https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Kretz ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #7)
> What does this do?
>
> auto __hi_exp =
> __hi & simd<_T, _Abi>(std::numeric_limits<_T>::infinity()); // no error
component-wise bitwise and of __hi and +inf. Or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59345
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Jan 11 06:32:10 2019
New Revision: 267829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267829=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-11 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/59345
* trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59345
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
So, test case #1 is fixed.
Scrolling down, there are still a few more to be done, so I'll
leave it open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88629
--- Comment #4 from Cheng Wen ---
Hi, does anyone here to look at this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83773
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Warning for redefined macro |Create new switch,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80733
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
is this related to any of the new -Wtype-limits bugs that have been
filed/updated lately?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 88327, which changed state.
Bug 88327 Summary: Implement P0515R3, P0905R1, P1120R0, C++20 std concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88329
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 88327 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 88327, which changed state.
Bug 88327 Summary: Implement P0515R3, P0905R1, P1120R0, C++20 std concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47235
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35031
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88576
--- Comment #14 from Zack Weinberg ---
I don't see why it would _ever_ make sense for -fno-alloc-errno to default to
the setting of -fno-math-errno. The math functions and the memory allocation
functions are independent components of the C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
It might be possible for some. I'm not sure how successful it would be for
others. The thread_jumps pass runs four times and moving the warn_restrict
pass before its first instance results in dozens of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Some if not all has been fixed on the trunk. There was just a few weeks ago a
bug that asked for the similar thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for missing this message. You're right.
Ditto for sph_legendre.
Putting together a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I looked at where the code is hanging and it looks like it is hung in a loop
where it keeps calling memcpy with an incrementing by 1 length.
I set a breakpoint at the start of memcpy to break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 23:20:19 2019
New Revision: 267825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267825=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/88785
* config/i386/sse.md (floatv2div2sf2): Turn into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
Bug ID: 88799
Summary: Arm -mcpu=PROCESSOR does not result in assembly
directives for .arch and .arch_extension
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
Bug ID: 88798
Summary: AVX512BW code does not use bit-operations that work on
mask registers
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Of course only for equality comparisons, for non-equality the code is ok as is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems it is the:
/* When the addresses are not directly of decls compare base and offset.
This implements some remaining parts of fold_comparison address
comparisons but still no complete part of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unfortunately the #c11 patch breaks the
20_util/function_objects/comparisons_pointer.cc testcase (wonder if your VRP
patch would break it too), where the testcase does exactly what has been
discussed on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88613
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
--- Comment #4 from Cassio Neri ---
Comment on attachment 45408
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45408
Running example
The magic numbers 4, 6, 7, 0x24924924u and 0xb6db6db7u were chosen in an
attempt to maximize the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87305
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Jan 10 21:02:50 2019
New Revision: 267823
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267823=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/87305
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
--- Comment #3 from Cassio Neri ---
The attached file is running example that shows that performance is damaged.
The code runs faster when test_f calls g instead of f where g is
bool g(unsigned x, unsigned y) {
if (x >= y) return false;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
--- Comment #2 from Cassio Neri ---
Created attachment 45408
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45408=edit
Running example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
Bug ID: 88797
Summary: Unneeded branch added when function is inlined
(function runs faster if not inlined)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #8 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #6)
> > How precise is hypot supposed to be? I know it is supposed to try and avoid
> > spurious overflow/underflow, but I am not convinced that it should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
Created attachment 45407
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45407=edit
Self-contained testcase
I've been able to produce a self-contained testcase, which may aid
debugging.
While reducing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk. Closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We also use magic alias set e.g. directly in RTL DSE
(ALIAS_SET_MEMORY_BARRIER).
Anyway, there are multiple MEMs that need to be treated specially. For the TLS
cases, it is e.g. on x86_64:
(insn 15 27 16 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88778
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> This is due to nonexistent SCmode patterns. I guess that movsc pattern is
> needed here.
Can IRA allocate registers for SCmode and DCmode?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Wonder if we e.g. could use some magic alias set, magic MEM_EXPR or whatever
> else to teach RTL DSE about this.
> The severity of this is IMHO high because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 10 18:58:08 2019
New Revision: 267821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267821=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-10 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88792
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jan 10 18:45:38 2019
New Revision: 267820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267820=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/86322
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Wonder if we e.g. could use some magic alias set, magic MEM_EXPR or whatever
else to teach RTL DSE about this.
The severity of this is IMHO high because most of the distro vendors compile
everything with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Bug ID: 88796
Summary: -fstack-protector* kills RTL DSE opportunities
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Yeah, on GCC users' side I think there's a demand for both: treating UB as
unreachable (e.g. on tiny systems with heavy program size constraints) and
transforming UB to a trap briefly annotated with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, the stage1-gcc compiled tree-ssa-sccvn.o is identical no matter whether
-fno-checking or -fchecking=1 was used, and doesn't fail -fcompare-debug with
either, so it is simply that something is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #12 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
I think this messages look really good!
