https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101276
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #8 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Reference the code of adjust_cond_for_loop_until_wrap, add code for non-const
cases. Code was added in adjust_cond_for_loop_until_wrap at beginning, to set
may_be_zero and no_overflow, the code was moved to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101276
Bug ID: 101276
Summary: [i386] Keylocker output should be cleared when
instruction reports runtime error.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #11)
> > FWIW, you could try something similar to how aarch64 handles this
> > for Advanced SIMD, with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #11)
> FWIW, you could try something similar to how aarch64 handles this
> for Advanced SIMD, with a combination of:
>
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101194
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a688c284dd3848b6c4ea553035f0f9769fb4fbc9
commit r12-1946-ga688c284dd3848b6c4ea553035f0f9769fb4fbc9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96204
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:613497aa6e28ca009d8498002424019d2a8a9ca5
commit r12-1945-g613497aa6e28ca009d8498002424019d2a8a9ca5
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6963c3b9ed1308bf5d2d8877956e56fec92853a7
commit r12-1943-g6963c3b9ed1308bf5d2d8877956e56fec92853a7
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, what I said was:
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> So unless we suddenly run out of new features to implement and bugs to fix,
> I don't think anybody is going to add documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101275
Bug ID: 101275
Summary: [RISCV] Document the machine constraint 'S' and make
it non-internal
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101265
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021, gcc at alanwu dot email via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> > [[attr1]] int [[attr2]] a[10] [[attr3]], b [[attr4]];
> > attr1 appertains to the variable declarations a and b,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101265
--- Comment #2 from Alan Wu ---
> int thisdoesnt[1] [[maybe_unused]];
> Whereas that one appertains to the array type
This seems to contradict the latest document I could find about the attribute
syntax proposal. From N2335
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #14 from Christopher Yeleighton ---
Will you accept an improvement regarding an issue RESOLVED WONTFIX?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101268
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christopher Yeleighton from comment #0)
> (I mean patches are not welcome)
Have you actually tried submitting any? I only see bug reports from you, not
patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I never said to read the standard though. I said to use cppreference.com
I repeat, cppreference.com is not the standard. What you are looking for is
cppreference.com.
(In reply to Christopher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #12 from Christopher Yeleighton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> Lots of things in our API docs are not in the standard, and lots of things
> in the standard are not in our API docs. If you're trying to use it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the v in is_integral_v stands for value :).
GCC's job is also not to teach you C++, though the documentation and warnings
can help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Lots of things in our API docs are not in the standard, and lots of things in
the standard are not in our API docs. If you're trying to use it for that, no
wonder it's painful. Stop it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christopher Yeleighton from comment #8)
> reply from the API doc was negative.
Stop trying to use it to check what is in the standard. It's not meant for
that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101181
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101269
--- Comment #1 from Indu Bhagat ---
Confirmed. This is reproducible with -m32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100459
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
--- Comment #7 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
I had a look at the optimized tree output which looks good to me. However, I
see that split2 transforms
(insn 218 222 114 15 (set (reg/v:TI 10 %r10 [orig:87 a ] [87])
(reg/v:TI 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |MOVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101247
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've reproduced it with -O1 -march=z14 and it started with
r10-7093-g5dc1390b41db5c1765e25fd21dad1a930a015aac
So, I think it is much more likely some RA issue or RTL optimization issue and
the r12-145
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101265
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021, gcc at alanwu dot email via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> [[maybe_unused]] int thisworks[1];
That attribute appertains to the declared entity.
> int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 100975, which changed state.
Bug 100975 Summary: [C++23] Allow pointer to array of auto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100975
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100975
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100975
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e66d0b7b87d105d24da8c4784a0b907fb6b2c095
commit r12-1933-ge66d0b7b87d105d24da8c4784a0b907fb6b2c095
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274
--- Comment #1 from yhf8377 ---
Sorry, forgot to list the compiler options we used.
