https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89749
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89750
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
ix86_expand_sse_comi_round has
/* See avxintrin.h for values. */
enum rtx_code comi_comparisons[32] =
{
UNEQ, GT, GE, UNORDERED, LTGT, UNLE, UNLT, ORDERED, UNEQ, UNLT,
UNLE, LT, LTGT, GE, GT,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89750
Bug ID: 89750
Summary: Wrong code for _mm_comi_round_ss
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89749
Bug ID: 89749
Summary: Very odd vector constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89748
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Isn't the bug is that glibc does not include a fortified version of stpcpy?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89748
Bug ID: 89748
Summary: missing _FORTIFY_SOURCE protection due to stpcpy
folding
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
stinkingmadgod at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stinkingmadgod at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89746
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(This is on a PowerPC 750).
The compiler makes an unaligned store for this, because it knows no better
than it is just a SImode store:
d_5 = (int) f_4(D);
_10 = (unsigned int) d_5;
MEM[(short
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89747
Bug ID: 89747
Summary: valgrind error in gfc_match_decl_type_spec
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89746
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think this is directly an issue. If you don't want unaligned accesses
from happening and your "kernel" does not support unaligned fix ups, then you
need to use -mstrict-align .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89746
Bug ID: 89746
Summary: powerpc-none-eabi-gcc emits code using stfiwx to
misaligned address
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89740
--- Comment #4 from bert hubert ---
I did a longer writeup here, where I tentatively conclude this is not a bug,
just highly unfortunate: https://ds9a.nl/articles/posts/iostreams-unexpected/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sun Mar 17 20:07:26 2019
New Revision: 269746
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269746=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89571 - ICE with ill-formed noexcept on constructor.
Earlier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82205
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See pr84120 for the analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84094
Bug 84094 depends on bug 84120, which changed state.
Bug 84120 Summary: Syntax for used for PDT constructors is incorrect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84120
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82205
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 84120, which changed state.
Bug 84120 Summary: Syntax for used for PDT constructors is incorrect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84120
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84120
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88805
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Okay, since this a downstream bug, moving back to waiting.
Is this really a gfortran bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89666
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89666
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Mar 17 17:59:03 2019
New Revision: 269742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269742=gcc=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/89666
* c-c++-common/builtin-has-attribute-3.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42122
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is this eight-year old PR fixed or not?
Should I close this PR as FIXED to get an answer?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #0)
> > The deleted default constructor should not prevent type Trivial of being
> > trivial (Maybe this part of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79134
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89743
--- Comment #2 from Jason Cobb ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> GCC 8 gives:
>
> c.cc:5:23: error: expected nested-name-specifier
> using type = typename use_type^~
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87015
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78865
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89745
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750
--- Comment #37 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I'm inclined to advice to close this PR. In principle, it would be good to
follow up on this and see which change around Christmas 2018 triggered this,
but I fear we don't have the personpower atm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750
--- Comment #36 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Any progress? Is it really a gfortran bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53298
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The tests in comment 0 and 5 compile if I replace '(1:)' with something such as
'(1:3)'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56818
Bug 56818 depends on bug 45715, which changed state.
Bug 45715 Summary: [ABI cleanup] Move runtime parsing of I/O control list to
front end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45715
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37577
Bug 37577 depends on bug 45715, which changed state.
Bug 45715 Summary: [ABI cleanup] Move runtime parsing of I/O control list to
front end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45715
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48419
Bug 48419 depends on bug 45715, which changed state.
Bug 45715 Summary: [ABI cleanup] Move runtime parsing of I/O control list to
front end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45715
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45715
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61261
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrestelli at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89745
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Right, this is how it's supposed to work. Two different objects of the same
type must have unique addresses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67123
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89743
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84394
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84394
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Mar 17 12:54:29 2019
New Revision: 269741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269741=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-03-17 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/84394
Backport from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84394
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Mar 17 12:45:33 2019
New Revision: 269740
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269740=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-03-17 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/84394
Backport from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79308
--- Comment #6 from bjhend ---
(In reply to Volker Reichelt from comment #5)
> IMHO the testcase is invalid (e.g. clang rejects it).
> But by changing the line
> struct Element::WriteOutput
> into
> struct Element::WriteOutput
> it can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89745
tower120 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81866
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-09-11 00:00:00 |2019-3-17
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89745
Bug ID: 89745
Summary: [[no_unique_address]] has no effect in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79308
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89744
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89744
Bug ID: 89744
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE with specialization of nested
template class
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68009
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89523
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Mar 17 09:27:56 2019
New Revision: 269739
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269739=gcc=rev
Log:
x32: Add addr32 prefix to VSIB address
32-bit indices in VSIB address are
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
+
润匀
可 办 税 票，认 证 后 付 歀。
详 电：李 生，136—6075— 4190，
业 q：157— 533— 2698
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89523
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Mar 17 09:11:22 2019
New Revision: 269738
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269738=gcc=rev
Log:
x32: Add addr32 prefix to VSIB address
32-bit indices in VSIB address are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87015
Daniel Starke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.3.0
--- Comment #10 from Daniel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87256
--- Comment #8 from Matt Turner ---
This xxhash.c file is embedded in many different projects, and is really
causing problems on gentoo/hppa:
zstandard: Fri Mar 15 14:16:42 2019: 7 hours, 29 minutes, 49 seconds
Are we any closer to a fix than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89487
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the trunk it is fine, but it needs to be backported to 8 (and the dup bug
shows that to 7 as well).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com,
63 matches
Mail list logo
