Attached is another revision of this patch with the new helper
function you suggested. Is this version okay to commit?
I don't actually have the ability to grant check-in in this area. I
just figured that implementing some of these suggestions might make it
more palatable to reviewers who
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96755
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96755
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:108477875f01798eecd7780207396b8c44930ae9
commit r11-2833-g108477875f01798eecd7780207396b8c44930ae9
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96715
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb5e895245ebef488b63efc239f64488aef65cf1
commit r11-2832-gbb5e895245ebef488b63efc239f64488aef65cf1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96721
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61680cfaf1eef26a5953f36ab82a1cc13f9b2f2c
commit r11-2831-g61680cfaf1eef26a5953f36ab82a1cc13f9b2f2c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95450
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f2f79df19fbfaa1c4be313c2f2b5ce04646433e
commit r11-2830-g9f2f79df19fbfaa1c4be313c2f2b5ce04646433e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
On Aug 24, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
> since the option is quite elaborate on what (sub-)set of regs is
> supposed to be cleared I'm not sure an implementation not involving
> any target hook is possible?
I don't think this follows. Machine-independent code has a pretty good
notion of what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96744
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
>
> > Need to add define_insn for movp2qi/movp2hi?
>
> Yes, this is needed to cover some corner cases. Please see
On 8/24/20 11:01 PM, Michael Meissner wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 07:05:51PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
What is necessary in order to allow this optimization to occur
earlier is to make this hidden dependency explicit. When the
relocation is inserted, we have to change the "pld" instruction
I forgot to mention that comparing the three tests of placement of the
PCREL_OPT pass:
Having the pass after sched2 generated the same number of PCREL_OPT relocations
as having the pass immediately after reload.
But having the pass just before sched2 resulted in some more PCREL_OPT
relocations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96709
--- Comment #2 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
You can choose the boost version on godbolt.org. The example uses 1.73, but
only the macros
#define BOOST_FORCEINLINE inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__))
and
#define BOOST_NOINLINE
On Aug 24, 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:56:54PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> DWARF5 makes it possible to read loclists tables without consulting
>> the debuginfo tree by introducing a table header. Adding location views
>> breaks this (at least for binutils and
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 07:05:51PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> What is necessary in order to allow this optimization to occur
> earlier is to make this hidden dependency explicit. When the
> relocation is inserted, we have to change the "pld" instruction to
> have a specific clobber of (in this
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 06:33:29PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > These patches allow the load of the address to not be physically adjacent to
> > the actual load or store, which should allow for better code.
>
> Why is that? That is not what it does anyway? /confused
It does allow that.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 5:02 PM
> To: xiezhiheng
> Cc: Richard Biener ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH PR94442] [AArch64] Redundant ldp/stp instructions
> emitted at -O3
Cut...
>
This patch adds the C++20 calendar types and their methods as defined in
[time.cal] (modulo the parsing/printing support). This patch also
implements [time.hms] and [time.12], and a few more bits of
[time.clock]. The remaining C++20 additions to from P0355 and
P1466 depend on [time.zone] and ,
On 8/24/20 5:44 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:04:43PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/20/20 4:22 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
@@ -3917,6 +3926,47 @@ build_new (location_t loc, vec **placement,
tree type,
return error_mark_node;
}
+ /* P1009: Array size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95428
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b958ee0fd0e1b2a2b22784ffbe531ed74358a22
commit r11-2829-g6b958ee0fd0e1b2a2b22784ffbe531ed74358a22
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
Hi,
This patch fix a typo in rtl.def.
Regards!
