https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98205
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f0a0d1c2bb7ad2020852ccf14ca86967ddb134a
commit r9-9400-g6f0a0d1c2bb7ad2020852ccf14ca86967ddb134a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98187
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:22b900e2db91095414832a83ae5761e689c676e7
commit r9-9399-g22b900e2db91095414832a83ae5761e689c676e7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98100
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c47d4bddf3b08f833b2a59cc0be40234fe10e6bc
commit r9-9398-gc47d4bddf3b08f833b2a59cc0be40234fe10e6bc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98072
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:705afe9b40aabbe395baa2979cdac0a9fef194ef
commit r9-9396-g705afe9b40aabbe395baa2979cdac0a9fef194ef
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98063
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b35e830e7161cd6a453a26c7c4407b477311e65
commit r9-9395-g4b35e830e7161cd6a453a26c7c4407b477311e65
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97958
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:28a164db98d7cb8fa82ac3699471830284502021
commit r9-9394-g28a164db98d7cb8fa82ac3699471830284502021
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97599
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7af5ea39232b04cb4a392cc869aaa7d66d9fabf8
commit r9-9393-g7af5ea39232b04cb4a392cc869aaa7d66d9fabf8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97663
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c3a583316776a399fea9eb79019245138a2be181
commit r9-9392-gc3a583316776a399fea9eb79019245138a2be181
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97386
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1471e383f4909e7d6bd548d010eb96afcf2d241e
commit r9-9390-g1471e383f4909e7d6bd548d010eb96afcf2d241e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97294
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2913a8f35b7100e8632d2c10dc4126a636cbc9d9
commit r9-9389-g2913a8f35b7100e8632d2c10dc4126a636cbc9d9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c60d0f6b7b586ff623e423c28f403ab7e5e78fbc
commit r9-9388-gc60d0f6b7b586ff623e423c28f403ab7e5e78fbc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
On 4/19/2021 3:21 AM, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
switch_to_section warns if we try to output a retain decl in a
section without a retain flag, or if we try to output a non-retain
decl in a section with a retain flag. However, the warning only
applied if we were trying to
On 4/18/2021 6:10 PM, Stafford Horne via Gcc-patches wrote:
When building libgeos we get an error with:
linux-uclibc/9.3.0/crtbeginS.o: in function `__do_global_dtors_aux':
crtstuff.c:(.text+0x118): relocation truncated to fit: R_OR1K_GOT16
against symbol `__cxa_finalize' defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Rodgers ---
Created attachment 50645
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50645=edit
Disable on unsupported targets
Let's try this with the right patch attached this time
On 4/19/2021 1:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 08:11:21PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
--- a/gcc/gimple-range-gori.cc
+++ b/gcc/gimple-range-gori.cc
@@ -29,6 +29,36 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
--- Comment #6 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 50644
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50644=edit
pre-processed source for 17_intro/headers/c++2020/all_attributes.cc
On 4/20/2021 2:17 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches wrote:
On IBM Z the aliasing stores are realized through one element vector
instructions, if no cost model for vectorization is used which is the
default according to vect.exp. Fixed by changing the number of times
the pattern
On 4/20/2021 7:21 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches wrote:
The test fails for targets with V4QImode support which is the case for
IBM Z.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/vect/pr71264.c: Xfail on IBM Z due to V4QImode support.
OK
jeff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 50643
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50643
Disable on unsupported targets
+#else
+ __gthread_yield();
The changelog said you want to use __thread_yield();
On 4/20/21 4:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/20/21 2:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/20/21 2:13 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across passes:
static GTY(()) hash_map *map;
Peter Bergner via Gcc wrote:
On 4/20/21 4:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:27:08PM -0500, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
/tmp/cc8zG8DV.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/cc8zG8DV.s:2566: Error: unsupported relocation against r13
/tmp/cc8zG8DV.s:2570: Error: unsupported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Rodgers ---
It would appear that I cannot log into either of the AIX machines in the
compile farm.
> On 21/04/2021 00:02 Peter Bergner wrote:
>
>
> On 4/20/21 4:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:27:08PM -0500, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
> >> /tmp/cc8zG8DV.s: Assembler messages:
> >> /tmp/cc8zG8DV.s:2566: Error: unsupported relocation against r13
> >>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Rodgers ---
Created attachment 50643
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50643=edit
Disable on unsupported targets
This patch is probably not the most elegant way to do this, it probably should
be a
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:43 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
>
> and shortly its mirrors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100163
--- Comment #2 from Victor Luchitz ---
Here's relevant -S output for -O2:
...
sub r1,r15
.align 2
.L186:
mov.w @r2,r0
extu.w r0,r4
And for -O2 -fno-align-loops:
...
