Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
- Test case -
$cat new_test.c
typedef vector unsigned int v4u;
extern v4u vg;
v4u testXXPERMDI(void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|linkw at gcc dot gnu.org |meissner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103196
--- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Or adjust the testcase. Please?
Thanks for the suggestion! I adjusted the test case by making it not unrolled
any more, as the patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
It can be reproduced even without cross build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103196
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-25
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103196
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104595
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104595
> >
> > --- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104595
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
I had one local hack and just found it can survive on x86 bootstrapping and
regression testing. I guess maybe it's good to post here. Just ignore this if
it looks like noise. :) The point is to do the conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103353
--- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> You miss all extra errors the expand_call can generate. This is the general
> reason why we try to continue instead of stopping after the first error. The
> r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103353
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103353
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #31 from Kewen Lin ---
Thanks for the comments, Segher and Peter! Your comments answered my question
in mind that the current unpack/pack pattern supports are complete or not.
IIUC, to cover it for both soft-float and hard-float case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104024
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> Most of those options were removed. Does this problem (adjusted properly,
> those options are now enabled iff you use -mcpu=power10 or later) still
> happen on
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the case:
#include "stdbool.h"
#define N 256
typedef char T;
extern T a[N];
extern T b[N];
extern T c[N];
extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104024
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104024
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 52475
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52475&action=edit
Tested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #26 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 52474
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52474&action=edit
Untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #25 from Kewen Lin ---
The key difference from the previous bif support is that: previously we checked
TARGET_HARD_FLOAT but now we didn't. I think we still need to check it, as the
document here
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99197
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104004
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
|NEW
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-17
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
Confirmed.
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-16
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
Confirmed.
Can't reproduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103627
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #35 from Kewen Lin ---
> I don't think the r12-6219 commit qualifies for backporting. What about the
> comment#31 patch? Does it address the issue for Eigen on the branches?
Got it. comment#31 patch can only address the mismatch i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #32 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #31)
> Created attachment 52383 [details]
> Simpler patch to fix the problem with power8-fusion.
>
> This patch just ignores the -mpower8-fusion option in the callee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #30 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to pc from comment #27)
> There was a commit related to this bug, but it is still in ASSIGNED state,
> so I'm not sure if this was to be considered "fixed", but...
>
> Chip discovered that, with a bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103702
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
--- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> Checking the number of tries might be useful, but if so, I think
> it should be done by a test that was written for that specific
> purpose. The tst can th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103702
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
Patch was posted with the link
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587309.html, still
pending on review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> I think the patch in comment 2 is the correct fix (OK to commit).
>
Thanks for the review and approval Richard!
I totally agree this test case can be fragi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
Hi Andre,
Thanks for the detailed explanations all below!
(In reply to avieira from comment #3)
> Hi Kewen,
>
> Thanks for the analysis. The param_vect_partial_vector_usage suggestion
> seems valid, but that
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
With further investigation, this isn't duplicated. Now we
|1
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org,
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-14
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
I think it's caused by r12-6240, si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104004
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-12-10 00:00:00 |2021-12-27
--- Comment #21 from Kewen Lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #20 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #19)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #17)
> > (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #16)
> > > Could there be any ld, or as, or glibc features involved that gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #17 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #16)
> Could there be any ld, or as, or glibc features involved that gcc's
> configure detects at build time?
Good point, what's the version of binutils you used? Does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin ---
>
> I tried it on a x86_64 cfarm machine:
>
> /home/linkw/gcc/gcc-test/configure --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> --target=powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> --prefix=/home/linkw/gcc/install/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #14 from Kewen Lin ---
> % powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.0 -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.0
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-
> wrapper
> Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #11)
> Unfortunately, I still have exactly the same ICE on this testcase w/ 12.0.0
> alpha20211219 snapshot:
>
> % powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.0 -mcpu=401 tt.c
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103627
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
For test.c, even we are on ppc64le P9, it can also get ICE:
extern float *dest;
extern __vector_quad src;
int
foo ()
{
__builtin_mma_disassemble_acc (dest, &src);
return 0;
}
$ gcc test.c -mcpu=power10 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103627
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
Also failed with r12-0.