I believe that this contains everything required to actually work on improving
automatic unswitching, thank you very much!
Do you think that there is a chance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What does this do?
auto __hi_exp =
__hi & simd<_T, _Abi>(std::numeric_limits<_T>::infinity()); // no error
Sorry, I have no simd knowlege yet.
Anyway, doesn't the large scale risk overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88774
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2)
> The startup overhead isn't the problem. The asymptotic performance is
> really bad, too. (I hope I didn't botch my test, though. It's vaguely
> based on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for the testcase.
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10)
> Created attachment 45406 [details]
> Followup patch to try to dump why a condition can't be unswitched within a
> loop
This is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 45406
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45406=edit
Followup patch to try to dump why a condition can't be unswitched within a loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 10 16:53:39 2019
New Revision: 267817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267817=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-01-02 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87007
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
The current patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg00298.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #0)
> > However, optimizing for size is a very big hammer and causes substantial
> > performance issues on i386 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 10 16:06:49 2019
New Revision: 267815
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267815=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80762 avoid ambiguous __constructible_from
Ensure we don't try to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81452
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> There is -Walloc-zero. If we want a separate knob for just it then maybe
> -Wrealloc-zero.
Oh right, -Walloc-zero, I forgot about that one. It triggers so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
--- Comment #59 from Marian ---
Thanks for the fast replay
wget http://ptrace.fefe.de/int.c
gcc -Wstrict-overflow=1 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -o int int.c
does not produce a warning (except for the missing `#include `) on gcc
8.2.0 on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84877
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 15:44:16 2019
New Revision: 267812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267812=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/84877
PR bootstrap/88450
* function.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 15:44:16 2019
New Revision: 267812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267812=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/84877
PR bootstrap/88450
* function.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
Bug ID: 88795
Summary: ICE on class-template argument deduction if non-type
parameter has indirection
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #0)
> > The following testcases from libstdc++ have started failing in the past few
> > days on trunk:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, that's exactly right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The profile_estimate difference is a bug introduced in r191883 and later
extended in r193821 I have a fix for, but it can be ignored, it should have
went into the combine dump instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450
--- Comment #21 from Bence Szabó ---
Bootstrap succeeds with trunk + gcc9-pr88450.patch. Ran gcc testsuite, all
stackalignment tests pass and so does the test added by r266345. The CPU was an
Intel Coffee Lake so avx and avx2 is supported but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #32 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Some of the tests in this PR are fixed by the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg00065.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
Дилян Палаузов changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
Bug ID: 88794
Summary: fixupimm intrinsics are unusable [9.0 regression]
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
Bug ID: 88793
Summary: Document that __attribute__ ((cold)) is not equivalent
to __builtin_except because of optimization for size
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45405=edit
gcc9-pr88775.patch
Full patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
--- Comment #58 from Andreas Schwab ---
-Wstrict-overflow=1 is enabled by -Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88772
--- Comment #6 from Andoni ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
>
> But you said above that the result is "yes" for 32-bit, so how come the test:
>
> x$ac_cv_sjlj_exceptions = xyes;
>
> is false? Does it help to rewrite it into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
Marian changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marian.buschsieweke at ovgu
dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I get pretty much the same thing with:
--- gcc/match.pd.jj 2019-01-07 17:59:24.100931144 +0100
+++ gcc/match.pd2019-01-10 14:45:31.870509916 +0100
@@ -1660,6 +1660,19 @@ (define_operator_list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88702
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Just for the record, when rewriting the code with switch:
int IsHTMLWhitespace(int aChar) {
switch (aChar) {
case 0x0009:
case 0x000A:
case 0x000C:
case 0x000D:
case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45404
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45404=edit
VRP patch
This makes VRP register asserts for the pointer variants. This doesn't help
until after ifcombine because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Created attachment 45403 [details]
> reduced test-case
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88772
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> For 64bits the result is "no":
> 643 configure:4751: checking whether the compiler is configured for
> setjmp/longjmp exceptions
> 644 configure:4769: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45403
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45403=edit
reduced test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750
--- Comment #34 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #33)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #32)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #31)
> > > Then I get tons of duplicate symbol lines.
> >
> > ah well,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71959
--- Comment #11 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jules
Date: Thu Jan 10 12:32:03 2019
New Revision: 267806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267806=gcc=rev
Log:
Add testcase from PR71959
libgomp/
PR lto/71959
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #2)
> Sorry for the breakage, I will take a look.
>
> Regards,
> Prathamesh
Wait, I have almost reduced test-case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
OK, I see what goes wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
I am not an epiphany expert. I just noticed this while testing the GCC builds
for RTEMS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45402
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45402=edit
gcc9-pr88785.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess latent since r214091.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for the breakage, I will take a look.
Regards,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 10 11:54:26 2019
New Revision: 267805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267805=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85574
Modified:
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
