https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92642
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
This test case for similar does have a nice warning.
Interestingly, G++ does not indicate that 5147483647 is already 34 bits long:
100110010110101011101
which is more than an 'int' (32bit) which as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92674
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92673
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92626
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say libgcc is extremely unlikely, for glibc it depends on whether the
different clear snapshots (or releases or what it is) have each glibc compiled
by a particular gcc snapshot or not, libstdc++ is unlik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92659
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92674
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92674
Bug ID: 92674
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gimple_phi_arg, at
gimple.h:4406 since r240291
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92626
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92673
Bug ID: 92673
Summary: OCaml fails to link with recent trunk
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651
>
> --- Comment #7 from Hongyu Wang ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92669
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 26 12:03:58 2019
New Revision: 278723
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278723&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-26 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/92669
* cfg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92664
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92672
Bug ID: 92672
Summary: OpenMP shared clause not respected without pointer to
the variable
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #15 from Klaus Leppkes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> By all types I really meant integral/floating point/vector types, you are
> clearing using it with aggregates, those can live just in memory and so
> should use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92671
Bug ID: 92671
Summary: gcc/c/c-parser.c: minor ( and ) tidyup
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92670
--- Comment #3 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #2)
> Should be
Should be warning message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92670
fdlbxtqi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Same error message |Same warning message
|dupli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92670
--- Comment #1 from fdlbxtqi ---
The same error message generates twice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92670
Bug ID: 92670
Summary: Same error message duplicates for C++20 "deprecated"
attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
By all types I really meant integral/floating point/vector types, you are
clearing using it with aggregates, those can live just in memory and so should
use "+m".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651
--- Comment #7 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #13 from Klaus Leppkes ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Klaus Leppkes from comment #9)
> >
> > g++ -c error_large_lvalue.cpp
> > error_large_lvalue.cpp: In function ‘void DoNotOptimize(Tp&) [with Tp =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #12 from Klaus Leppkes ---
"I said "+g", not "+g,r". g stands for general operand, so it allows a
non-immediate operand, whether it is in memory or register."
error_large_lvalue.cpp: In function ‘void DoNotOptimize(Tp&) [with Tp =
L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Klaus Leppkes from comment #9)
>
> g++ -c error_large_lvalue.cpp
> error_large_lvalue.cpp: In function ‘void DoNotOptimize(Tp&) [with Tp =
> Large]’:
> error_large_lvalue.cpp:16:48: error: inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I said "+g", not "+g,r". g stands for general operand, so it allows a
non-immediate operand, whether it is in memory or register.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92669
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
fma-steering is an aarch64 specific pass so this is a target issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #9 from Klaus Leppkes ---
Created attachment 47358
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47358&action=edit
Problem with g instead of m example
g++ -c error_large_lvalue.cpp
error_large_lvalue.cpp: In function ‘void Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92644
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92669
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92669
Bug ID: 92669
Summary: 10 Regression] ICE in
pre_and_rev_post_order_compute_fn at
gcc/cfganal.c:1034 since r278666
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92154
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 26 09:08:31 2019
New Revision: 278722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278722&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/92154
* sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Klaus Leppkes from comment #7)
> 1.) According to Jacob, g++ gives warning: ("Whether this PR is valid or
> invalid is unclear, matching constraints for "m" are unsupported, we even
> warn on "=m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46558
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #7 from Klaus Leppkes ---
1.) According to Jacob, g++ gives warning: ("Whether this PR is valid or
invalid is unclear, matching constraints for "m" are unsupported, we even warn
on "=m" (...) : "0" (...) which is the reason why "+m" i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88617
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Daniel Santos from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > @Daniel: Can you please take a look?
>
> My apologies for missing this one! I'll take a look.
@Daniel: Any update
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92644
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 26 08:43:27 2019
New Revision: 278720
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278720&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92644
* tree-ssa-phiopt.c (minmax_rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92663
--- Comment #8 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Ok, thanks for the feedback!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 26 08:32:38 2019
New Revision: 278719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278719&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92645
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 47357
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47357&action=edit
Defer vect_setup_realignment for different first_stmt_info
Verified the fix on P7 BE, still bootstrapping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92664
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92534
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92534
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
Oops, sorry, the above comment should be for PR91790.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92663
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92534
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
This issue won't be reproduced with latest trunk but I still can reproduce with
the original reported revision. I checked the dumpings, it changes starting
from inlining, the bg() doesn't have the loop of interes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92662
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So - duplicate then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92661
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651
>
> --- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder if it makes sense for a production compiler to do this kind of
transformation. When presented with a program representation as SSA
on a CFG such transform would be quite ad-hoc or rather translatin
101 - 155 of 155 matches
Mail list logo