https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Jul 25 11:39:23 2017
New Revision: 250509
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250509&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2017-05-06 trunk r247719.
PR rtl-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79793
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 41827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41827&action=edit
An untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79793
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9)
> Created attachment 41826 [details]
> Adjust INCOMING_FRAME_SP_OFFSET for TYPE_EXCEPTION functions
>
> How about something like attached patch? The patch adjusts
> INCOM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[5/6/7/8 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Jul 25 11:55:44 2017
New Revision: 250511
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2017-05-06 trunk r247719.
PR rtl-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79793
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 41828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41828&action=edit
An updated patch
Update gcc.dg/guality/pr68037-1.c. I got
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr68037-1.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79041
--- Comment #8 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Tue Jul 25 12:08:59 2017
New Revision: 250514
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250514&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR79041
As described in PR79041, -mcmodel=large -mpc-relative-literal-loads
m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49857
--- Comment #15 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 41829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41829&action=edit
pr49857-v2-all.diff: Proposed patch
PR 49857
* target.def (TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_FOR_ARTIFICIAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49857
--- Comment #16 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #15)
> pr49857-v2-all.diff: Proposed patch
Problems so far:
* ivopts may shred address-space which results in wrong code. This is is the
reason for why the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81533
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think there's a separate PR with the suggestion to try constexpr
> evaluation of all constructors for optimization.
Addresses are not constexpr because the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79793
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41826|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80365
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79930
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Try -fno-slsr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81549
Bug ID: 81549
Summary: PHI node should be eliminated if loop iterates enough
times.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79041
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81529
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 25 13:22:31 2017
New Revision: 250517
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250517&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81529
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81455
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81455
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49578
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81532
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jul 25 13:35:17 2017
New Revision: 250520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250520&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81532
* config/i386/constraints.md (Yd, Ye): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56860
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81544
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81549
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. This is sort of final value replacement (but not SCEV based).
Hi, do we have dedicated pass responsible for this transformation? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81549
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Confirmed. This is sort of final value replacement (but not SCEV based).
Hmm, it could be SCEV based if we rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81549
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81549
>
> --- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81538
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2017-07-25, at 3:46 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Any other compiler versions to put in known-to-work/fail?
The fault doesn't occur with gcc-7:
gcc version 7.1.0 (Debian 7.1.0-9).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81532
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56780
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81407
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Jul 25 14:32:30 2017
New Revision: 250522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250522&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2017-07-12 trunk r250151.
PR target/81
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81407
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39117
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24293
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63878
Bug 63878 depends on bug 24293, which changed state.
Bug 24293 Summary: Undefined behaviour not diagnosed with -fsyntax-only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24293
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You get the same thing with any other cleanup, say:
struct C { C (); ~C (); };
int
foo (int a, int b)
{
C c;
switch (a)
{
case 0:
switch (b)
{
default:
return 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81550
Bug ID: 81550
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/loop_align.c fails
starting with r250482
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
--disable-rda --disable-sid --disable-tui
--disable-utils --disable-werror --disable-fixed-point
Thread model: single
gcc version 8.0.0 20170725 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81551
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #23 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Ah ok, yes I think you are right. The check could possibly be in "cp/typeck.c"
and "cp/tree.c"? but I'm not familiar with this C++ parsing code.
Interesting that this code gets warning:
B* foo(A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81521
--- Comment #4 from Jim Wilson ---
Author: wilson
Date: Tue Jul 25 16:06:37 2017
New Revision: 250529
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250529&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix i686-pc-cygwin build failure.
gcc/
PR bootstrap/81521
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81552
Bug ID: 81552
Summary: -finit-integer=n
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81551
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19972
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Pelissier ---
I have tested with GCC 7.1.0 the code of #0 (forget the function h, this was
only a reference) and the status is the same as described in #0.
For the following code,
int (*apply (int (*f) (const void *,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81521
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
How does typeck.c check that it is a temporary? The important thing is not
that it is an ARRAY_REF but that it is a member of a temporary object. Not
sure how to check that.
