https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 12 07:54:01 2019
New Revision: 278079
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278079=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-11-11 Andre Vieira
PR tree-optimization/92347
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, iii at linux dot ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430
>
> --- Comment #3 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
> Findings so far: when we forward an edge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to lavr from comment #2)
> > > Okay, but "d" points to a clearly separate storage on stack within a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
so this is only a regression as what was register 19 was removed and what was
register 20 is now register 19.
If we change "19" to "20" it still ICEs for older versions of GCC:
apinski@xeond:~$ gcc t9.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
Bug ID: 92469
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE: output_operand: invalid use of
register 'frame'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90004
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce the first ICE w/ the current gcc trunk snapshot and isl 0.22
anymore. The second one still fails for me:
#0 0x77ec7fe4 in isl_basic_map_underlying_set () from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92468
Qirun Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
10.0.0 2019 (experimental) [trunk revision 278048] (GCC)
#expected output
$ gcc-trunk -g abc.c
$ gdb-trunk -x cmds -batch a.out
Breakpoint 1 at 0x40054c: file abc.c, line 20.
Breakpoint 1, main () at abc.c:20
20 if (g) printf("index = %d%d%d\n"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #1)
> Even if you fix the aliasing bugs, it won't emulate a byte-oriented cmpxchg
> correctly, there are bugs in the logic too.
More than that, it will never be atomic. You
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92467
--- Comment #3 from Stephan Tolksdorf ---
Calling release on tmp should set the internal pointer member to null so that
the destructor won't call the deleter on the (void*)1 ptr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92467
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the question becomes what is the semantics of the extension. I think GCC
here is doing one that would be similar to what C++ would normally do with
respect of the tmp variable. So not extending the life
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92467
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.2.0/gcc/Conditionals.html#Conditionals
If I understand the extension correctly, we have:
({
auto = get1();
(tmp ? tmp: get2()).release();
})
This means the tmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 92433, which changed state.
Bug 92433 Summary: [10 regression] r276645 breaks bootstrap on powerpc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91975
Bug 91975 depends on bug 92433, which changed state.
Bug 92433 Summary: [10 regression] r276645 breaks bootstrap on powerpc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92467
Bug ID: 92467
Summary: gcc miscompiles ternary expression with omitted first
operand ?: involving C++ prvalues
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92447
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92447
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 11 21:31:29 2019
New Revision: 278068
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278068=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92447
* decl.c (finish_function): Move ctype initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92466
Bug ID: 92466
Summary: new test case gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_15.f90
in r278025 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92465
Bug ID: 92465
Summary: [10 regression] r278034 breaks gcc.dg/pr47763.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92463
Bug 92463 depends on bug 91828, which changed state.
Bug 91828 Summary: gcc/fortran/check.c requires mpfr_set_z_2exp from MPFR
3.0.0, unavailable in mpfr-2.4.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91828
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91828
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92438
--- Comment #2 from sagebar at web dot de ---
The c++ standard may not cover it, however in the interest of compatibility
with other compilers, g++ for cygwin actually defines the following predefined
macros (among others):
g++ -dM -E -x c++ - <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 11 20:05:49 2019
New Revision: 278066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278066=gcc=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/92433
* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92420
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Nov 11 19:43:52 2019
New Revision: 278064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278064=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix SLP downward group access classification (PR92420)
This PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47214
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47214=edit
gcc10-pr92449.patch
Untested patch not to emit UNORDERED_EXPR if !HONOR_NANS from complex lowering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92464
Bug ID: 92464
Summary: [10 regression] r 278033 breaks
gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92463
Bug ID: 92463
Summary: Cleanups due to minimum MPFR version bump to 3.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92234
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92235
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
same with 20191109
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92458
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
Bug ID: 92462
Summary: [arm32] -ftree-pre makes a variable to be wrongly
hoisted out
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #7 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92460
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92461
Bug ID: 92461
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: excess
use operand for statement)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #5)
> I think it would be useful to split testcases 2 and 3 into two new PR's as
> they are unrelated issues to 1.
PR92460 and PR92461, then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92460
Bug ID: 92460
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error:
definition in block 13 does not dominate use in block
22)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Not quite sure the third case has anything to do with epilogue vectorization
though... It still manifests itself with it turned off. Seems to be a lack of
"folding" again.
I think it would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Findings so far: when we forward an edge like this:
#0 redirect_edge_succ (e=0x76d73cc0, new_succ=0x76c2aa90) at
../.././gcc/cfg.c:368
#1 0x00a776ff in redirect_edge_succ_nodup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710
--- Comment #4 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> @@ -4908,7 +4908,8 @@ aarch64_function_arg_boundary (machine_mode mode,
> const_tree type)
>bool abi_break;
>unsigned int alignment =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92452
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
See also bug 92333, comment #4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92457
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92452
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The first testcase has (at expand time)
if (_13 unord _14)
which doesn't mean anything with -ffast-math (-Ofast): unordered does
not *exist*.
