https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96841
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96646
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94355
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4a906e7b51f3fc31f3328810f45ae4cf2e7bbc3
commit r11-3472-gd4a906e7b51f3fc31f3328810f45ae4cf2e7bbc3
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96841
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29f5db8ef81fac4db8e66e5f06fdf1d469e8161c
commit r11-3471-g29f5db8ef81fac4db8e66e5f06fdf1d469e8161c
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96646
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29f5db8ef81fac4db8e66e5f06fdf1d469e8161c
commit r11-3471-g29f5db8ef81fac4db8e66e5f06fdf1d469e8161c
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97206
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
A different/simpler test case that doesn't involve a call to
handle_access_attribute():
$ cat pr97206.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall pr97206.c
void a (char *);
void a (char [restrict]);
extern const char b[];
extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 88335, which changed state.
Bug 88335 Summary: Implement P1073R3, C++20 immediate functions (consteval).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84930
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #16 from Yuxuan Shui ---
But yeah, that's definitely a bug in itself as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #15 from Yuxuan Shui ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> (In reply to Yuxuan Shui from comment #1)
> > Example:
> >
> > This program normally deadlocks when using linked pthread:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97211
Bug ID: 97211
Summary: __cxa_guard_acquire fails to detect recursive init in
multithreaded code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97210
Bug ID: 97210
Summary: Intrinsic function get_team() does not work
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Hmm. It should be false for construction from no arguments i.e.
> __is_constructible(int[]).
>
> But thanks to parenthesized aggregate init, you can actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97111
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
References:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/exceptions
https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html ("Itanium C++ ABI:
Exception Handling")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Hmm. It should be false for construction from no arguments i.e.
__is_constructible(int[]).
But thanks to parenthesized aggregate init, you can actually do:
using T = int[];
T t(1);
It's still true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Yuxuan Shui from comment #1)
> Example:
>
> This program normally deadlocks when using linked pthread:
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/Yrza4e
>
> But it will throw recursive_init_error when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97206
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:038b65f378b36624b1fd3867fa5e578c1bfa50cc
commit r10-8799-g038b65f378b36624b1fd3867fa5e578c1bfa50cc
Author: Vladimir N.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:957e37ac288fe6c40ee0bb98a0b06a85be8a35e3
commit r10-8800-g957e37ac288fe6c40ee0bb98a0b06a85be8a35e3
Author: Vladimir N.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #45 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1788d74b05b7936e9e8dd01a8f66701ad2bc2951
commit r8-10536-g1788d74b05b7936e9e8dd01a8f66701ad2bc2951
Author: Tamar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97209
Bug ID: 97209
Summary: TODO: building array references needs a big tidy up
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
--- Comment #17 from Alexander Monakov ---
To me this suggests that in fact it's okay to carry the combined form in RTL up
to register allocation, but RA should decompose it to load+fma instead of
inserting a register copy that preserves the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
so after Martin asked some good questions, it turns out this should probably be
avoided in ipa-prop, after all, as with, for example (untested):
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.c b/gcc/ipa-prop.c
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97045
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49272=edit
Updated patch
It turned out that with the original patch, character payloads of the unlimited
polymorphic array were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The decision to use null for the upper bound can be traced to this message:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2015-December/437361.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Just a correction to the comment:
+ /* Zero-length arrays have a null upper bound in C++ and
+SIZE_MAX in C. */
It's actually the other way around.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97201
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Vlad, do you plan to backport this to 10.3?
I guess so. We had enough time to test it. I don't see any complaints about
this patch. I'll backport it today
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97197
--- Comment #4 from David Fink ---
Hi Jakub,
I tried to reduce the code as much as possible before reporting, which is why
the example has the "this != " check in the copy constructor.