Weiwt
---
gcc/rtl.def | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/rtl.def b/gcc/rtl.def
index 9754333eafb..7ec94a95105 100644
--- a/gcc/rtl.def
+++ b/gcc/rtl.def
@@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ DEF_RTL_EXPR(PC, "pc", "", RTX_OBJ)
On 8/24/20 5:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
The following testcase is miscompiled, because build_trivial_dtor_call
handles the case when instance is a pointer by adding a clobber to what
the pointer points to (which is desirable e.g. for delete) rather than the
pointer itself. That is I think
On 2020-08-24 19:16, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 6:35 AM guojiufu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch is checking the _average_ number of calls which is the
> summary of call numbers multiply the possibility of the call maybe
> executed. The _average_ number could be a
On Aug 24, 2020, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> OK for trunk, thanks.
>> Given the approval and the lack of significant changes, I'll put this in
>> unless there are objections in the next 48 hours. Thanks for the review!
> Thanks. There's a new FAIL due to a bad merge.
Erhm... Weird, I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96778
Bug ID: 96778
Summary: static cast a integer to a enum type whose underlying
type is fixed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96777
Bug ID: 96777
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in bind_compound_sval, at
analyzer/store.cc:618
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Hi Maciej:
Thanks for your patch, I tried to compile all target libraries with
-O0 and got link error as you describe, it's really confusing about
the error message, __pthread_mutex_lock and __pthread_mutex_unlock are
undefined, it turns out the root cause is the __umoddi3 called
_Unwind_Resume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96689
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
On Sun, 2020-07-19 at 10:42 +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> The combination of several my recent nvptx patches has revealed an
> interesting RTL optimization opportunity. This patch to simplify-rtx.c
> simplifies (sign_extend:HI (truncate:QI (?shiftrt:HI x 8))) to just
> (ashiftrt:HI x 8), as the
On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 09:58 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On 31/05/2020 12:48, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The target files tilegx/mul-tables.c and tilepri/mul-tables.c were
> > updated in SVN r255743, but the generator file that produces them
> > wasn't, so it was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96746
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 09:59 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On 31/05/2020 12:20, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> > The tile*-*-* targets were marked as obsolete in SVN r259724.
> >
> > OK?
> >
> > Regards
> > Iain
> >
> > ---
> > contrib/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * config-list.mk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96750
--- Comment #4 from Matt Bentley ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > after:
> > 1794240.0
> >
> > before:
> > 1802710.0
>
> That's less than 1% of difference (with "after" better than
On Fri, 2020-08-21 at 17:52 +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> This simple patch to match.pd optimizes away bit permutation
> operations, specifically bswap and rotate, in calls to popcount and
> parity. Although this patch has been developed and tested on LP64,
> it relies on there being no truncations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96760
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The increment is addition of 1 in type int (after integer promotions),
followed by conversion back to char. Converting an out-of-range integer
value to a narrower signed integer type is
On Fri, 2020-08-21 at 17:55 +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> PR tree-optimization/21137 is now an old enhancement request pointing out
> that an optimization I added back in 2006, to optimize "((x>>31)&64) != 0"
> as "x < 0", doesn't fire in the presence of unanticipated type conversions.
> The fix is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96742
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
On Mon, 2020-08-24 at 17:07 +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I must admit I was quite surprised to see that SRA does not disqualify
> an aggregate from any transformations when it encounters an offset for
> which get_ref_base_and_extent returns a negative offset. It may not
> matter too
On Mon, 2020-08-24 at 23:39 +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following patch implements an optimization suggested in the PR,
> copysign(x,-x) can be optimized into -x (even without -ffast-math,
> should work fine even for signed zeros and infinities or nans).
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88814
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Dávid Bolvanský from comment #2)
The n in the assignment in 'd[n - 1] = 0;' should be the result of snprintf for
constant arguments. In GCC, it's computed by the sprintf pass which then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96754
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-24
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
On Sun, 2020-07-12 at 14:27 +0800, Paul Hua wrote:
> From 589dbe8a1c2397bfafefa4e84abe5ec6e6798928 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Andrew Pinski
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:42:57 +
> Subject: [PATCH] MIPS: Fix __builtin_longjmp (PR 64242)
>
> The problem here is mips has its own
On 8/24/20 5:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 17:41 +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 8/5/20 5:09 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31 2020, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
[...]
