On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 06:54, Haoxin Tu via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi, there!
>
> I am new for using GCC mail list, please forgive me if something is wrong.
You're using the wrong mailing list, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html which says this question should be on
the gcc-help list. Please send any
On 5/22/20 6:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
so perhaps it just misses gcc/testsuite/go.test/test ?
Hello.
I've just added the location to ignored locations.
Or what exact files you've changed in your script?
@Ian: Please send us patch with git format-patch.
@Jakub: Can you please sync up the
Ok, thanks.
Jonathan Wakely 于2020年5月22日 周五14:21写道：
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 06:54, Haoxin Tu via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi, there!
> >
> > I am new for using GCC mail list, please forgive me if something is
> wrong.
>
> You're using the wrong mailing list, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html which
hi, I work on a tool that need to get address of some memory access on ssa
form. I call build_fold_addr_expr function to get address.
I have finished it on gcc-9.3, and the tool can work correctly.
When I port it to gcc-7.3, the expand pass report a corrupt. I find it is
TARGET_MEM_REF not
Thanks Rasmus and Jonathan for your comments and suggestions.
> On 20 May 2020, at 12:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 09:44, Rasmus Villemoes
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> The condition variable implementation added in commit 806dd0472f56fd
>> seems to fall into the trap(s)
On 22/05/2020 05:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:12:21PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
>> Hi, this unfortunately breaks gccgo development. Significant parts of
>> the gccgo sources are simply copied from other repositories. Those
>> other repositories do not use
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:00 PM Giuliano Belinassi via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hi, all.
>
> GCC have a extensive testsuite, that is no news at all. However they are
> focused on the compiler (cc1*) or in libraries, and I can't find tests
> related to the GCC driver.
>
> Are there tests to the GCC driver?
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:04:10PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >> The directories in question are
> >>
> >> gcc/go/gofrontend
> >> libgo
> >> gcc/testsuite/go.test/test
> >
> > The script has:
> > ignored_prefixes = [
> > 'gcc/d/dmd/',
> > 'gcc/go/frontend/',
>
> The directory is
Hi,
what's currently in trunk (as of a few hours ago) fails for me with
File "contrib/mklog.py", line 36, in
from unidiff import PatchSet
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'unidiff'
I think this is an error which would have to be taken into account
one way or another - maybe include
On 5/21/20 2:16 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello Martin.
Can you please compare the current mklog.py. Is there anything
you miss compared to your current script?
Nope, it matches the format I get with my script and even works
better and runs faster. Very nice! I'll be happy to switch to
using
On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 19:15, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> what's currently in trunk (as of a few hours ago) fails for me with
>
>File "contrib/mklog.py", line 36, in
> from unidiff import PatchSet
> ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'unidiff'
>
> I think this is an error
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:11 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:04:10PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > >> The directories in question are
> > >>
> > >> gcc/go/gofrontend
> > >> libgo
> > >> gcc/testsuite/go.test/test
> > >
> > > The script has:
> > > ignored_prefixes = [
>
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:37:29PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Thanks for looking into this.
>
> Unfortunately, my push is still failing. I'm not sure why.
>
> remote: *** ChangeLog format failed:
> remote: ERR: cannot find a ChangeLog location in message
> remote:
> remote: Please see:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:48 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:37:29PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Thanks for looking into this.
> >
> > Unfortunately, my push is still failing. I'm not sure why.
> >
> > remote: *** ChangeLog format failed:
> > remote: ERR: cannot
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:03 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:39 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> > On 5/15/20 3:22 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:12:27PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > >> On 5/15/20 2:42 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >>> I actually
Snapshot gcc-9-20200522 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20200522/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
--- Comment #8 from Kaipeng Zhou ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #7)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> > On Thu, 21 May 2020, zhoukaipeng3 at huawei dot com wrote:
> >
> > >
Hi,
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 09:42:28AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-05-22 at 01:30 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > This is on top of the stdbool.h and stdint.h patches.
>
> Sorry, I didn't see those patches; I've replied to them now.
No worries, there was no hurry and I didn't CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
--- Comment #20 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #19)
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #18)
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > * gcc.target/i386/pr92658-avx512f.c: New test.
> > *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95283
Bug ID: 95283
Summary: ICE: in hoist_memory_references, at
tree-ssa-loop-im.c:2607
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On 5/22/20 9:18 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/20/20 10:08 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/8/20 11:42 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95282
Bug ID: 95282
Summary: atomic::load in C++20 calls
__atomic_load with a pointer-to-const as the output
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you show the code inside systemd (and the patch to fix it)? Because
const void *p = (uint8_t*)0x406310;
size_t s = -1;
r = (uint8_t*)p + s;
That is well defined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see why this is undefined???
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 21 May 2020, zhoukaipeng3 at huawei dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
>
> --- Comment #4 from Kaipeng Zhou ---
> Sorry for not expressing clearly.
