https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98443
Bug ID: 98443
Summary: Failure to optimize out vector operations into a
constant when possible
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91648
Ev Drikos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drikosev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #58 from Kito Cheng ---
Hi jiawei:
I would suggest you just using inst count rather than cycle or time for
measuring benchmark if you using qemu, since qemu is functional simulator not
cycle accurate neither nearly-cycle accurate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
--- Comment #21 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #14)
> The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f6e40195ec3d3b402a5f6c58dbf359479bc4cbfa
>
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98442
Bug ID: 98442
Summary: [X86] suboptimal for memset with CLEAR_BY_PIECES
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98441
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos ---
Also, I build gcc with:
-O42 -ffast-math -ffuzzy-dice -felide-function-bodies -pipe-clogged
but that shouldn't make a difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98441
Bug ID: 98441
Summary: member function pointer incorrectly parsed as having
trailing return type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
--- Comment #7 from Lionel GUEZ ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> Point being that quoting some third-party
> interpretation of what one version of the Fortran standard
> says is of limited value.
OK. I am learning here. I thought
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98431
--- Comment #7 from Farshid Shadpey ---
something went wrong i cut and paste between different computers, remote
session, etc. The output below should be the correct file, plesae ignore the
previous ones.
Thanks
Farshid
# gcc -c -m64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98431
--- Comment #6 from Farshid Shadpey ---
Created attachment 49842
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49842=edit
preprocessed file zipped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98440
Bug ID: 98440
Summary: Accepts ill-formed reinterpret_cast(1)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> @Steve: that's pretty basic F2003 stuff, almost TR15581...
Yes, I know. Point being that quoting some third-party
interpretation of what one version of the Fortran standard
says is of limited
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98418
pskocik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98418
--- Comment #2 from pskocik at gmail dot com ---
You're right. The bug was in my code.
struct foo { unsigned bit: (0xll<<40)!=0; };
is indeed UB due to http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c11/n1570.html#6.5.7p4, but
struct foo { unsigned bit:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98431
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98439
Bug ID: 98439
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in final_scan_insn_1, at
final.c:3096
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Roman Zhuykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Roman Zhuykov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0963fa93dcc47d290d1597ff88ff162f5bdd1b13
commit r10-9171-g0963fa93dcc47d290d1597ff88ff162f5bdd1b13
Author: Roman Zhuykov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Roman Zhuykov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2435878321b053aebb2e2a886465662199542875
commit r9-9129-g2435878321b053aebb2e2a886465662199542875
Author: Roman Zhuykov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Roman Zhuykov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2850df4edce86b13d503e5bf636a874fb21198fc
commit r8-10694-g2850df4edce86b13d503e5bf636a874fb21198fc
Author: Roman Zhuykov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56389
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98438
Bug ID: 98438
Summary: Rather bad optimization of midpoint implementation for
__int128 (and other types)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Samuel Benjamin from comment #4)
> I got your point, But why is this working with 64bit and other gcc versions
> other than 7.4.0 - 32 bit ?
Undefined behaviour means anything can happen,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436
Samuel Benjamin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436
--- Comment #4 from Samuel Benjamin ---
I got your point, But why is this working with 64bit and other gcc versions
other than 7.4.0 - 32 bit ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98437
Bug ID: 98437
Summary: confusing wording in the description of option
-fsanitize=address
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
--- Comment #23 from Ev Drikos ---
Created attachment 49841
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49841=edit
Test Cases Only
Hello,
I'm wondering whether a quick and dirty hack
that would keep derived type data per class
array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436
Samuel Benjamin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436
Bug ID: 98436
Summary: issue with casting member function on linux32 bit only
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
33 matches
Mail list logo