* ipa-cp changes from vec to std::vec.
We are using std::vec to ensure constructors are
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 17:41 +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 8/5/20 5:09 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 31 2020, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > * ipa-cp changes from vec to std::vec.
> > >
> > > We are using std::vec to ensure constructors are run,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96742
--- Comment #2 from William Throwe ---
It was decided in bug 11856 that it was a bug to warn about comparisons when a
choice for a type template parameter made them always false, so it seems like
it should also be a bug to warn if a non-type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95428
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX
--- Comment #9 from Jason
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:04:43PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/20/20 4:22 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > @@ -3917,6 +3926,47 @@ build_new (location_t loc, vec
> > **placement, tree type,
> > return error_mark_node;
> > }
> > + /* P1009: Array size deduction in new-expressions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95428
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d94796352234def681a34eef99dad18bccecbca7
commit r10-8659-gd94796352234def681a34eef99dad18bccecbca7
Author: Jason Merrill
Hi!
The following patch implements an optimization suggested in the PR,
copysign(x,-x) can be optimized into -x (even without -ffast-math,
should work fine even for signed zeros and infinities or nans).
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2020-08-24 Jakub
Segher:
On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 15:16 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:19:12PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On 8/14/20 7:42 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > I think your current code is fine; I hadn't considered Bill's
> > > upcoming
> > > rewrite. It is more
On 8/24/20 1:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:56:55PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
In DWARF5 class variables (static data members) are represented with a
DW_TAG_variable instead of a DW_TAG_member. Make sure the variable isn't
optimized away in the constexpr-var-1.C
Hi!
Clobbers of MEM_REF with NULL address are just fancy nops, something we just
ignore and don't emit any code for it (ditto for other clobbers), they just
mark end of life on something, so we shouldn't infer from those that there
is some UB.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and
Hi!
The following testcase is miscompiled, because build_trivial_dtor_call
handles the case when instance is a pointer by adding a clobber to what
the pointer points to (which is desirable e.g. for delete) rather than the
pointer itself. That is I think always desirable behavior for references,
Hi!
The following testcase is miscompiled, because handle_builtin_string_cmp
sees a strncmp call with constant last argument 4, where one of the strings
has an upper bound of 5 bytes (due to it being an array of that size) and
the other has a known string length of 1 and the result is used only
On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 13:39 +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> This patch removes all uses of VR_ANTI_RANGE in DOM. It required
> minor surgery in the switch handling code.
>
> In doing so, I was able to abstract all the code handling the cases
> with ranges into its own function. Interestingly,
When rounding a real to integer(16) an ICE happened due to an unhandled
case in build_round_expr. The attached patch add a special case for this.
I had to change a fold_convert to a convert (which seems to be frontend
specific stuff), otherwise I would get errors from the generated GIMPLE.
Does
>> This looks incorrect to me, that is a workaround for a real GCC bug.
Mark> I was discussing this after the BoF with Tom Tromey (CCed) and he also
Mark> thought gdb could/should actually support the DWARF5 representation,
Mark> but because the DW_TAG_variable was removed because the static data
> On Aug 24, 2020, at 3:26 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:48:02PM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 24, 2020, at 12:59 PM, Segher Boessenkool
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ Please quote correctly. I fixed this up a bit. ]
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at
Hi,
Would you like to check out the contacts of *HR and Benefit administration
professionals*?
If you are interested please drop me a note so that we can connect and
discuss about the opportunity.
Thanks in advance!
Regards,
*Brittany Wall *|Manager Demand Generation|
If you do not
> On Aug 24, 2020, at 3:20 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:02:03PM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> On Aug 24, 2020, at 12:49 PM, Segher Boessenkool
>>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 06:27:45PM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 5:57
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 07:44:27PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:56:56PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Some DWARF tests scan the assembly output looking for constant values.