I looked into the ICE with -mcpu=power6 -m32 on BE, the direct reason is that
we turn off VSX flag but still leave MMA, when it wants to emit one move for
V16QI it has to use multiple wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102347
--- Comment #19 from Kewen Lin ---
Filed PR103727 for aarch64 issue tracking.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
As PR102347 discussed and tested, aarch64 also does too strict built-in
function decl check. Here is one test case copied from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102347
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102347
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103622
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
> test.c: In function ‘get_float128_exponent’:
> test.c:4:5: note: overloaded builtin ‘__builtin_vec_scalar_extract_exp’ is
> implemented by builtin ‘__builtin_vsx_scalar_extract_expq’
>4 | return __bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103702
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103702
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103625
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #4)
> Kewen, how did you confirm this? My cross doesn't accept -mvsx as valid.
>
> $ /home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-e300/gcc/xgcc -c -O2 -mvsx pr103625.c
> -B/home/wschmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103627
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Confirmed. But even if I reverted my previous commit r12-5590 which introduced
this test case (from PR102347) into testsuites, this ICE still exists. So it's
not a regression related to the commit but a latent
||2021-12-10
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103625
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
> One fix seems to introduce one stanza for 128bit long double like previous
> RS6000_BTM_LDBL128 which is enabled only if (TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 &&
> TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && !TARGET_IEEEQUAD), and guard
> __buil
,
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
Probably started to fail from r12-5752.
In the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103622
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
> One thought seems to check instance->fntype first and take (skip) it as
> mismatch if it's NULL.
This looks like a bad idea, to use long double as the type instead of float128
when type float128 isn't suppor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103622
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Got exposed from r12-5752, r12-5751 we got the error msg like:
test.c: In function ‘get_float128_exponent’:
test.c:6:5: note: builtin ‘__builtin_vec_scalar_extract_exp’ requires builtin
‘__builtin_vsx_scalar_ex
,
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
Confirmed, this requires one e300c3 cross build to
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the test case:
vector double test(double *a, double *b) {
return (vector double) { *a, *b };
}
On Power10, we generate the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103515
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103515
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Here I assumed that the current cl optimization/option save and restore scheme
wants to keep the global_option/global_option_set same as the one from the
initial option processing. After we parsing all attribut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103515
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Test case:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C
Option:
-fno-early-inlining -Os
For function rs6000_can_inline_p, I tried to test if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #25 from Kewen Lin ---
Status update:
>
> The fusion related flags have been considered in the posted patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578552.html.
>
It's still being ping-ed for review since it'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102347
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102991
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102897
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
Status|ASSIGN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102897
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
The culprit assertion is based on one assumption, for one given VEC_PERM_EXPR
expression, if the type of permutation control vector and the type of
permutation operand is the same, and it's foldable, then it's d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
The patch was posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582454.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
The proposed patch was tested and just posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582453.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102897
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> index 9cbc1af4cc9..8f527452bd0 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102713
Bug 102713 depends on bug 102658, which changed state.
Bug 102658 Summary: [12 regression] Many test case failures after r12-4240
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102658
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102658
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> > We have the type
> > > type > size
> > unit-size
> > and movmisalign pattern is enab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102658
--- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin ---
> > For the failure:
> > FAIL: libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-8.c scan-tree-dump-times graphite "5
> > loops carried no dependency" 1
> >
> > It's not a target specific failure, Hongtao already posted one p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102658
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
There are some discussions [1] to improve the fixing way for the test cases in
g++.dg and c-c++-common. So I hold the changes adding powerpc*-*-* onto them,
just updated the testcases under gcc.target/powerpc/.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102658
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
r12-4273 caused some new expected failures:
FAIL: c-c++-common/Wstringop-overflow-2.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: c-c++-common/Wstringop-overflow-2.c -std=gnu++14 (test for excess
errors)
FAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102658
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
*** Bug 102713 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
|RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
These new failures are expected since the typos for target selector which are
fixed by this commit made these cases pass unexpectedly before (that is running
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102658
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 51576
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51576&action=edit
rs6000-test-Adjust-test-cases-due-to-O2-vect
Tested successfully on P9LE, note that it relies on r12-4273.
Still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102658
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
Some new XPASS:
XFAIL->XPASS: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-68.c pr101475 (test for warnings, line
61)
XFAIL->XPASS: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-68.c pr101475 (test for warnings, line
62)
XFAIL->XPASS: gcc.dg/Wstringo
||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-09
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
I'll take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102347
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > Quickly looking at the rs6000 code, it fails here:
> >
> > #1 0x11a0993c in rs6000_invalid_builtin
> > (fnco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102347
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102440
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The other option handling bug report I saw dealing with the awk script was
> recorded as other.
Thanks Andrew! I just found there is a "other", how blind I am!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102440
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Severit
601 - 700 of 956 matches
Mail list logo