The second testcase is similar, but we generate that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 11 16:07:54 2019
New Revision: 278059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278059=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-11-11 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-06-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92459
Bug ID: 92459
Summary: out of class method definition did not match (when
declaration contains expression that uses in class
defined enum)
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91935
--- Comment #2 from Dimitar Yordanov ---
Probably already clear, but to write down what I read so far and did not write
with the initial report:
PR lto/83452. is actually not the regression, it is just a workaround to "Make
discarded global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91828
--- Comment #6 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Nov 11 15:59:48 2019
New Revision: 278058
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278058=gcc=rev
Log:
Bump minimum MPFR version to 3.1.0
Bump the minimum MPFR version to 3.1.0, released
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I think the patch is (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
> This is the usual problem of trying to process node with no summary
> attached to it. The following fixes the ICE, but I am not sure if there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> But maybe
> you can provide benchmark data (including compile-time/memory-use figures)?
OK. Is there any GCC specific tool or flag for that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92142
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Nov 11 15:35:50 2019
New Revision: 278055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278055=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix commit for PR fortran/92142 - CFI_setpointer corrupts descriptor
2019-11-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92458
Bug ID: 92458
Summary: Constraints do not work with precompiled headers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #4 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The second case seems to be because vectorizable_simd_clone_call seems to be
inserting values and phi-nodes on the epilogue's preheader edge which uses a
value defined in the main loop's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92447
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #2)
> Can the -ftree-partial-pre flag be enabled by default for -O2?
It used to be quite slow in its dataflow compute but that has improved.
It's still quadratic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347
--- Comment #3 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had a look at the first testcase. I think the problem is I was setting the
epilogue's safelen to the loop's safelen, after the loop->safelen had been
cleared, as we do this after vectorization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
Can the -ftree-partial-pre flag be enabled by default for -O2?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> if (y)
> {
> gcc_assert (n == 3);
> std::swap (arg_type[1], arg_type[2]);
> }
>
>
> ?
gcc_assert will work too unless the host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92457
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92457
Bug ID: 92457
Summary: [10 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_16.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92456
Bug ID: 92456
Summary: libiberty/make-relative-prefix.c: read buffer overflow
in split_directories()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
You need partial-PRE to perform the desired transform. With -O3 or -O2
-ftree-partial-pre we do what you suggest (plus also cache *max->ptr in
exchange
for another IV):
f1:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is the usual problem of trying to process node with no summary
attached to it. The following fixes the ICE, but I am not sure if there
is a cleaner approach.
Martin, i suppose the issue here is with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2019-10-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92455
Bug ID: 92455
Summary: Unnecessary memory read in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92429
--- Comment #2 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So I had a look at this, the ICE occurs because 'vectorizable_condition' does
not know how to handle a constant cond_expr.
The reason this cond_expr is constant in the epilogue is because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91851
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Forgot to mention: The task is considered completed when the necessary changes
have been merged upstream so that m68k will be part of GCC-11 and newer
releases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
if (y)
{
gcc_assert (n == 3);
std::swap (arg_type[1], arg_type[2]);
}
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430
Ilya Leoshkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iii at linux dot ibm.com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Compiling Boost.Spirit.X3 |Compiling Boost.Spirit.X3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
Bug ID: 92454
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
identify_dead_nodes)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92453
Bug ID: 92453
Summary: write buffer overflow in cplus_demangle()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92142
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92142
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Nov 11 10:18:14 2019
New Revision: 278048
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278048=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/92142 - CFI_setpointer corrupts descriptor
2019-11-11 José Rui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92448
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On November 11, 2019 10:20:10 AM GMT+01:00, crazylht at gmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92448
>
>--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
>Also with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> > context
> ...
> > context >
>
> But whoever built the constructor with two differnt types did someting
> wrong.
>
I've probably got it:
$ $14 = void
(gdb) p debug_tree(lhs_type->type_common.context)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
>
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> Created attachment 47208
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47208=edit
> Reproducer
>
> So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92442
--- Comment #2 from Ruben Van Boxem ---
I hit the submit button too early, I was still removing commandline options.
Indeed the -gsplit-dwarf option seems the culprit here.
I added it to decrease library link times (seems like it did at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92448
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Also with TARGET_AVX128_OPTIMAL plus -mprefer-vector-width=256, 256-bit
vectorization may be not generated since TARGET_AVX128_OPTIMAL will change
vec_cost.
/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92433
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase that results in the warning also on x86_64-linux with -O2
-Wall:
struct S { void *p; struct S *q; };
void bar (int, ...);
void
foo (struct S *x, int n, int y)
{
void *arg_type[3];
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47208
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47208=edit
Reproducer
So using a revision before it disappeared I see:
$ g++ -O2 -flto ice*.ii -c && gcc -O2 -flto *.i -c && g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92428
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92421
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
