https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
On trunk, r265457 fixed 527.cam4_r in SPEC CPU 2017 with:
-march=native -Ofast -funroll-loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #40 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Are there any news on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #1 from eggert at cs dot ucla.edu ---
Created attachment 46107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46107=edit
gcc -O2 -Os compiled output for x86-64
The attached x.s file shows the incorrect generated code, compiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
Bug ID: 90020
Summary: [8 regression] -O2 -Os x86-64 wrong code generated for
GNU Emacs
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90019
Bug ID: 90019
Summary: [8 regression] Bogus ambiguous overload error for NTTP
pack of disjoint enable_ifs unless there is an
unsupplied default argument
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89977
--- Comment #5 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> You're right that the conversion from int128_t to unsigned long can result
> in truncation, so the range of the result is that of unsigned long. Yet I
> suspect that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90015
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
Bug ID: 90018
Summary: [8 Regression] r265453 miscompiled 527.cam4_r in SPEC
CPU 2017
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
trunk -v
gcc version 9.0.1 20190408 (experimental) [trunk revision 270202] (GCC)
#correct output#
$ gcc-trunk -g abc.c
$ gdb -x cmds -batch a.out
Breakpoint 1 at 0x4004a5: file abc.c, line 15.
Breakpoint 1, main () at abc.c:15
15optimize_me_not();
$1 = 0
#wrong output#
$ gcc-trun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #15 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> There is also something odd with the way the loop iterates, this doesn't
> look right:
>
> whilelo p0.s, x3, x4
> incwx3
> ptest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #23 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 46105
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46105=edit
fix g++ problem with pow(z,0.5) where imag(z) = -0.
This patch has only been tested with the original test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #14 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 46104
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46104=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46040|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #12 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 46040 [details]
> > patch
>
> Wasn't sure whether this patch was WIP or the final
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw ---
> I've got a (horrible?) hack for getting tls_modid from Solaris.
Cool, and not really horrible ;-) It's already this way in Solaris 9 (I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #22 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:17:00PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> (In reply to kargl from comment #19)
> > I get the expected. So, if you're on a system that has
> > _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_COMPLEX, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
--- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw ---
I've got a (horrible?) hack for getting tls_modid from Solaris.
Looking at dlinfo(RTLD_DI_LINKMAP):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #21 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 46102
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46102=edit
fix g++ problem with sqrt(z) where z is complex and imag(z) = -0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #16)
> If Andrew is correct and a builtin is called,
Wasn't that me, not Andrew?
> you might find
> my results if you use -fno-builtins (check spelling).
No, same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #18)
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:03:36PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
> >
> > --- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89939
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90014
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
--- Comment #44 from coypu ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #31)
> GCC: some NetBSD targets (netbsd-stdint.h only used for x86 / x86_64),
Speaking for NetBSD only:
as of https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=253323 ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:03:36PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
>
> --- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
> >Doesn't this gets the wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||coypu at sdf dot org
--- Comment #43 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Doesn't this gets the wrong answer for __y = -0 (as -0 < 0 is false)?
No, you missed this part:
// The branch cut is on the negative axis.
So maybe the bug is inside FreeBSD and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:20:22PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90016
Bug ID: 90016
Summary: aarch64: reference to undeclared N in help for command
line option
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10)
> > % g++8 -o z a.cpp -lm && ./z
> > z = (-1.84250315177824e-07,-0)
> >pow(z,0.5) =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89851
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems to have been fixed recently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90015
Bug ID: 90015
Summary: riscv: typo "intterupt" in diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90008
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Which is unsurprising because std::sqrt(z) just calls
__builtin_csqrt(z.__rep())
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90014
Bug ID: 90014
Summary: Untranslatable Fortran diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10)
> % g++8 -o z a.cpp -lm && ./z
> z = (-1.84250315177824e-07,-0)
>pow(z,0.5) = (2.62836076598358e-20,-0.000429243887758258)
> sqrt(z) =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90013
Bug ID: 90013
Summary: wrong quotes in diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90012
Bug ID: 90012
Summary: untranslateable placeholder in expressionsem.c
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
Bug ID: 90011
Summary: trailing space in diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #11)
> unless [Note: ...] is non-normative text.
That's exactly what it is.
But we can still aim to meet the intended behaviour.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89888
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46100
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46100=edit
gcc9-pr89888.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89977
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
You're right that the conversion from int128_t to unsigned long can result in
truncation, so the range of the result is that of unsigned long. Yet I suspect
that relying on it is more likely unintentional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51961
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> What is allocate supposed to do if the array and the mold are not
> conformable?
AFAICS the mold expr is normally only used for the type,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 02:32:38PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> I don't have a copy of the C++ standard, so take this specualtion.
