On 6/30/2022 8:22 PM, Hongtao Liu via Gcc-patches wrote:
I think this can be taken as an obvious fix without prior approval.
"Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval. Just check in
the fix and copy it to gcc-patches."
Quoted from https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html
If we've given
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #6 from Andy Ross ---
No, I just had a thinko (hur dur stack grows down, sigh) and jumped too quickly
once I thought I had it. All the circumstantial evidence is pointing at a
compiler bug here, but this smoking gun isn't. I'll
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
seen with trunk 20220630 on riscv64-linux-gnu, using binutils trunk/2.39. Not
seen in the same environment building GCC 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106149
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #3 from
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 10:12 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:42 AM Roger Sayle wrote:
> >
> >
> > This patch is a follow-up to Hongtao's fix for PR target/105854. That
> > fix is perfectly correct, but the thing that caught my eye was why is
> > the compiler generating a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-01
Keywords|
I think this can be taken as an obvious fix without prior approval.
"Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval. Just check in
the fix and copy it to gcc-patches."
Quoted from https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 10:02 AM Haochen Jiang via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:42 AM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> This patch is a follow-up to Hongtao's fix for PR target/105854. That
> fix is perfectly correct, but the thing that caught my eye was why is
> the compiler generating a shift by zero at all. Digging deeper it
> turns out that we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105740
--- Comment #10 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> (In reply to luoxhu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
I detected the issue on tests/tfpif.c with the upgrade of Debian's package
gcc-snapshot from 1:20220126-1 to 1:20220630-1 (it doesn't occur on
tests/tfpif.c with gcc-snapshot 1:20220126-1). However
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Let me also file the other bug about the deconstructor for anonymous unions
> since that is a different issue.
Actually I take that back, the anonymous union
Hi all,
I want to add myself in MAINTAINERS for write after approval.
Ok for trunk?
BRs,
Haochen
ChangeLog:
* MAINTAINERS (Write After Approval): Add myself.
---
MAINTAINERS | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 151770f59f4..3c448ba9eb6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Incorrect error for |[DR 2084] union with more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #8 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
init-regs:
(insn 13 8 17 2 (set (reg:V4SI 141)
(vec_select:V4SI (vec_concat:V8SI (reg/v:V4SI 135 [ R2 ])
(reg/v:V4SI 133 [ R0 ]))
(parallel [
tion 'tst':
tfpif.c:31:9: warning: 'emax' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
31 | f2 (emax);
| ^
tfpif.c:17:11: note: 'emax' was declared here
17 | int emax;
| ^~~~
$ gcc-snapshot --version
gcc (Debian 20220630-1) 13.0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC and ICC accept it though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang also rejects it:
:21:4: error: defaulting this default constructor would delete it after
its first declaration
S::S() = default;
^
:17:8: note: default constructor of 'S' is implicitly deleted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ideally the middle end should optimize it. But until then, I wonder if the
front end could detect when a non-trivial ctor is just doing zero-init of every
member, and fold it early.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106154
Bug ID: 106154
Summary: Error when missing a : inside an inline-asm could be
improved
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45358
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106148
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
/This patch is the initial implementation of OpenMP-API specs book section //20.5.5 with title "Thread Handles". /libgomp/ChangeLog /2022-07-01
Ahmed Sayed // * Makefile.am
(libgompd_la_SOURCES): Add ompd-threads.c.///* Makefile.in: Regenerate. * team.c ( gomp_free_thread ): Called
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
> +proc check_effective_target_two_plus_gigs { } {
> +return [check_no_compiler_messages two_plus_gigs executable {
> + int dummy[0x8000];
Don't you mean "char" as in "char dummy[0x8000]"?
Or else the effective predicate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see any below accesses either.
Right before the assembler code you posted has:
sub sp, sp, #32
So
Maybe I am missing something.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #3 from Andy Ross ---
Created attachment 53231
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53231=edit
Preprocessed source file (gzipped)
Sorry, I thought I attached it with the submission. Looks like it got kicked
out for
The following patches have been committed to devel/omp/gcc-12 to fix a
bootstrap build of the branch:
29ba2e4eeff Fix mis-merge of 'dwarf: Multi-register CFI address support'
82a3f9f22f7 Build fixes for OG12 on more recent GCC versions
e9ee746093b Fix string formatting issues
b8ecb83d528 Build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #1 from Andy Ross ---
Just submitted the same code at godbolt and their "ARM64 gcc trunk" build shows
the same behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
Bug ID: 106153
Summary: Generated arm64 code writing below stack pointer
without updating SP
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
When optimizing for size with -Oz, setting a register can be minimized by
pushing an immediate value to the stack and popping it to the destination.