sub r1,r15
.L186:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100124
--- Comment #8 from Behdad Esfahbod ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
>
> Can you report that as a bug as GCC's rule is treat all arrays that end a
> POD as a flexiable array? Please include the full preprocessed source that
>
On 4/20/21 2:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/20/21 2:13 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across passes:
static GTY(()) hash_map *map;
I initialize the map like so:
map =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rodgertq at gcc dot
gnu.org
On 4/20/21 4:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:27:08PM -0500, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
>> /tmp/cc8zG8DV.s: Assembler messages:
>> /tmp/cc8zG8DV.s:2566: Error: unsupported relocation against r13
>> /tmp/cc8zG8DV.s:2570: Error: unsupported relocation against r14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
Bug ID: 100164
Summary: [11 Regression] semaphore_impl not declaredon AIX
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Untested patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/check.c b/gcc/fortran/check.c
index 82db8e4e1b2..df4409840d5 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/check.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/check.c
@@ -5730,6 +5731,15 @@
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:27:08PM -0500, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
>
> On 4/20/21 10:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> > The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
> &g
I have now updated the patch – and intent to commit it tomorrow, unless
there are further comments.
On 17.03.21 19:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 07:19:29PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
@@ -1831,6 +1852,7 @@ show_omp_node (int level, gfc_code *c)
+case EXEC_OMP_DEPOBJ:
On Apr 20 2021, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
> On 4/20/21 10:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>> The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100163
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98964
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu |
Component|testsuite
On 4/20/21 2:13 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across passes:
static GTY(()) hash_map *map;
I initialize the map like so:
map = hash_map::create_ggc (4);
But I see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100124
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Behdad Esfahbod from comment #6)
> > But I will note GCC treats (all) arrays at the end of a POD struct as a
> > flexible one so the question I have is more about the ubsan issue you are
> >
On 4/20/21 10:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git revision
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
> I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across passes:
>
> static GTY(()) hash_map *map;
>
> I initialize the map like so:
>
> map = hash_map::create_ggc (4);
>
> But I see crashes when accessing the map
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #14)
> To summarize:
>
> * should a wording defect be raised against std::to_address(Ptr), to state
> that pointer_traits being well-formed is actually a
I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across passes:
static GTY(()) hash_map *map;
I initialize the map like so:
map = hash_map::create_ggc (4);
But I see crashes when accessing the map after adding and removing
some number of entries in a few passes. The crashes are due
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 50642
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50642=edit
x86_64 object module
gruser.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 50641
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50641=edit
x86_64 object module
grtter.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100150
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
>From a different fedora package build, I have a much simpler test case:
$ /home/dcb/gcc/results/bin/gcc grtter.o gruser.o
Two object modules attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100163
Bug ID: 100163
Summary: -falign-loops sometimes produces invalid code for SH-2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Hi,
I'd like to apply the attached stopgap fix for PR ada/99360 on the 11 branch,
as the real fix is really stage #1 material. This is a regression there.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86-64/Linux, OK for the 11 branch?
2021-04-20 Eric Botcazou
Bob Duff
PR ada/99360
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96380
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 96379 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96379
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
In r11-2064 I made cp_parser_enum_specifier commit to tentative parse
when seeing a '{'. That still looks like the correct thing to do, but
it caused an ICE-on-invalid as well as accepts-invalid.
When we have something sneaky like this, which is broken in multiple
ways:
template
enum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100124
--- Comment #6 from Behdad Esfahbod ---
Thank you all. I understand it's unlikely to happen at this point.
In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I will let someone comment on the flexible array extension.
>
> But I will note GCC
LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.1 20210420 (experimental) [master revision
67378cd63d6:5e36407d599:250f234988b6231669a720c52101d3686d645072] (GCC)
[721] %
[721] % gcctk -O2 -S -o O2.s small.c
[722] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
[723] %
[723] % wc O2.s O3.s
52 119 923 O2.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100161
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100161
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90945
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94854
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99533
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And 9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90945
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cc765a7917004478770f27bade1ecbb55906ae0
commit r9-9384-g6cc765a7917004478770f27bade1ecbb55906ae0
Author: Michael Weghorn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.3|9.4
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94854
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ceccbc3a45ec4bb25ca833d2a6b62d2bb9c
commit r9-9383-g8ceccbc3a45ec4bb25ca833d2a6b62d2bb9c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100079
--- Comment #6 from Lukas Böger ---
Impressive responsiveness - big thank you for fixing this immediately!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99533
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b06bc096c4da89d8880f86fb0d9627168f22c50d
commit r9-9375-gb06bc096c4da89d8880f86fb0d9627168f22c50d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99536
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29dad307b5d7cfdb6626c11c8e43ebff941c950b
commit r9-9374-g29dad307b5d7cfdb6626c11c8e43ebff941c950b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82584
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31a5cc60428b968c9ff3f505fcd1a5ef5c0083bb
commit r9-9369-g31a5cc60428b968c9ff3f505fcd1a5ef5c0083bb
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100161
Bug ID: 100161
Summary: Impossible to suppress Wtype-limits warning involving
template parameter.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
kefile. */
#define version_string "12.0.0 20210420 (experimental)"
#define pkgversion_string "(GCC) "
/* This is the location of the online document giving instructions for
reporting bugs. If you distribute a modified version of GCC,
please configure with --with-bugurl poi
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, Patrick McGehearty via Gcc-patches wrote:
> + macro_name = XALLOCAVEC (char, name_len
> ++ sizeof ("__LIBGCC__EXCESS_PRECISION__"));
> sprintf (macro_name, "__LIBGCC_%s_EXCESS_PRECISION__", name);
>
Move OPTION_MASK_* to i386-common.h so that they can be used in x86
backend.