> pow(z,0.5) is equivalent to sqrt(z). From
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89998
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90008
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
I forgot to mention that I have also set a valgrind option:
$ set | fgrep VAL
VALGRIND_OPTS=--expensive-definedness-checks=yes
$
Might be significant.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Bug ID: 90010
Summary: valgrind error with snprintf and -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90002
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=89993
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> > It looks like the default incoming stack isn't a constant:
> And where is the bug?
The bug is that -mstackrealign has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90001
--- Comment #4 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Thanks for testcase.
2-3 weeks ago I already caught and fixed this on my local branch, see some info
in the bottom.
Current algorithm which finds recurrence_length for all DDG strongly connected
components
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89990
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90001
Roman Zhuykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhroma at ispras dot ru
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89993
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> It looks like the default incoming stack isn't a constant:
And where is the bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:59:22AM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> I think it's allowed. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 83033, which changed state.
Bug 83033 Summary: aarch64/cortex-a57-fma-steering.c: 3 * poor C++ style ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83033
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83033
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90006
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 8 13:54:02 2019
New Revision: 270210
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270210=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-04-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90006
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90009
Bug ID: 90009
Summary: [nvptx] ICE when OpenACC region has num_workers>1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89941
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90008
Bug ID: 90008
Summary: [9 Regression] variant attempts to copy rhs in
comparison operators
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89941
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Apr 8 13:08:30 2019
New Revision: 270208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270208=gcc=rev
Log:
Add missing libsanitizer extra patch (r259664) (PR sanitizer/89941).
2019-04-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83033
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Mon Apr 8 12:59:24 2019
New Revision: 270207
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270207=gcc=rev
Log:
The fma_forest, fma_root_node and func_fma_steering classes lack a
copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||srinath.parvathaneni at arm
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89987
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Apr 8 12:36:58 2019
New Revision: 270206
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270206=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/89865
* config/i386/i386.md: Add peepholes for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Apr 8 12:35:22 2019
New Revision: 270205
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270205=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/89865
* config/i386/i386.md
(SWI12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89987
--- Comment #4 from Srinath Parvathaneni
---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> Can you update to a revision after r270150 and try again?
On gcc trunk this got fixed as follows.
$ ./arm-none-linux-gnueabihf-gfortran test.f90 -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89961
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89961
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Apr 8 12:16:15 2019
New Revision: 270204
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270204=gcc=rev
Log:
Add data_file to GCOV interm. format (PR gcov-profile/89961).
2019-04-08 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89725
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 8 11:52:18 2019
New Revision: 270203
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270203=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-04-01 Bin Cheng
PR tree-optimization/89725
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90006
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so the issue is we rely on vect_get_smallest_scalar_type to get us the
expected vectors for the call input but that doesn't work here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89989
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-01-29 00:00:00 |2019-4-8
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89998
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46097
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46097=edit
gcc9-pr89998.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89989
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to PR 65143.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78873
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ambroz Bizjak from comment #0)
> But I think it is not valid; the result of the reinterpret_cast does not
> point to a Liar object, so the static_cast done in TestDevirtualuzation
> *should*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89989
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89987
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90005
--- Comment #7 from Pawel ---
The "-Werror=format" solution seems to work for me - it triggers the error here
(missing .c_str()) even for the gcc >= 5.0 - leaving all the other, non-related
warnings untouched.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90003
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly reduced -std=c++2a -fconcepts:
namespace a {
template struct b;
template using aa = c;
template bool ab;
struct ac;
template using ad = ac;
template class ae { ae(c); };
}
namespace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90005
--- Comment #6 from Pawel ---
Hi,
Thanks for the explanation. Indeed, for example, the clang does not support the
non-POD(ex. std::string) to variadic function - as :
error: cannot pass non-trivial object of type 'std::__cxx11::string' (aka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> The issue is
>
> std::pow (__x=..., __y=@0x7fffdcb8: 0.5)
> at /home/space/rguenther/install/gcc-9.0/include/c++/9.0.1/complex:1027
> (gdb) l
> 1022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
Bug ID: 90007
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn_cached,
at recog.c:2223
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also isn't it true that this is just a different quadrant of the solution?
That is the answer is correct but which quadrant being selected is different?
That is (a^0.5) actually has two answers where the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89987
--- Comment #2 from Srinath Parvathaneni
---
$ ./arm-none-linux-gnueabihf-gfortran test.f90 -S -O1 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./arm-none-linux-gnueabihf-gfortran
Target: arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
Configured with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it's allowed. The standards have very little to say about accuracy of
any mathematical functions, and complex(0, 0.0) == complex(0,
-0.0) is true according to the standard, because +0.0 == -0.0 is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90003
--- Comment #2 from rene.r...@fu-berlin.de ---
Yes, sorry. this works fine with gcc-7 and gcc-8.
I also used multidelta to reduce the preprocessed file.
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