Alas the one general register that shouldn't be updated via the stack is
the stack pointer itself, where "pop %esp" can't be represented in GCC's
On Fri, 2022-07-01 at 00:11 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's the updated patch that should address all the comments from the
> v2.
>
> - Tim
>
> This patch adds an checker that warns about code paths in which a
> buffer is
> assigned to a incompatible type, i.e. when the allocated
Snapshot gcc-10-20220630 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20220630/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Hi,
here's the updated patch that should address all the comments from the v2.
- Tim
This patch adds an checker that warns about code paths in which a buffer is
assigned to a incompatible type, i.e. when the allocated buffer size is not a
multiple of the pointee's size.
2022-07-30 Tim Lange
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Barry Revzin from comment #2)
> I guess that's like:
>
> C++11/14: neither is an aggregate (base class).
> C++17: both are aggregates.
> C++20: Bar is an aggregate, but Foo is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
I guess that's like:
C++11/14: neither is an aggregate (base class).
C++17: both are aggregates.
C++20: Bar is an aggregate, but Foo is not (user-declared constructor).
But that really shouldn't affect the
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 3:21 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This testcase demonstrates that the issue in PR105623 is not limited to
> templates, so we should do the marking in a less template-specific place.
>
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
>
> PR c++/105779
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106006
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
On Wed Jun 29, 2022 at 7:39 PM CEST, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 17:39 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> Thanks for the updated patch.
>
> Overall, looks nearly ready; various nits inline below, throughout...
>
> >
> > I've addressed most of the points from the review.
> > *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105954
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bcab64467d7393d69bf5abd7b2a0aba22d2896e
commit r12-8531-g6bcab64467d7393d69bf5abd7b2a0aba22d2896e
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26ea506a1e8719f8b1f559e70bee9f5d3392eb37
commit r12-8530-g26ea506a1e8719f8b1f559e70bee9f5d3392eb37
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105225
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105813
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb4336f546b2a770717af608c79b4d46f45ef7c2
commit r12-8529-geb4336f546b2a770717af608c79b4d46f45ef7c2
Author: Harald Anlauf
Hi Tobias,
Am 30.06.22 um 11:58 schrieb Tobias Burnus:
The initial patch is by Steve. I adjusted and moved
it slightly so that it also handles CLASS(*)
(unlimited polymorphic) at the same time.
Shouldn't you then also acknowledge him, e.g. via Co-authored-by?
yeah, I noticed that right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106126
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 9:59 AM Sören Tempel wrote:
>
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Thanks for the info. Does this patch work? It tweaks the handling of
> > SYS_SECCOMP to be specific to that constant.
>
> Yes, your patch works for me too on Alpine Linux Edge.
Thanks. Committed to mainline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105225
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:762fd5e5547e464e25b4bee435db6df4eda0de90
commit r13-1371-g762fd5e5547e464e25b4bee435db6df4eda0de90
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
> On Jun 30, 2022, at 1:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:31:00PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> No, that’s not true. A FIELD_DELC is only shared for cv variants of a
>>> structure.
>>
>> Sorry for my dump questions:
>>
>> 1. What do you mean by “cv variants” of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106152
Bug ID: 106152
Summary: New ICE compiling template expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
Bug ID: 106151
Summary: Inconsistent optimization when defaulting aggregate vs
non-aggregate
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103693
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103138
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103137
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
Bug ID: 106150
Summary: Incorrect error for defaulted anonymous union member
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
This patch is a follow-up to Hongtao's fix for PR target/105854. That
fix is perfectly correct, but the thing that caught my eye was why is
the compiler generating a shift by zero at all. Digging deeper it
turns out that we can easily optimize __builtin_ia32_palignr for
alignments of 0 and 64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106149
Bug ID: 106149
Summary: [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C had
bogus errors after r13-1366-g1eef21ccfa5988
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106148
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106148
Bug ID: 106148
Summary: RFE: warn about =- typos
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On Linux/x86_64,
0f6eef398045deb2a62d18b526831719c7c20c8a is the first bad commit
commit 0f6eef398045deb2a62d18b526831719c7c20c8a
Author: Kito Cheng
Date: Tue Jun 28 18:43:42 2022 +0800
testsuite/102690: Only check warning for lp64 in Warray-bounds-16.C
caused
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(The original insns, before this combination.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What is wrong there? It isn't obvious. You may need to show insns 188 and 199
in non-slim form, "slim" is very lossy.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:21:15PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 01:40:24PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > +/* The initial ICV values for the host, which are configured with
> > > environment
> > > + variables without a suffix, e.g.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:31:00PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > No, that’s not true. A FIELD_DELC is only shared for cv variants of a
> > structure.