* common/config/i386/i386-common.c (OPTION_MASK_*): Move to ...
* common/config/i386/i386-common.h: Here. New file.
* config/i386/i386.h: Include common/config/i386/i386-common.h.
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100160
Bug ID: 100160
Summary: MinGW-w64 g++ with libgomp and nvptx looks for
libgomp-plugin-nvptx.so.1 instead of
libgomp-plugin-nvptx-1.dll
Product: gcc
Version:
commit 87c753ac241f25d222d46ba1ac66ceba89d6a200
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Aug 21 09:42:49 2020 -0700
x86: Add target("general-regs-only") function attribute
is incomplete since it is impossible to call integer intrinsics from
a function with general-regs-only target attribute.
1. Add
Hi Martin,
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021, Martin Jambor wrote:
> I'd like to ping the following, since we already have an RC.
sorry for not getting to this via list right away.
> > + GCC 10.3 supports AMD CPUs based on znver3 core
> > + through -march=znver3.
I believe "based on the ... core" will be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100159
Bug ID: 100159
Summary: Typos in testsuite files
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100158
Bug ID: 100158
Summary: Some issues with fortran testsuite files
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
Bug ID: 100157
Summary: Support `__type_pack_element` like Clang
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100156
Bug ID: 100156
Summary: ICE in gfc_trans_array_cobounds, at
fortran/trans-array.c:6257
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100155
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100155
Bug ID: 100155
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_intrinsic_size,
at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:805
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
Bug ID: 100154
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call,
at fortran/trans-expr.c:6131
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70244
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #5 from G.
Hi,
I'd like to ping the following, since we already have an RC.
Thanks,
On Tue, Apr 13 2021, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Martin Liška correctly observed that the newly added support for AMD
> zenver3 in GCC 11 and 10.3 is not reflected in the changes.html files.
>
> Would the following be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #13 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> the values of rbp. r10 and esi would be interesting too.
I'm not really familiar with assembler, don't know what register esi is, here's
what
There are various non-IBM CPUs with isel as well, so it is easiest if we
just don't consider that flag here (it is not needed).
2021-04-20 Segher Boessenkool
PR target/100108
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_machine_from_flags): Do not consider
OPTION_MASK_ISEL.
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96380
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[10/11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97052
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Hello Tom,
Thank you for the investigation and the detailed writeup. It was difficult for
me to infer the internal API contracts here (and still is), sorry about the
mistake.
Most importantly: does GCN handle this, and if yes, how? I think the solution
should be the same for config/gcn and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95434
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97052
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97052
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebb734aac092cc1ea1208b3a96cc2b6ad85cf5a1
commit r10-9735-gebb734aac092cc1ea1208b3a96cc2b6ad85cf5a1
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95434
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2400f81c2c2489f4b6fbb245ef946a39be40defd
commit r10-9734-g2400f81c2c2489f4b6fbb245ef946a39be40defd
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83476
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:904cbf6ae2a1e45b3a272365cca19f9dd9a27fa2
commit r10-9733-g904cbf6ae2a1e45b3a272365cca19f9dd9a27fa2
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99885
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:904cbf6ae2a1e45b3a272365cca19f9dd9a27fa2
commit r10-9733-g904cbf6ae2a1e45b3a272365cca19f9dd9a27fa2
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95983
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to gcc-bugs from comment #4)
> Hi Patrick,
>
> thank you for that patch. I guess that it also fixes
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96070.
Ah indeed, thanks. The testcase there
On Nov 13 2020, Nikhil Benesch via Gcc-patches wrote:
> +static void
> +demangle_const_char (struct rust_demangler *rdm)
> +{
> + size_t hex_len;
> + uint64_t value;
> +
> + hex_len = parse_hex_nibbles (rdm, );
> +
> + if (hex_len == 0 || hex_len > 8)
> +{
> + rdm->errored = 1;
> +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95983
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
*** Bug 96070 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96070
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Whoops, rather PR95983...
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 95983 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95893
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at marehr dot
dialup.fu-b
101 - 200 of 340 matches
Mail list logo
