https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> Confirmed.
Merci, Dominique. Would you actually advise to compile without bootstrap and
start using gcc, or wait until the reason for the bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94136
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #16 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> +2016-11-09 Segher Boessenkool
> +
> + * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1): Simplify
> + (xor (and (xor A B) C) B) to (ior (and A C) (and B ~C)) and
> + (xor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100305
--- Comment #13 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
Thanks Richard for the quick fix.
I am happy to confirm that the latest trunk passes the three reproducers
included in this ticket.
However, the latest gcc-11 branch only passes the mini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #4 from W E Brown ---
I won't comment on any compiler's behavior, but do want to thank you for
reminding me of [namespace.udecl]/14:
"When a using-declarator brings declarations from a base class into a derived
class, member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100267
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> > After support v{,p}expand* thats w/o mask operands, codegen seems to be
> > optimal
> >
>
> I was wrong, without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
You are going to have to provide the whole build log to figure out why this is
happening.
Are you using a network mounted drive? If so do they have the time syncronized
between them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |bootstrap
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-02-03 00:00:00 |2021-4-29
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100348
Bug ID: 100348
Summary: RISC-V extra pointer adjustments for memcpy() from
glibc
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
--- Comment #1 from Erik Schnetter ---
Forgot to add: When I explicitly use "-march=skylake", everything works as
expected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
Bug ID: 100347
Summary: GCC 11 does not recognize skylake; translates
"march=native" to "x86_64"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
--- Comment #2 from Mark Hittinger ---
../gcc-11.1.0/configure \
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc1110 \
--disable-multilib \
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
x64 fedora using binutils-2.36 and gcc 10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100346
Bug ID: 100346
Summary: [11 regression] printf tests fail after r11-6755
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 50713
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50713=edit
Preprocess
sorry. the file was too large.
It looks like it is an issue related to constexpr evaluation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Testcase?
i can only provide preprocess file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
Bug ID: 100345
Summary: gcc 11.1 build "make -n install" fails linking gcov
undefined reference to
std::__throw_bad_array_new_length()
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Actually standard seems to require it - at least to my understanding of wait()
description in in chapter 31.8.1: it explicitly states that waiting is
performed in a loop, and loop is exited
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
D:\hg\fast_io\.tmp\dragonboxtest>g++ -o a a.cc -Ofast -std=c++20 -s -flto
-march=native -Wall -Wextra
In file included from ../../include/fast_io_core_impl/codecvt/impl.h:7,
from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
Bug ID: 100344
Summary: compiler ICE internal compiler error: in build_call_a,
at cp/call.c:38
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100330
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100343
Bug ID: 100343
Summary: add -Wundefined-inline for inline function is used but
not defined
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't know if that rule applies here. If it did, this would be invalid too
(by [over.load]/2.1), but all compilers agree that this is OK:
struct Base {
int method() {}
};
struct Derived : Base {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #2 from Daniel ---
As an extra Info: the other compilers I tested (e.g. clang) accept the code
example as is.
But after reading the cited pet of the standard It seems that GCC is right in
rejecting this and the other compilers have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100183
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> > gcc304 is the Apple M1 machine. The GCC support there is highly
> > experimental and not in master -- please note that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I just check, with --disable-bootstrap, gcc compiles to the end. Just the
checksums of the object files for bootstrap between stage 2 and 3 don't agree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100183
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100275
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100341
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100341
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
it looks we need to rebuild cross compiler before Canadian cross-compile
because the cross compiler itself might not provide the macros we need.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On a system where things fail (Ubuntu 20.04.1):
Python 2.7.18
GNU gdb (GDB) 11.0.50.20201107-git
On a working system (Ubuntu 18.04.5):
Python 2.7.17
GNU gdb (Ubuntu 8.1.1-0ubuntu1) 8.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
Bug ID: 100342
Summary: [10/11 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-dse
-fno-forward-propagate -mno-sse2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82359
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100341
Bug ID: 100341
Summary: build fails of error: '__LIBGCC_DF_EPSILON__'
undeclared (first use in this function) for mingw-w64
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82359
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b24d8acbfffe30f40e280f11f23adac81b1e7f0c
commit r12-302-gb24d8acbfffe30f40e280f11f23adac81b1e7f0c
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
After update to macOS Big Sur 11.3 with XCode 12.5 and Apple Clang
clang-1205.0.22.9, bootstrap doesn't work any more:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
Bug ID: 100340
Summary: Bootstrap fails with Clang 12.0.5 (XCode 12.5)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100339
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100339
Bug ID: 100339
Summary: Bogus "should have been declared inside" error with
friend
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Some of these tests are sensitive to GDB and Python versions. Do they differ
between machines?
I'll take a look at this tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
Bug ID: 100338
Summary: [11 regression] Python error running test case after
r11-2720
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51344
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0fdff3cf33f72848d3f894272431a5d49fe6a16
commit r12-299-ga0fdff3cf33f72848d3f894272431a5d49fe6a16
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97974
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58a92b789a77cdade1f41800efebf6e0686f9982
commit r12-298-g58a92b789a77cdade1f41800efebf6e0686f9982
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100304
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Can't reproduce this one.
Were you testing with a clean build, or did you have PR100303 fix applied?
