https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98470
--- Comment #1 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It happens at the reload pass when reload transforms the following RTL that
comes to it from the IRA pass:
(insn 20 163 164 30 (set (reg:SF 162 [ iftmp.0_87 ])
(mem/u/c:SF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98470
Bug ID: 98470
Summary: ICE: "error: insn does not satisfy its constraints"
with hard FP on xtensa
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98332
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98469
Bug ID: 98469
Summary: ICE in cxx_eval_constant_expression, at
cp/constexpr.c:6350
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Hi Denis Yaroshevskiy:
Could you mark this bug as blocks PR98375
(This metabug is used to track all the patches which have been written during
Stage 3 of GCC 11 but do not qualify for that stage, and are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
> So add combine splitter?
I'm testing this patch
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
gcc/config/i386/sse.md | 16 +++-
modified gcc/config/i386/sse.md
@@ -640,7 +640,8 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
in rtl phase, gcc successfully simplify
(and:V4DI (not:V4DI (reg:V4DI 91))
(constm1_rtx)
to
(not:V4DI (reg:V4DI 91)).
But combine failed to match
(set (reg:SI 88)
(unspec:SI [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
--- Comment #23 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #22)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #21)
> > Add define_code_attr like aarch64/iterators.md?
> >
> > --
> > ;; Map rtl objects to optab names
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98456
--- Comment #2 from moub.ahmed at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to moub.ahmed from comment #0)
> > This uses std::get :
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98464
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
Anthony Sharp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anthonysharp15 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98467
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98468
Bug ID: 98468
Summary: [9 regression] test case gcc.target/powerpc/rlwimi-2.c
fails starting with r9-3594
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98467
Bug ID: 98467
Summary: gcc optimizes tapping code away
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That just exposes a latent compiler bug though.
Slightly reduced:
#include
struct empty { };
struct A
{
std::tuple _member;
virtual ~A(){}
};
A a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98466
Bug ID: 98466
Summary: Iterators for unordered containers do not
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98456
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98464
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE: tree |[11 Regression] ICE: tree
/gcc-trunk-20201228/include/c++/11.0.0/string:40,
from :1:
In static member function 'static constexpr std::char_traits::char_type*
std::char_traits::copy(std::char_traits::char_type*, const
char_type*, std::size_t)',
inlined from 'static void std::__cxx11::basic_string<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98464
Bug ID: 98464
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class
'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
tree_nop_conversion_p, at tree.c:12825
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98112
--- Comment #7 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> (In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #5)
> > Please read my first comment why copy relocs is a bad name.
>
> Since I reply to some of that (namely, your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96100
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98460
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.2.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98450
--- Comment #1 from maic ---
As a temporary workaround to suppress the erroneous warning, `auto` can be
used:
$ cat /tmp/c.cpp
#include
static constexpr auto bay = std::array{9};
static constexpr std::array bax{9};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following hack fixes the testcase in comment#10,
but not the testcase in comment#2:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
index 249f402b8d9..2c9570d4641 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
Bug ID: 98463
Summary: [11 Regression] internal compiler error: in
output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5491
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96100
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9db58db5b3986531475968dd383f13a3f925d7ae
commit r9-9136-g9db58db5b3986531475968dd383f13a3f925d7ae
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9db58db5b3986531475968dd383f13a3f925d7ae
commit r9-9136-g9db58db5b3986531475968dd383f13a3f925d7ae
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47c1d976146913fad43688d45727d0038de174c7
commit r10-9181-g47c1d976146913fad43688d45727d0038de174c7
Author: Paul Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96100
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47c1d976146913fad43688d45727d0038de174c7
commit r10-9181-g47c1d976146913fad43688d45727d0038de174c7
Author: Paul Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c2840cf16aaa665aaac4f51345104c5766fb2406
commit r10-9180-gc2840cf16aaa665aaac4f51345104c5766fb2406
Author: Paul Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98462
Bug ID: 98462
Summary: ICE when making iomanip module and all modules after
it
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93993
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> > (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #4)
> > > The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm
> > > :
> > >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The test compiles if I replace
print *, tmp
with
print *, tmp(3,1) ! or (6,1)
but it prints
1 2 2 3 3 4
instead of 2 or 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
Bug ID: 98461
Summary: Suboptimal codegen for negating a movemask
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96495
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96102
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98423
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is CWG2084 btw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98423
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98439
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I don't think this is a backend bug. The position of split pass in the pass
sequence assumes that no split candidates will be emitted after regstack, as
can be seen from the gate function of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to markeggleston from comment #8)
> As noted by Tobias:
>
> Patch was submitted
> at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-March/054072.html
> but the new mailing had stripped off the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92976
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #2 from martin ---
I further tried to find out what the call to find_symbol (this is the call
which consumed the compilation time) is achieving in read_modules(). Even with
the accidentially wrong patch everything just seems to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98460
Bug ID: 98460
Summary: _builtin_cpu_supports("sha") missing
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98451
Patrick Kox changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #1 from martin ---
Created attachment 49846
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49846=edit
corrected patch
Comparison with c was wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97827
--- Comment #14 from Matthias Klose ---
[...]
/tmp/ccQFzQVM.s:1082:2: error: changed section flags for .rodata.cst8,
expected:
0x12
.section.rodata.cst8
^
/tmp/ccQFzQVM.s:1082:2: error: changed section entsize for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98112
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #5)
> Please read my first comment why copy relocs is a bad name.
Since I reply to some of that (namely, your argument 1)), you could assume I
have read your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to martin from comment #9)
> Problems with default initialisation of function result were fixed with
> PR45489. The relevant testcase added by this PR is initialization_27.f90
> which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98454
martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mscfd at gmx dot net
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98112
--- Comment #5 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> (In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #3)
> > Are you happy with the option name -f[no-]direct-access-external-data ?
>
> Not at all, no :-(
>
> The name
57 matches
Mail list logo