The original code where I saw this problem had the "this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1921ebcaf6467996aede69e1bbe32400d8a20fe7
commit r11-3463-g1921ebcaf6467996aede69e1bbe32400d8a20fe7
Author: Martin Liska
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |gcov-profile
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
I can confirm the analysis, except that I see the edge we're trying to
add to the heap as already inlined (as a speculative edge it got
inlined even its caller was). Also just not adding an edge with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
--- Comment #16 from Alexander Monakov ---
Mostly because prior to register allocation the compiler does not naturally see
that x = *mem + a*b will need an extra mov when both 'a' and 'b' are live (as
in that case registers allocated for them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97197
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96814
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d16b5975ca985cbe97698479fc38b6a636886978
commit r11-3460-gd16b5975ca985cbe97698479fc38b6a636886978
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97208
Bug ID: 97208
Summary: [gcc 10.2.0] Microblaze regression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97127
--- Comment #15 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #14)
> > Still I don't understand why compiler does not compare the cost of full loop
> > body after combining to the cost before combining and does not come to
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |diagnostic
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #18)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #9)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > > > (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #19)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> > On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7bfc4cd2c812a3197c09797796828459714f8849
commit r11-3459-g7bfc4cd2c812a3197c09797796828459714f8849
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
--- Comment #19 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
> >
> > --- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin ---
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96789
--- Comment #18 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #7)
> > > > Two questions in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #15 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> diff --git a/gcc/vec.h b/gcc/vec.h
> index d73d865cff2..c0e577893a3 100644
> --- a/gcc/vec.h
> +++ b/gcc/vec.h
> @@ -1546,7 +1546,12 @@ public:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
OK, adding explicit swap doesn't look worth the trouble (the object is just a
single pointer). Might be useful if we ever support std::move for auto_vec with N != 0. Which reminds me that still uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> If you don't want to support assignment you can still support swapping:
>
> --- a/gcc/vec.h
> +++ b/gcc/vec.h
> @@ -1546,9 +1546,21 @@ public:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> diff --git a/gcc/vec.h b/gcc/vec.h
> index d73d865cff2..c0e577893a3 100644
> --- a/gcc/vec.h
> +++ b/gcc/vec.h
> @@ -1546,7 +1546,12 @@ public:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
> >
> > --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/vec.h b/gcc/vec.h
index d73d865cff2..c0e577893a3 100644
--- a/gcc/vec.h
+++ b/gcc/vec.h
@@ -1546,7 +1546,12 @@ public:
this->m_vec = r.m_vec;
r.m_vec = NULL;
}
- void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you don't want to support assignment you can still support swapping:
--- a/gcc/vec.h
+++ b/gcc/vec.h
@@ -1546,9 +1546,21 @@ public:
this->m_vec = r.m_vec;
r.m_vec = NULL;
}
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> That swap couldn't have worked before because auto_vec eventually contains a
> pointer into itself. So the patch has improved things from broken to
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so
diff --git a/gcc/vec.c b/gcc/vec.c
index a28899170ed..0cda3b96beb 100644
--- a/gcc/vec.c
+++ b/gcc/vec.c
@@ -560,6 +560,9 @@ vec_c_tests ()
test_qsort ();
test_reverse ();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe try implementing the deleted
void operator= (auto_vec&&) = delete;
but the diagnostic isn't really pointing to that ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Fixed on trunk, not sure how important it is to backport.
I wouldn't backport it. The strange options come from my periodic fuzzing and
it took quite some time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 49271
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49271=edit
gzipped preprocessed source
Reproduce:
$ g++ -m64 -fno-PIE -c -O0 -g -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Configure from build-gcc/config.log:
...
$ /home/vries/nvptx/trunk/source-gcc/configure --target=nvptx-none --prefix=
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-werror --enable-checking=yes CC=gcc
-m64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||nvptx
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97207
Bug ID: 97207
Summary: [nvptx, build] nvptx.c:3539:38: error: no matching
function for call to ‘swap(bracket_vec_t&,
bracket_vec_t&)’
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97197
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4dcc7f03b54087638e084ac69d40d7507fe83bd8
commit r11-3456-g4dcc7f03b54087638e084ac69d40d7507fe83bd8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #44 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c775bf447e190024fa08c55e38db94dd013a393
commit r11-3455-g8c775bf447e190024fa08c55e38db94dd013a393
Author: Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #43 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26020c849802a03f7a0634636d752ffbc7729096
commit r8-10535-g26020c849802a03f7a0634636d752ffbc7729096
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #42 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4fb606b503780b91ad79c203003dc41a32cfbab7
commit r9-8939-g4fb606b503780b91ad79c203003dc41a32cfbab7
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97206
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(gdb) p debug_gimple_stmt (phi)
.MEM_104 = PHI <(4), .MEM_97(41)>
so clearly bogus IL here. The issue is the virtual operand update in
if-conversion combine_blocks which does
/* We release virtual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97206
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Testcase 2: something related happens to wavpack-5.3.2 package where gcc
stopped typechecking array declarations:
char *a(char *__restrict, int);
__attribute__((__access__(__write_only__, 1))) char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.1, 11.0
Version|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97204
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:499b63048acd5e9ffd3c04061b531f6bf851dc00
commit r11-3454-g499b63048acd5e9ffd3c04061b531f6bf851dc00
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
-ggdb3 ' CXXFLAGS='-O0 -ggdb3 ' --enable-valgrind-annotations
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20200925 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
Bug ID: 97205
Summary: arm: Compiler fails with an ICE for -O0 on Trunk and
GCC-10 for _Generic feature.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97204
Bug ID: 97204
Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/sse2-mmx-pinsrw.c execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97119
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Ali Bahrami ---
> I added -flive-patching=inline-only-static as suggested by Martin. It didn't
> alter the results I'm seeing. There is still a lot of .localalias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97160
Dave Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97203
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Besides PR95654, see PR81778 and PR80053.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95654
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus ---
See also PR97203 + PR97203, and PR80053.
And the thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/thread.html#554054
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97193
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|.gcno files are not written |[9/10/11 Regression] .gcno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81778
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97203
Bug ID: 97203
Summary: [nvptx] 'illegal memory access was encountered' with
'omp simd'/SIMT and cexpf call
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48361
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Prasannanjaneyulu from comment #18)
> Thank you @martin. I am not sure whether ubuntu 16.04 is compatible with gcc
> 8.4.0. Our app. is currently built for ubuntu 16.04 and I don't know what
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48361
--- Comment #18 from Prasannanjaneyulu ---
Thank you @martin. I am not sure whether ubuntu 16.04 is compatible with gcc
8.4.0. Our app. is currently built for ubuntu 16.04 and I don't know what
breaking changes it could bring if we upgrade gcc.
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