On master, it stopped failing for me between r12-285 (BAD)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100331
Michael Benfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mbenfield at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68942
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68942
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efeca0ac4155b76ce713155f190422aac20537c5
commit r12-295-gefeca0ac4155b76ce713155f190422aac20537c5
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50710
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50710=edit
gcc12-pr94589-wip.patch
WIP patch that just matches those spaceship comparisons followed by single use
comparison of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94102
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94102
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f24702258fc78ac37b3e8154d76239cccd30c422
commit r12-294-gf24702258fc78ac37b3e8154d76239cccd30c422
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99401
Brecht Sanders changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100337
Bug ID: 100337
Summary: Should be able to pass non-present optional arguments
to CO_BROADCAST
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46250
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.5.0, 6.5.0, 7.5.0
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Rodgers ---
This analysis is likely correct, except for -
"- protect from spurious wakeups in __waiter_pool::_M_do_wait by rechecking if
the value has changed from old, if not then wait again"
An earlier version of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100303
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100303
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c97351c0cf4872cc0e99e73ed17fb16659fd38b3
commit r12-292-gc97351c0cf4872cc0e99e73ed17fb16659fd38b3
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92482
Ivan Tubert-Brohman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ivan.tubert-brohman@schrodi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Writing a phiopt patch now.
/config/i386/i386-isa.def
/home/dcb/gcc/results.20210429.asan.ubsan/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12.0.0/plugin/include/config/i386/
$
My best guess is that the "make install" should do this copy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50708|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
During lower_rec_input_clauses in omp-low.c, the reduction clause is handled:
...
case OMP_CLAUSE_REDUCTION:
case OMP_CLAUSE_IN_REDUCTION:
/* OpenACC reductions are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña from comment #11)
> Thank you. But the first CE link: https://godbolt.org/z/cPWdGW, and with the
> addition in Comment 2: https://godbolt.org/z/Gezh5h5W4, they still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
C example:
...
/* { dg-additional-options "-foffload=-latomic" } */
#include
struct s
{
int i;
};
#pragma omp declare reduction(+: struct s: omp_out.i += omp_in.i)
int
main (void)
{
const int N0 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100312
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #5 from Steven Munroe ---
Any progress on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Unfortunately the patch does not work because there aren't suffixes for IFmode
and KFmode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
Bug ID: 100335
Summary: Using statement of a ref-qualified method from base
class: method not callable on derived object
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100312
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd5d57946036c967dae292330fa0aa856a58fb4b
commit r12-290-gfd5d57946036c967dae292330fa0aa856a58fb4b
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #3 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
If my analysis is correct then:
- we need to force __all = true param in __waiter_pool_base::_M_notify,
- protect from spurious wakeups in __waiter_pool::_M_do_wait by rechecking if
the value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #2 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
I have adapted the test to gcc trunk, but I am not entirely sure it is correct,
because I don't have gcc trunk locally, I was just testing this on wandbox.org
The problem is even bigger here,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99401
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe dup of PR99872 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #1 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
This test assumes previous waiter implementation (I used gcc-11 available from
Ubuntu 21.04), latest atomic_wait impl has the same problem, it is just that
waiter is selected in a different way,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
Bug ID: 100334
Summary: atomic::notify_one() sometimes wakes wrong thread
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
#include
bool k(int a, int b){
auto c = (a <=> b);
return c>0;
}
Produces
[local count: 1073741824]:
if (a_1(D) == b_3(D))
goto ; [34.00%]
else
goto ; [66.00%]
[local count:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100331
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-29
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81778
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100173
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> > but yes, cselim will also sink the first store, moving it across the
>
> Can we also sink loads?
loads are usually hoisted, not sunk.
> assign pointer to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 50707
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50707=edit
prototype
For reference this is the prototype patch I mentioned. I wasn't entirely happy
and wanted to explore the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:985b3a6837dee7001e6b618f073ed74f0edf5787
commit r12-285-g985b3a6837dee7001e6b618f073ed74f0edf5787
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Jun 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100259
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100333
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100333
Bug ID: 100333
Summary: arm: ICE (unrecognizable insn) with CMSE nonsecure
call and -march=armv8.1-m.main
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100259
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:75d1d6841dd90649ea03cbe2ec43c3cfb27bebe8
commit r9-9475-g75d1d6841dd90649ea03cbe2ec43c3cfb27bebe8
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100259
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b6fecd9e594c7342141c334644d3938c8e5fcdb
commit r10-9780-g9b6fecd9e594c7342141c334644d3938c8e5fcdb
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100259
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e54a34eed4f941cf09f27245bb3a5bfdb406a16
commit r11-8330-g4e54a34eed4f941cf09f27245bb3a5bfdb406a16
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> For PR7
> I have prototyped a forwprop patch to try constant folding
> stmts with all-constant PHIs, thus in this case c$_M_value_2 > 0,
> when there's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100173
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
> but yes, cselim will also sink the first store, moving it across the
Can we also sink loads? assign pointer to another temp pointer in both if and
else bb, and then load val from this temp pointer. those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 100311, which changed state.
Bug 100311 Summary: UB in sel-sched.c:init_regs_for_mode with
-march=armv8-m.base
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100311
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100311
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100324
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> /bin/sh: ../libtool: No such file or directory
>
> that's odd. What's your host operating system, in particular what shell
> is /bin/sh?
>
> You'd need to see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100311
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0ae39ce2c3b4d635de6102ec3750cf6109cdc8d
commit r10-9778-gd0ae39ce2c3b4d635de6102ec3750cf6109cdc8d
Author: Richard
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
