 9
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #1 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Sorry, truncated the assembler. GCC's is:
atum17:~> objdump --disassemble test.o
test.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Bug ID: 94956
Summary: Unable to remove impossible ffs() test for zero
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Hi!
The following patch documents OpenMP 5 changes in GCC 10.
Ok for wwwdocs?
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html
index 4497be14..5233fc93 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html
@@ -182,6 +182,16 @@ a work-in-progress.
Hi ,
Would you like to acquire Anesthesiologist and CRNA's contacts to promote your
products and services?
The list includes Emails, Phone Numbers, Hospital/Doctor Name, Website,
National Provider Identifier(NPI), State License Number and Code, Board
Certification, Professional Enrollment ID,
On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 14:57 +0100, Martin Liska wrote:
> liboffloadmic/ChangeLog:
>
> 2020-02-04 Martin Liska
>
> PR other/89860.
> * runtime/offload_target.cpp: Put index check
> before its use.
OK
jeff
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Bug ID: 94955
Summary: ICE in to_wide
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 14:55 +0100, Martin Liska wrote:
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> 2020-02-04 Martin Liska
>
> PR c/92472.
> * include/parallel/multiway_merge.h:
> Use const for _Compare template argument.
OK
jeff
>
On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 14:54 +0100, Martin Liska wrote:
> libgcc/config/libbid/ChangeLog:
>
> 2020-02-04 Martin Liska
>
> PR libgcc/92565
> * bid_internal.h (handle_UF_128_rem): Remove unused variable.
> (handle_UF_128): Likewise.
OK for master. And patches that drop unused
On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 14:55 +0100, Martin Liska wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2020-02-04 Martin Liska
>
> PR c/92472.
> * alloc-pool.h: Use const for some arguments.
> * bitmap.h: Likewise.
> * mem-stats.h: Likewise.
> * sese.h (get_entry_bb): Likewise.
>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:19 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>
> Status
> ==
>
> We have reached zero P1 regressions today and releases/gcc-10 branch has
> been created; GCC 10.1-rc1 will be built and announced later tonight
> or tomorrow.
> The branch is now frozen for blocking regressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48453=edit
gcc11-pr94921.patch
Untested fix.
On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 07:47 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> I just rebased and updated the vendors/axis branch
> axis/cris-decc0 with the following commits, which should bring
> back compare-elimination results to that of cc0 on master.
>
> With the exception of the bit-test patterns (btst /
Hi,
this patch adds mention of -fprofile-prefix-path and symver attribute.
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html
index 4497be14..45cb906f 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html
@@ -98,6 +98,12 @@ a work-in-progress.
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> Created attachment 48451 [details]
> gcc11-pr94873.patch
>
> Untested patch then.
This one-liner is pre-approved. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94807
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
Iain discovered that a lambda fn's this pointer arg could be named
'this' and satisfy is_this_parameter, or be called __closure and not
satisfy it.
Turns out the parser explicitly zaps the name to be __closure, but
instantiation of a lambda fn doesn't. That's just confusing.
I tried not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94954
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords|
1 - 100 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