>
> Sorry for my dump questions:
>
> 1. What do you mean by “cv variants” of a structure?
const/volatile qualified variants. So
> 2. For the
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Thanks for the info. Does this patch work? It tweaks the handling of
> SYS_SECCOMP to be specific to that constant.
Yes, your patch works for me too on Alpine Linux Edge.
Thanks!
Greetings,
Sören
Tested powerpc64le-linux, OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
Since C++11 relaxed the requirement for template arguments to have
external linkage, it's possible to get -Wsubobject-linkage warnings
without using any anonymous namespaces. This confuses users when they
get diagnostics that refer to an anonymous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106129
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106129
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a8ee37a3325f1009034245676ef4e482c0444a2
commit r13-1368-g8a8ee37a3325f1009034245676ef4e482c0444a2
Author: Joseph Myers
Date:
A passing build has been detected on builder gccrust-rawhide-x86_64 while
building gccrust.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/132/builds/2
Build state: build successful
Revision: 93f63a94d4389f31d5b225ad220ebea5f7288fb7
Worker: bb2
Build
No testcase for this, since I haven't found a way to turn the incorrect
attribute into incorrect codegen.
Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-none-linux gnu.
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c
(aarch64_get_attributes): Fix choice of pure/const attributes.
---
diff --git
> On Jun 30, 2022, at 10:24 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Am 30.06.2022 um 16:08 schrieb Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/28/22 13:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek
On our wiki I've renamed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DavidMalcolm/StaticAnalyzer
to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/StaticAnalyzer
since it's not just me working on the analyzer.
I've updated all the internal links within the wiki accordingly; please
update any external links you see.
Thanks
Dave
Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/utility.h: Fix comment typos.
---
libstdc++-v3/include/bits/utility.h | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/utility.h
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 04:11:42PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I recently changed to no longer include an unnecessary header,
> which meant it no longer includes , which means it no longer
> includes . This resulted in some build failures:
>
I recently changed to no longer include an unnecessary header,
which meant it no longer includes , which means it no longer
includes . This resulted in some build failures:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10630
https://github.com/openSUSE/libzypp/pull/405
And that revealed that we
1. Add a predicate for constant vectors which can be converted to integer
constants suitable for constant integer stores. For a 8-byte constant
vector, the converted 64-bit integer must be valid for store with 64-bit
immediate, which is a 64-bit integer sign-extended from a 32-bit integer.
2. Add
Properly allow side effects only for a first BB in a condition chain.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
PR tree-optimization/106126
gcc/ChangeLog:
* gimple-if-to-switch.cc (struct condition_info): Save
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106133
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106133
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
> Am 30.06.2022 um 16:08 schrieb Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> :
>
>
>
>> On Jun 29, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> On 6/28/22 13:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:29:01PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104490
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldalessandro at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106084
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
> On Jun 29, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 6/28/22 13:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:29:01PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106145
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This sounds like a binutils bug
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 01:40:24PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > +/* The initial ICV values for the host, which are configured with
> > environment
> > + variables without a suffix, e.g. OMP_NUM_TEAMS. */
> > +struct gomp_initial_icvs gomp_initial_icvs_none;
> > +
> > +/*
> We can go with a private vect_gimple_build function until we sort out the API
> issue to unblock Tamar (I'll reply to Richards reply with further thoughts on
> this)
>
Done.
> > Similarly are you ok with the use of gimple_extract_op? I would lean
> towards using it as it is cleaner, but I
Tested x86_64-linux and x86_64-mingw, pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
Currently the throwing overload of fs::temp_directory_path() will
discard the path that was obtained from the environment. When it fails
because the path doesn't resolve to a directory you get an unhelpful
error like:
filesystem
Tested x86_64-linux and x86_64-mingw, pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
Although the Filesystem TS isn't properly supported on Windows (unlike
the C++17 Filesystem lib), most tests do pass. Two of the failures are
due to PR 1 which was only fixed for std::filesystem not the TS.
This applies the fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c96b14a19a9e6c365eacc59868a866b99f9786d
commit r13-1365-g6c96b14a19a9e6c365eacc59868a866b99f9786d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 06:06:24PM +0200, Marcel Vollweiler wrote:
> --- a/gcc/gimplify.cc
> +++ b/gcc/gimplify.cc
> @@ -13994,7 +13994,7 @@ optimize_target_teams (tree target, gimple_seq *pre_p)
>struct gimplify_omp_ctx *target_ctx = gimplify_omp_ctxp;
>
>if (teams == NULL_TREE)
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW std::tuple_element_t<1000, tuple> takes 97% less
memory and takes 80% less time with my patch. I just need to fix a problem with
debuginfo generation.
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