g++ -std=c++17 -g -m64 -O0 -Wall -fmessage-length=0 -pthread -o gcc_test
src/main.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274
Bug ID: 101274
Summary: std::execution::seq has incorrect behaviour under GCC
11.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101271
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is the workaround for the undefined llvm code, but I don't understand the
error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] error: |[12 Regression] error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101273
Bug ID: 101273
Summary: d: missed RVO optimization with non-pod structs
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101272
Bug ID: 101272
Summary: [12 Regression] error: ‘nonnull’ argument ‘message’
compared to NULL [-Werror=nonnull-compare] since
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101267
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101267
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a075350ee7bffa6c90d9d233de78515f498b5149
commit r12-1932-ga075350ee7bffa6c90d9d233de78515f498b5149
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100488
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
just retried with trunk 20210630, the issue is still there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95006
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e61ffa201403e3814a43b176883e176716b1492f
commit r12-1931-ge61ffa201403e3814a43b176883e176716b1492f
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101271
Bug ID: 101271
Summary: [12 Regression] error: ‘static constexpr decltype ...
used before its definition
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
--- Comment #5 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Yes, I'm already looking into this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101270
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101220
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101257
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101270
Bug ID: 101270
Summary: error: inlining failed in call to ‘always_inline’
‘open.localalias’: function not inlinable with -fPIC
-fno-semantic-interposition
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101269
Bug ID: 101269
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/debug/btf/btf-datasec-1.c fails
with its introduction in r12-1852
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101220
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Was broken by the binutils commit f439988037a589de3798f44e7268301adaec21a9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Yeleighton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> While it would be nice if the libstdc++ API docs were 100% complete and
> described every piece of the library, that is never going to happen. If you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101268
Bug ID: 101268
Summary: Refer manual readers to cppreference.com for API
details
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Yeleighton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to Christopher Yeleighton from comment #3)
> > It should at least be present on the API page. The standard is not for
> > developers.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101220
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The same problem exists in gcc-10 and gcc-11 (gcc-9 does not generate the
wldrd/wstrd insructions), but I think this is a gas bug rather than a bug in
gcc. The output from the gcc-12 compiler does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101267
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > So we're having
> >
> > (gdb) p debug (slp_node)
> > t.f90:1:21: note: node 0x39fbbc0 (max_nunits=2,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101266
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51089
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51089=edit
gcc12-pr101266.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101266
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101267
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> So we're having
>
> (gdb) p debug (slp_node)
> t.f90:1:21: note: node 0x39fbbc0 (max_nunits=2, refcnt=1)
> t.f90:1:21: note: op template: _144
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94366
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.2|---
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
While it would be nice if the libstdc++ API docs were 100% complete and
described every piece of the library, that is never going to happen. If you are
trying to use those docs to learn C++ you should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101267
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66791
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Prathamesh Kulkarni
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a9d038ec10aa0d109ca965cc435934bfea92d14
commit r12-1927-g0a9d038ec10aa0d109ca965cc435934bfea92d14
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101267
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r12-1551-g3dfa4fe9f1a089b2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101267
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
SUBROUTINE sfddagd( regime, znt,ite ,jte )
REAL, DIMENSION( ime, IN) :: regime, znt
REAL, DIMENSION( ite, jte) :: wndcor_u
LOGICAL wrf_dm_on_monitor
IF( int4 == 1 ) THEN
DO j=jts,jtf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101094
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101267
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101094
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101267
Bug ID: 101267
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in vect_is_simple_use when
building 521.wrf_r with -Ofast -march=znver2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101264
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:39da8a7ba9a3a643e6318a5534d5d7c85a3bedfa
commit r12-1926-g39da8a7ba9a3a643e6318a5534d5d7c85a3bedfa
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241
--- Comment #10 from Raymond Langer ---
I've reported the bug here:
https://github.com/clearlinux/distribution/issues/2393
The problem seems to be a Clear Linux patch.
Thanks for your support!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98776
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> Fixed on master with r11-1245-g3dcea658c9e2ac84.
OK, so that's target specific then, thus aarch64 could still be broken.
assemble_start_function is the one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98776
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98776
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > Martin, can you bisect what fixed it?
>
> Sure. Please help me how to verify what is a correct output? Isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.1, 11.1.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94366
Phillip Lane changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pal0009 at uah dot edu
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
The problem shows up for option -O1 (options -O{0,2,3} are fine) and GCC 10 and
11 (mainline and GCC 9 are fine).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101266
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98776
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Martin, can you bisect what fixed it?
Sure. Please help me how to verify what is a correct output? Isn't that related
to DWARF 5 change done in GCC 11?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101266
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |c
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101262
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|11.1.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-30
Ever confirmed|0
87 matches
Mail list logo