Marc points above that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To get rid of the warning just with -fsanitize=threads we could do:
--- gcc/tree-eh.c.jj2017-07-14 13:04:47.0 +0200
+++ gcc/tree-eh.c 2017-07-25 17:09:58.279461377 +0200
@@ -1598,7 +1598,8 @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41027
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80939
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jul 25 18:04:32 2017
New Revision: 250533
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250533&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80939 Remove unmeetable constexpr specifiers
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80737
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jul 25 18:04:27 2017
New Revision: 250532
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250532&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80737 backport std::variant fix from mainline
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jul 25 18:04:54 2017
New Revision: 250536
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250536&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81017 add noexcept to std::function move operations
Backpor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jul 25 18:05:13 2017
New Revision: 250539
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250539&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80553 don't allow destroying non-destructible types
Backpo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37874
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39985
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43728
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81538
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2017-07-25, at 10:02 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> Will check gcc-5 when current build
> completes.
Both gcc-5 and gcc-6 are broken.
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20385
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20385
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81469
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Gutson ---
Any update on this? Could someone review the proposed patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47702
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38481
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ericb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38481
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45977
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45977
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49702
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81521
mateuszb at poczta dot onet.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81538
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2017-07-25, at 2:46 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> Both gcc-5 and gcc-6 are broken.
Take that back; only gcc-6 is broken. I incorrectly set the package up for
gcc-5
in my first at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jul 25 19:40:50 2017
New Revision: 250542
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250542&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-07-25 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jul 25 19:42:36 2017
New Revision: 250543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250543&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-07-25 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jul 25 19:44:10 2017
New Revision: 250544
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250544&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-07-25 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51309
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53984
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/overflow/char/9182-2.cc execution test
This fails because it explicitly tests for an exception:
try
{
fbuf1.sputn("ison", 4);
fbuf1.pubsync();
VERIFY( fal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81448
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> PR81364 is fixed, do you still see any false positives?
Well adding braces would fix the warning,
but consider this slightly reduced test case:
void b_ecb_encr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53984
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jul 25 20:36:06 2017
New Revision: 250545
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250545&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/53984 handle exceptions in basic_istream::sentry
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81553
Bug ID: 81553
Summary: ICE in immed_wide_int_const, at emit-rtl.c:607
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53984
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69853
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tuwwcn at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81527
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.2
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80939
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80737
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81469
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patches should be sent to the gcc-patches anbd libstdc++ mailing lists, not
attached to bugzilla.
The line should be wrapped to less than 80 columns, and C++1z should be C++17,
although I wouldn't bother w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81469
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We'll probably also want to adjust any tests for uncaught_exception so they
don't give a deprecated warning when run with RUNTESTFLAGS=unix/-std=c++17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81524
--- Comment #3 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Isn't AddressSanitizer checking in run-time? There are several tools that can
find this bugs in runtime I think like Valgrind, but I need to find this at
compile-time.
I use embedded arm-eabi target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81553
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77304
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2016-09-07 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39808
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81554
Bug ID: 81554
Summary: [8 Regression] 25% performance regression in Himeno
benchmark
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81554
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81554
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
#define MR(mt,n,r,c,d) mt->m[(n) * mt->mrows * mt->mcols * mt->mdeps + (r) *
mt->mcols* mt->mdeps + (c) * mt->mdeps + (d)]
#define MR(mt,n,r,c,d) mt->m[(((n) * mt->mrows + (r)) * mt->mcols + (c)) *
mt->md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81519
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> I can take a look later for GCC 8.0.
Thank you Martin! I still don't understand enough of gcc to be able to do this
in any reasonable time frame and I've only wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81555
Bug ID: 81555
Summary: Wrong code at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81527
--- Comment #4 from Wei-Wei Tu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> I don't think the code is valid, copy/move constructors are not inherited.
> See PR 69853 for a similar bug report.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicat
101 - 200 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
