https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100370
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105164
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Yes, looking at clang++, they utilize G (group) section flags:
_ZN21WinsockInterfaceClass12Get_ProtocolEv: #
@_ZN21WinsockInterfaceClass12Get_ProtocolEv
.Lfunc_begin0:
.cfi_startproc
# %bb.0:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> It's there since the introduction of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> Anyway, nobody is going to run into this in practice. Maybe
> instead of ICEing we can just sorry from complex lowering ... eh.
For GCC 11/12 that sounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
It's there since the introduction of the option in r8-2176-g417ca0117a1a9a8a.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Most of the compile-time is spent in scheduling, so I think the scheduling
model was somehow exchanged.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Outputs from asm goto has been strongly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> More to the point the cited rev. doesn't look like it should change anything
> for -mtune=generic. Maybe the "generic" config is always the last one on
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105173
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
Summary|[10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105173
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1a5e7562d53a8d2256f754714b06595bea72196
commit r12-8020-ge1a5e7562d53a8d2256f754714b06595bea72196
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
More to the point the cited rev. doesn't look like it should change anything
for -mtune=generic. Maybe the "generic" config is always the last one on
aarch64 and now "demeter"? At least there doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Outputs from asm goto has been strongly demanded feature from mainly linux
kernel folks.
Allowing all but complex outputs from asm goto would be just weird.
I think if we can't punt on the cplx lowering
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 52760
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52760=edit
Test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] |[12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It would, but it would also give up quite often.
For VRP we can do better, because we don't have just the options exactly
correct answer or give up, we can have ranges.
So, say for flag_rounding_math, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105177
Bug ID: 105177
Summary: GCC should warn if pragma redefine_extname fails due
to missing declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105176
Bug ID: 105176
Summary: -fdce causes a non-dead variable to show as optimized
out when debugging only at -Os/Oz
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #22)
> > This doesn't take flag_rounding_math or not always exactly precise floating
> > point computations into account.
> > It is also missing real_convert after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105166
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105166
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4be08315124281f4e9359bc7e5279a99bdbdd053
commit r12-8019-g4be08315124281f4e9359bc7e5279a99bdbdd053
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99977
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99977
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f037a81fcd1ac5d5adddfb204e1c07bdd2bffbbe
commit r9-10006-gf037a81fcd1ac5d5adddfb204e1c07bdd2bffbbe
Author: Alex Coplan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #22 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> This doesn't take flag_rounding_math or not always exactly precise floating
> point computations into account.
> It is also missing real_convert after real_arithmetics that performs at least
> some of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Confirmed, a bit reduced test-case:
>
> $ cat 1.ii
> struct WinsockInterfaceClass {
> virtual int Get_Protocol() { return 0; }
> } PacketTransport;
>
> $
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #20)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #19)
> > We can use the original testcase as the litmus test for basic support if we
> > compile it with
> >
> > -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105173
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
[local count: 1073741824]:
i.0_1 = i;
_2 = (_Decimal32) i.0_1;
_12 = (_Decimal64) _2;
_13 = (_Decimal64) d_8(D);
_3 = _12 * _13;
_4 = (_Decimal64) c_9(D);
_5 = -_4;
_6 = _3 * _5;
d_10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
And the following works:
g++ 2.ii 1.ii -fpatchable-function-entry=1 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105173
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE: |[10/11/12 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105168
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105164
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105152
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #14 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> As has been said, we can't retroactively change released compilers from the
> last 2 decades. And going forward, I think walking the save_decoded_options
> is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So vectorizable_operation correctly says target_support_p == false and then
goes
on with
target_support_p = (optab_handler (optab, vec_mode)
!= CODE_FOR_nothing);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103329
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #19 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
> Sure, if that's what the precision is used for. The message from Andrew
> sounded like 'I want the precision for the shift operand but let me
> just use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As has been said, we can't retroactively change released compilers from the
last 2 decades. And going forward, I think walking the save_decoded_options is
just fine and reliable, other plugins use that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #12 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> I think kernel requires gcc >= 5.1 anyway.
there's more than one kernel version in active use and under
development/support, even by upstream, not to mention
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105163
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44fe49401725055a740ce47e80561b6932b8cd01
commit r12-8018-g44fe49401725055a740ce47e80561b6932b8cd01
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
I would expect the vectorizer to only generate vector modes which would fit
into word mode if no hardware vector support is available. E.g. for:
struct {
unsigned a, b, c, d;
} s;
foo() {
s.a &= 42;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jakub at redhat dot com|
--- Comment #11 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
>
> --- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
What is interesting here is any change will always going to be gcc 13+. So
requiring gcc 4.6+ is not a bad thing.
Gcc 12 does not even compile with gcc 4.7 or before now with the requirement of
c++11. Gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> Note for shifts the precision of the shift operand does not have to match
> that of the shifted operand. In your case you have vector << scalar, so you
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71770a0ea920641c53912f725f5abd4413b38fd5
commit r12-8017-g71770a0ea920641c53912f725f5abd4413b38fd5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105173
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #9 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> I think there might be a way to check if the option -frandom-seed was passed
> and that might be a better option for your usage anyways. You should check
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103761
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103761
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d037d9ad323ec9eef3e50c6e2cbc1e31191daa5d
commit r12-8016-gd037d9ad323ec9eef3e50c6e2cbc1e31191daa5d
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105168
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105166
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=105165
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=100134
--- Comment #4 from Sandipan Mohanty ---
Comment on attachment 52759
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52759
Preprocessed source generated by gcc
This bug remains unhandled as of 6 April 2022, making it difficult to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105164
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100134
--- Comment #3 from Sandipan Mohanty ---
Created attachment 52759
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52759=edit
Preprocessed source generated by gcc
Preprocessed source generated by gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think there might be a way to check if the option -frandom-seed was passed
and that might be a better option for your usage anyways. You should check the
options handling code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105163
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105160
--- Comment #7 from peterz at infradead dot org ---
(In reply to peterz from comment #6)
> Happy accident; I've been wanting to allow doing something like:
>
> static __always_inline __pure bool arch_static_branch(struct static_key *
> const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #6 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > So that I can decide whether I am allowed to do things totally randomly
> > or if I must follow some sort of seeded determinism.
>
> That is almost always the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105160
peterz at infradead dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peterz at infradead dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
Bug ID: 105175
Summary: [12 Regression] Pointless warning about missed vector
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105161
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105148
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86242eb1bd03eba82d8e22b01b16925d43bcc539
commit r12-8014-g86242eb1bd03eba82d8e22b01b16925d43bcc539
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103035
Bug 103035 depends on bug 105142, which changed state.
Bug 105142 Summary: [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O2 since r12-2591
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105142
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105142
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc8d9e4497032dd295aac9414042163f92250b77
commit r12-8012-gfc8d9e4497032dd295aac9414042163f92250b77
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2a818641ba5d07ebe2c241906896c4886910d18
commit r12-8011-ge2a818641ba5d07ebe2c241906896c4886910d18
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #15)
> no... we won't process ranges for anything unless it passes supports_type_p
> ():
>
> (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) || POINTER_TYPE_P (type)))
>
> oh oh oh.
>
101 - 180 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