> > When using DWARF5 those constants might use DW_FORM_implicit_const,
> > which are output
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:48:02PM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 2020, at 12:59 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> >
> > [ Please quote correctly. I fixed this up a bit. ]
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:47:22PM +, Rodriguez Bahena, Victor wrote:
> >>> The
Hi!
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:02:03PM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 2020, at 12:49 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 06:27:45PM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 5:57 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> >>> wrote:
> >>> Numbers on how expensive this
Hi Jakub,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 07:40:51PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:56:55PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > In DWARF5 class variables (static data members) are represented with a
> > DW_TAG_variable instead of a DW_TAG_member. Make sure the variable isn't
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96776
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Matheus Izvekov from comment #5)
> There is one small issue with this though, but is even smaller, in that if
> foo body was visible, and it did not escape that reference further, the tail
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 07:38:10PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:56:54PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > DWARF5 makes it possible to read loclists tables without consulting
> > the debuginfo tree by introducing a table header. Adding location views
> > breaks this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61372
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> extern "C" functions can throw, so it would be wrong to unconditionally
> assume they can't.
Yes that is correct. Even extern "C" functions could be written
This libbacktrace patch adds support for Mach-O 64-bit FAT files.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to
mainline.
Ian
libbacktrace/:
* macho.c (MACH_O_MH_MAGIC_FAT_64): Define.
(MACH_O_MH_CIGAM_FAT_64): Define.
(struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96776
Matheus Izvekov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|All |x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96776
--- Comment #3 from Matheus Izvekov ---
Yeah Andrew I realized it just after I posted, disregard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96709
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96776
Matheus Izvekov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96776
Bug ID: 96776
Summary: Missing tail call optimization when passing local
variable by reference to yet another function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88780
--- Comment #8 from Marietto ---
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-9/+bug/1892475
Il giorno mar 18 ago 2020 alle ore 19:26 msebor at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> ha scritto:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94448
Diane Meirowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96775
--- Comment #2 from Diane Meirowitz ---
I have the latest llvm source code and it's the same.
We will back port any fixes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96153
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
Fixing the case for SPARC64 triggers the test case in pr96157 to fail on
x86_64.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:25 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:17 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:55 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Speaking of pragmas, these should be added outside
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/google/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96774
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96775
Bug ID: 96775
Summary: UBSan: confusing error message load of address with
insufficient space
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96774
Bug ID: 96774
Summary: UBSan: please provide
__ubsan_set_error_report_callback() to capture error
messages
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96773
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96773
Bug ID: 96773
Summary: ASan: please provide __asan_address_is_shadow() for
complex programs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:17 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:55 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > > > Speaking of pragmas, these should be added outside cpuid.h, like:
> > > >
> > > > #pragma GCC push_options
> > > > #pragma GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96733
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |libstdc++
--- Comment #5 from
On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 06:23 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> luoxhu writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > On 2020/8/3 22:01, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > > /* Try a wider mode if truncating the store mode to NEW_MODE
> > > > requires a real instruction. */
> > > > if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88003
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
All part of my grand plan.
Seriously though, you must've grepped an ICE that was XFAILed (the only one,
thus far).
For PR70462 I stopped emitting the as-base constructor and destructor
variants for final classes, because they can never be called. Except that
it turns out that clang calls base variants from complete variants, even for
classes with virtual bases, and in some cases inlines them such that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96742
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/548786.html
On 8/10/20 10:48 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/548786.html
On 7/26/20 11:42 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/548786.html
> On Aug 24, 2020, at 12:59 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> [ Please quote correctly. I fixed this up a bit. ]
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:47:22PM +, Rodriguez Bahena, Victor wrote:
>>> The call-clobbered regs are the only ones you *can* touch. That does
>>> not mean you should
1 - 100 of 272 matches
Mail list logo
