https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79405
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12955
--- Comment #15 from Steven Bosscher ---
> cc-ing Geoffrey Keating from that thread
Eric, can you please stop adding people from the past to CC lists?
I'm sure you mean well, but it's not always appreciated.
Geoff hasn't been involved in GCC
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher ---
Your code is not standard-conforming. Do this:
cm(1)%mu=2.8d-2
cm(1)%inc=7.5527d-1
and you have standard-conforming Fortran.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42972
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-03-18 12:45:53 |2019-3-6
--- Comment #7 from Steven
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher ---
Trunk today:
f():
movlf()::i, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
jne .L1 # or je for the != case
movl$2, f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 24647, which changed state.
Bug 24647 Summary: two copies of a constant in two different registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24647
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14721
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-05 03:52:08 |2019-3-6
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9723
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 9723, which changed state.
Bug 9723 Summary: With -Os optimization increases size if the loop contains
array element access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9723
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56187
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67118
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56075
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52778
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43334
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-03-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49469
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43473
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36003
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20369
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-05-17 17:50:53 |2019-3-5
--- Comment #4 from Steven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17652
Bug 17652 depends on bug 20211, which changed state.
Bug 20211 Summary: autoincrement generation is poor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23111
Bug 23111 depends on bug 20211, which changed state.
Bug 20211 Summary: autoincrement generation is poor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 20211, which changed state.
Bug 20211 Summary: autoincrement generation is poor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
What|Removed |Added
at gcc dot gnu.org |
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #41 from Steven Bosscher ---
After 12 years of changes, the value of the patches in this bug
report, and indeed the bug report itself, is difficult to gauge.
If this is still an issue, and that issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29944
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29860
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28306
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-07-07 17:30:13 |2019-3-5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2016-03-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27906
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 27906, which changed state.
Bug 27906 Summary: reload allocates register of live register variable to
earlyclobber output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27906
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48486
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
Bug 48389 depends on bug 48486, which changed state.
Bug 48486 Summary: cfgexpand leaves BARRIERs at the end of basic blocks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48486
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38711
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37826
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24546
Bug 24546 depends on bug 37826, which changed state.
Bug 37826 Summary: gfortran emits incorrect debug information if compiled with
-finit-local-zero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37826
What|Removed
dot gnu.org |
Assignee|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #58 from Steven Bosscher ---
Not working on this => unassigned...
:00:00 |2019-3-5
Assignee|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from Steven Bosscher ---
Reconfirmed with trunk 20190303.
But I won't be working on this any time soon => unassigning...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40730
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|steven at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|steven at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68211
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|2016-04-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17217
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Steven
:08:31 |2019-3-4
CC|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |
Known to fail||8.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86011
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83352
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65964
Bug 65964 depends on bug 14844, which changed state.
Bug 14844 Summary: [tree-ssa] narrow types if wide result is not needed for
unsigned types or when wrapping is true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14844
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19986
Bug 19986 depends on bug 14844, which changed state.
Bug 14844 Summary: [tree-ssa] narrow types if wide result is not needed for
unsigned types or when wrapping is true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14844
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14844
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78824
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14455
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21982
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2006-02-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63864
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher ---
Code looks pretty much the same for "test_ok" and "test_slow" since GCC 6 for
x86-64, and since GCC 7 for i686.
GCC 6.3 x86-64:
test_ok(float (*) [3], float, float, float, float, float):
mulss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15241
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 15241, which changed state.
Bug 15241 Summary: [tree-ssa] Convert a <= 7 && b <= 7 into (a | b) <= 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15241
What|Removed |Added
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher ---
With/without -fno-tree-sra gives same code since GCC 5.4.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14504
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-04-22 23:02:33 |2019-3-4
--- Comment #9 from Steven
-14 11:30:39 |2019-3-4
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher ---
GCC trunk today:"
f1(short, int):
movswl %di, %eax
imull %esi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19095
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-05 03:54:36 |2019-3-4
--- Comment #7 from Steven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45026
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ia64-unknown-linux-gnu |
Last reconfirmed|2011-02-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55629
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-12-09 00:00:00 |2019-3-4
--- Comment #2 from Steven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56770
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|steven at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19792
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-08-06 00:00:00 |2019-3-4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38711
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-09-13 00:44:58 |2019-3-1
--- Comment #10 from Steven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35362
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-12-24 00:00:00 |2019-3-1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38825
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
How is one to reproduce this bug with GCC5? I've tried:
$ ./xg++ --version
xg++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150407 (experimental) [trunk revision 221906]
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to woodfin from comment #5)
You could try adding a non-static function that returns an address inside Zs.
const Z* getzs() {
return Zs[0];
}
Yes, that does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #6)
Now let's see if I can come up with a more reasonable test case...
Like so:
- 8 -
typedef int X;
struct Z {
Z(const X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61051
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34503
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48181
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regression] |[4.8/4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54063
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56750
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63401
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Carrot from comment #6)
Since it is intentionally to remove flag DF_REF_READ_WRITE on use,
Ah, but I don't think that was the correct fix. The DEF and USE refs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62291
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43849
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61669
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62226
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62049
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62135
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: steven
Date: Fri Aug 22 18:43:50 2014
New Revision: 214351
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214351root=gccview=rev
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/62135
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62135
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62135
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62135
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Anastasios Vathis from comment #2)
In any case, there sould be a SYNTAX ERROR issued
It's not an error, the case can simply never match. If you compile
with -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54364
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57320
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
This has been fixed by r204211 on the trunk, any reason to keep this PR open?
Eh, really? That commit is supposed to change nothing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59717
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23384
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
Would it be possible to compute ESCAPED per basic block as a local set,
compute transitive closure over the CFG, and use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59643
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59672
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i386
1 - 100 of 1050 matches
Mail list logo