可提供各种发票幵 1 36,922 275 95张【 有 】↓【3%-13%】【 増 】各【 发 】【 稙 】种【 票 】【 税 】真【 幵 】
如果你不想再收到该产品的 推荐邮件, 请点击这里退订
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #79 from C. Heide ---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #75)
>
> I think a local patch might be doing this. Rebuild without it.
I did have some other patches applied from other PRs, from previous desperate
attempts to get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #18 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> I have a patch series to fix this - but it's not really appropriate this
> late in stage 4. So plan is to fix in early 10 stage 1 and back port.
It's early 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23610
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It's inherent in the transformation you're making. You're introducing loads on
paths where they didn't exist before.
Depending on the exact circumstances you may trigger an uninit warning. It's
worth
movl%esi, -8(%rsp,%rdi,4)
movl-4(%rsp), %eax
addl-8(%rsp), %eax
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size test, .-test
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 10.0.0 20190722 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224
--- Comment #27 from Lewis Hyatt ---
Created attachment 46620
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46620=edit
second attempt at posting the patch
Sorry, the previous patch I sent doesn't seem to show correctly in Bugzilla. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91230
Bug ID: 91230
Summary: Template function containing lambda expression that
has auto parameter and uses __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ does
not compile
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #78 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #77)
>
> I think you need to define _XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED. See for example
> config/pa/pa-hpux11.h.
Yep. I forgot about PR66319.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gmail dot com
--- Comment #26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80545
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg01457.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The issue here (of course) is that aarch64 has a different set of defaults for
when to open-code vs loop vs function call. My attempts to pick a better size
for the objects results in failures on other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #77 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-07-22 4:47 p.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> Getting further. Now erroring out with:
> /opt/build/china/gcc-8.3.0/.obj/./prev-gcc/xg++
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91229
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 46617
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46617=edit
proposed patch to change ABI and warn for affected structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #76 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #75)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #74)
> >
> > I'm getting further in the build on HP-UX 11.31/IA but when linking
> > libstdc++.la, I get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91229
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91229
Bug ID: 91229
Summary: RISC-V ABI problem with zero-length bit-fields and
float struct fields
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91228
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: *-*-solaris2.*
Between 20190720 (r273633) and 20190722 (r273698
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87808
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, I meant &&. And yes, folding it either way is strictly valid in both C,
where the result of the relational expression is undefined, and C++ where it's
unspecified. But besides being inconsistent with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
> if (p >= a || p <= a + 3)
I think you mean &&.
I believe we could fold it to true or false as we wish: false because the
preexisting pointer cannot point to a local object, true because you are only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227
Bug ID: 91227
Summary: pointer relational expression not folded but
equivalent inequality is
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91223
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91203
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91223
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91218
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91226
Bug ID: 91226
Summary: wrong propagation of non-canonical _Decimal64 constant
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is/was documented as a way to get rid of uninitialized warnings. So if
this changes, please change the documentation too. Also -Wself-init should
cause the initialized warnings to come back. Note I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Bug ID: 91225
Summary: Warning should be produced for a variable initialized
by itself at the declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91224
Bug ID: 91224
Summary: -Wsequence-point claims a defined value is undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91223
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
slightly reduced
$ cat y.i
int a, g;
int *b, *f, *h;
void *memcpy(void *, const void *, unsigned long);
typedef struct {
int b;
} * c;
int d(void);
c e;
int d() {
char c[16];
bd:
for (a = 0; a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91223
Bug ID: 91223
Summary: [10 regression] ICE: in curr_insn_transform, at
lra-constraints.c:4459
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #75 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #74)
> (In reply to C. Heide from comment #73)
> > With that change, and some other cajoling (the previously mentioned
> > duplicate symbols and operand64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 22 11:18:55 2019
New Revision: 273667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273667=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-07-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91221
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #74 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to C. Heide from comment #73)
> With that change, and some other cajoling (the previously mentioned
> duplicate symbols and operand64 problem, and -O1 to work around the ICE), I
> can now get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[7/8/9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
Bug ID: 91222
Summary: [10 Regression] 507.cactuBSSN_r build fails in
warn_types_mismatch at ipa-devirt.c:1006 since r273571
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 22 09:38:26 2019
New Revision: 273666
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273666=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r273660
2019-07-22 Martin Liska
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 22 09:38:01 2019
New Revision: 273665
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273665=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r273660
2019-07-22 Martin Liska
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 22 09:37:18 2019
New Revision: 273664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273664=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r273660
2019-07-22 Martin Liska
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84579
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, I've just installed the patch as r273662.
The tests in binutils are now invalid as they grep for the symbol:
$ cat ld/testsuite/ld-plugin/lto-3r.d
#ld: -r tmpdir/lto-3b.o
#source: dummy.s
#nm: -p
#...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91203
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
One another test-case:
$ cat ice.f
parameternumlev=3,numoblev=1000
integer i_otyp(numoblev,numlev)
logical l_numob(numoblev,numlev)
do ixe=1,numoblev
do iye=1,numlev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
Bug ID: 91221
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in get_int_cst_ext_nunits, at
tree.c:1299 since r273548
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Known to fail|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 22 07:34:10 2019
New Revision: 273660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273660=gcc=rev
Log:
Make a warning for -Werror=wrong-language (PR driver/91172).
2019-07-22 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the switch statement could be optimized better. There is a loop pass
which already handles if statements for the splitting one loop into two. Maybe
it could do the same for switch statements.
Or the
60 matches
Mail list logo