>
>
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:55 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 7:18 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 7:35 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:43 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:35 AM Hongtao Liu
This adds constructor and destructor to slp_tree factoring common
code. I've not changed the wrappers to overloaded CTORs since
I hope to use object_allocator<> and am not sure whether that can
be done in any fancy way yet.
2020-05-20 Richard Biener
* tree-vectorizer.h
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:54 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> Add -mavx512vpopcntdq for -march=native if AVX512VPOPCNTDQ is available.
>
> PR target/95258
> * config/i386/driver-i386.c (host_detect_local_cpu): Detect
> AVX512VPOPCNTDQ.
OK.
Thanks,
Uros.
> ---
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95269
Bug ID: 95269
Summary: Lambda is allowed to capture any constexpr variable
without specifying any captures
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed. We do have (a) huuuge function here, containing 539237 basic blocks
after early inlining which is
void polyquad::BaseDomain::expand(const VectorXT&,
polyquad::BaseDomain::MatrixPtsT&) const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95266
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-22
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the suggestions.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:22 PM
> To: Yangfei (Felix)
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH PR95254] aarch64: gcc generate inefficient code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
See also https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-April/thread.html#402 (for
details/current status, ask those involved).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95210
zhongyunde at tom dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95267
zhongyunde at tom dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhongyunde at tom dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95248
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
Hi, there!
I am new for using GCC mail list, please forgive me if something is wrong.
I have some issues about how GCC deal with the different optimizations in a
UB program.
For example,
small.cc
*#include unsigned long long a;void b(unsigned long long *c, int
h) { *c = h; }int d =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> It turns out that a bunch of patterns have to be renamed (and testcases
> added).
>
> Easyhack, waiting for someone to show some love to conversion patterns in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93826
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> do j = 1, 8
> do k = 1, 8
> end do
> x = 5 ! <<< not translated but also not an error message
> end do
Complications: BLOCK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Version|unknown
On Donnerstag, 21. Mai 2020 17:46:01 CEST Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 27/04/20 17:09 +0200, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> >> From: Matthias Kretz
> >>
> >>PR libstdc++/84949
> >>* include/std/limits: Let is_iec559 reflect whether
> >>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93826
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95241
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95242
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95255
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Max from comment #2)
> Is there anyone more familiar with GCC internals and/or the AVR backend who
> I would be able to consult or possibly work with on this?
I think Jeff Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95261
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95268
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We're then inlining some more costing another ~5GB ontop of the early
optimization memory use of ~5GB (might be other IPA transforms than inlining
as well). The big function is meanwhile 2 million basic
On 5/22/20 6:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
so perhaps it just misses gcc/testsuite/go.test/test ?
Hello.
I've just added the location to ignored locations.
Or what exact files you've changed in your script?
@Ian: Please send us patch with git format-patch.
@Jakub: Can you please sync up the
On Thu, 21 May 2020, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 19, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 May 2020, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> I've refreshed the patch, approved back on Jan 22 for gcc-11, in
> >> refs/users/aoliva/heads/aux-dump-revamp, and committed 3 other related
> >> patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95268
Bug ID: 95268
Summary: ICE: invalid ‘PHI’ argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95251
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-22
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95267
--- Comment #7 from otcmaf ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to otcmaf from comment #4)
> > Do you mean that those pattern above are also wrong pattern ?
>
> YES those are broken.
Ok, thanks very much.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93826
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
OpenMP 5 has:
"If the *ordered* clause is present, all loops associated with the construct
must be perfectly nested; that is there must be no intervening code between any
two loops." (2.9.2 Worksharing-Loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a24d9b5bbb6a298ff4e55d731d5e436b0da9e38a
commit r10-8169-ga24d9b5bbb6a298ff4e55d731d5e436b0da9e38a
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #6 from Freddie Witherden ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So with the [[gnu::flatten]] attributes removed -O1 needs 80 seconds to
> compile and about 3GB of memory, -O2 needs around 2 minutes (same memory),
> -O3
>
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:17 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:29:49PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Adding Segher to CC, he can help us.
>
> Oh dear. Are you sure?
>
> > On 5/21/20 2:51 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > >Back to this I noticed that ppc64le target
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 4:55 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> Currently patchable area is at the wrong place. It is placed immediately
> after function label, before both .cfi_startproc and ENDBR. This patch
> adds UNSPECV_PATCHABLE_AREA for pseudo patchable area instruction and
> changes ENDBR insertion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #20)
> The attached testcase also fails with just -fsanitize=undefined. I have
> tested with gcc version
>
> gcc (GCC) 10.1.1 20200507 (Red Hat 10.1.1-1)
Hi,
We didn’t quite have time to push this through before the 10.1
deadline, but (since it’s a correctness issue) it should be applied
to the branch too.
tested on x86_64-darwin, linux
OK for master?
10.2 after some bake time?
thanks
Iain
===
It was agreed amongst the implementors that the
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 23:36 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Currently gcc suggests to use _Bool instead of bool and doesn't give
> any suggestions when true or false are used, but undefined. This
> patch
> makes it so that (for C99 or higher) a fixit hint is emitted to
> include
> .
[...snip...]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So confirmed we eventually blow up at -O1:
++: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program cc1plus
compilation terminated.
Command exited with non-zero status 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95255
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95258
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:808b611bfb4b05703ea174e50874c711dca44c98
commit r11-570-g808b611bfb4b05703ea174e50874c711dca44c98
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri May 22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Rustam Abdullaev from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > https://wg21.link/cwg727
> >
> > N.B. this is a C++17 feature that does not seem to have been approved as
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:09 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 5/18/20 1:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:10 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:03:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The optimize attribute is used to
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:52 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > On a related note, it looks that pmov stores are modelled in a wrong
> > way. For example, this pattern;
> >
> > (define_insn "*avx512f_v8div16qi2_store"
> > [(set (match_operand:V16QI 0 "memory_operand" "=m")
> > (vec_concat:V16QI
> >
This fixes handling of clobbers when commoning stores.
Bootstrapped / tested on x86-64_unknown-linux-gnu.
2020-05-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/95268
* tree-ssa-sink.c (sink_common_stores_to_bb): Handle clobbers
properly.
*
On 22/05/2020 05:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:12:21PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
>> Hi, this unfortunately breaks gccgo development. Significant parts of
>> the gccgo sources are simply copied from other repositories. Those
>> other repositories do not use
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:37 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:30:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're doing too many
> > things at once. Try to fix the powerpc regression with the extra
> >
This is the patch I pushed. There's two places that are a bit ugly,
COND_EXPR handling and reduction handling. Both uglinesses should go
away once we go SLP-only so I did not spend more than 10 minutes looking
for a nicer solution (eh). I'm going to push through with moderately
clean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95268
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c592aad23c22b9f37020cd0a7475d8f3938
commit r11-568-g7c592aad23c22b9f37020cd0a7475d8f3938
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
Hi
This is almost obvious - except perhaps I’m missing some more
efficient way of doing it; it seems less than ideal to have to build the
ctor call twice with exactly the same inputs.
If there’s no better way ….
tested on x86_64-darwin, linux
OK for master, 10.2?
thanks
iain
Part of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #8 from Freddie Witherden ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
>
> Instead of [[gnu::flatten]] you could use the
> __attribute__((always_inline)) attribute on the foo function definition
> if you didn't simplify the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94282
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95248
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95248
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6ed2e2bca54d1d290f553549d28b0c60a0f240f
commit r11-563-gb6ed2e2bca54d1d290f553549d28b0c60a0f240f
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 2:41 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:55 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 7:18 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 7:35 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:43 PM Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
--- Comment #5 from Rustam Abdullaev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> https://wg21.link/cwg727
>
> N.B. this is a C++17 feature that does not seem to have been approved as a
> DR, but Clang supports it in all language modes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab7eca92926fdc1da880120c116a1832fce56a29
commit r11-565-gab7eca92926fdc1da880120c116a1832fce56a29
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Compare to e.g.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1825 which says
"[Moved to DR at the November, 2016 meeting.]" That means it's a retroactive
fix for previous standards. That
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 22 May 2020, freddie at witherden dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
>
> --- Comment #6 from Freddie Witherden ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
On Thu, 2020-05-21 at 00:27 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Plus [u]intptr_t and associated constants.
>
> Refactor the bool, true, false, code so it fits into the
> new table based design.
>
> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>
> * known-headers.cc (get_stdlib_header_for_name): Add a new
>
>
This fixes a leftover early out in determining the sequence of stores
to materialize.
Bootstrapped / tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Richard.
2020-05-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/95248
* tree-ssa-loop-im.c (sm_seq_valid_bb): Remove bogus early out.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:04:10PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >> The directories in question are
> >>
> >> gcc/go/gofrontend
> >> libgo
> >> gcc/testsuite/go.test/test
> >
> > The script has:
> > ignored_prefixes = [
> > 'gcc/d/dmd/',
> > 'gcc/go/frontend/',
>
> The directory is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94945
Madhur Chauhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.0|10.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95268
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95258
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for GCC 11 so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95284
Bug ID: 95284
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95270
Bug ID: 95270
Summary: OpenACC 'enter data attach(data_p)' fails for 'int
*data_p'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
When comparing two special member function templates to see if one hides
the other (as per P0848R3), we need to check satisfaction which we can't
do on templates. So this patch makes add_method skip the eligibility
test on member function templates and just lets them coexist.
Passes 'make
ping?
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:32 PM kamlesh kumar
wrote:
> can someone look at the patch, please?
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:29 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 14:58 +0530, kamlesh kumar via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> > Hi Richard,
>> > Here is a discussion we did some time ago
get_vec_defs(vec_info*, tree_node*, tree_node*, _stmt_vec_info*,
v
ec*, vec*,
_slp_tree*)
../../trunk.git/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c:1636
0xf48bfc vectorizable_bswap(vec_info*, _stmt_vec_info*, gimple_stmt_iterator*,
_
stmt_vec_info**, _slp_tree*, tree_node*, vec*)
The bug first appears sometime between
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
