https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87916
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-11-7
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87916
Bug ID: 87916
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in dwarf2out_abstract_function, at
dwarf2out.c:22479 since r264943
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87793
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg00411.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87905
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Raymond Jennings from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > >
> > > Note in the test package that neither struct is exposed to the other
> > > translation unit.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87874
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Nov 7 06:25:30 2018
New Revision: 265860
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265860=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR87874] avoid const-wide-int subreg in LRA
Just like CONST_INT,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87793
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 44966
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44966=edit
candidate patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87915
Bug ID: 87915
Summary: emit warning if (explicit) vectorization failed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87914
Bug ID: 87914
Summary: gcc fails to vectorize bitreverse code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87905
--- Comment #4 from Raymond Jennings ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> >
> > Note in the test package that neither struct is exposed to the other
> > translation unit.
>
> But it's violation of C++ ODR and as LTO compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87913
Bug ID: 87913
Summary: max(n, 1) code generation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87793
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87909
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87911
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In OpenMP 5.0 this got clarified, in C/C++ all expressions with just very few
exceptiosn in the grammar in clauses are assignment-expression. I'll change it
this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87912
Bug ID: 87912
Summary: ICE with comma operator in C OpenACC async clause
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, openacc
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87911
Bug ID: 87911
Summary: OpenACC/OpenMP clauses parsing: comma operator vs.
separator
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87910
Bug ID: 87910
Summary: Missing typename/template not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Nov 6 20:20:06 2018
New Revision: 265851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265851=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-11-06 John Bytheway
PR libstdc++/87872
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87869
--- Comment #5 from Nick Bowler ---
Looking at some of my other code output, it looks that these long encodings are
emitted a lot more frequently than it would seem they are needed.
If shorter store encodings were used more generally then I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87902
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So why does it use r12 there if it could use r2? That's an RA problem.
This is related to PR87708, in a way.
prepare_shrinkwrap needs a good overhaul. Moving all copies down also
*degrades* code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87886
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83648
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87909
Bug ID: 87909
Summary: Undocumented option -f{,no-}tree-cselim
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87900
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87901
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87908
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87908
Bug ID: 87908
Summary: ICE in check_interface0, at fortran/interface.c:1841
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28205
--- Comment #4 from Joev Dubach ---
clang 7.0.0 now has the option -finstrument-functions-after-inlining (see
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39331 ), which is the same feature I asked for in
this bug. It'd be great if gcc could add this option too!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87907
Bug ID: 87907
Summary: ICE in resolve_contained_fntype, at
fortran/resolve.c:587
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #8 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87881
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> First, I have tested the patch at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44892
> with the test in pr40196 comment 9 without seeing any problem.
> So it seems that the problem has been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87899
--- Comment #3 from Renlin Li ---
(In reply to Renlin Li from comment #1)
> in tree-loop-distribution.c, distribution_loop function, I got the following
> code snippets.
>
> 30386: 0103cff4 4 OBJECT LOCAL DEFAULT 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87884
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87899
--- Comment #2 from Renlin Li ---
Created attachment 44965
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44965=edit
disassembly of distribute_loop
disassembly of wrongly compiled distribute_loop function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87899
--- Comment #1 from Renlin Li ---
in tree-loop-distribution.c, distribution_loop function, I got the following
code snippets.
30386: 0103cff4 4 OBJECT LOCAL DEFAULT 25 _ZL23bb_top_order_index_s
30387: 0103cff8 4 OBJECT LOCAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86850
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86850
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 6 15:46:42 2018
New Revision: 265848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265848=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-11-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/86850
* vec.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87906
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Iff we are sure abstract origin and BLOCK are never in the same SCC we can
fixup
during stream-in, but it's still somewhat ugly and it feels that we are losing
some debug info here (which clone we inlined).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87882
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87904
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87906
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87866
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> > --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> > I backported a fix from the D sources so it should no longer segfault at
> > least.
>
> It doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87906
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Better test-cases that do not violate ODR:
$ cat 1.ii
namespace com {
namespace sun {
namespace star {}
} // namespace sun
} // namespace com
namespace a = com::sun::star;
namespace com {
namespace sun {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87905
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
As a workaround wrap the offending code in an anonymous namespace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87902
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Bisect points to r265398: combine: Do not combine moves from hard
registers.
I wonder what would be the best place to fix this? I was thinking about
making shrink-wrapping try harder by not limiting the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87866
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> I backported a fix from the D sources so it should no longer segfault at
> least.
It doesn't indeed.
> From what I can see, it should pick up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87906
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-11-6
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87906
Bug ID: 87906
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected block, have
function_decl in block_ultimate_origin, at
tree.c:12326 since r264734
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87892
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Hints from Jakub:
marxin: just look at libgomp sources, I have all kinds of stuff there
jakub: ok, then let me fix that
marxin: sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN) is a good fallback if the
affinity doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
so I looked a little more at this.
As Rainer points out, the libsupc++ implementation does not provide
cxa_rethrow_primary_exception whereas the libc++-abi.dylib has it.
For the macOS implementations of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87892
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87905
--- Comment #1 from Raymond Jennings ---
just do g++ -flto *.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87892
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87905
Bug ID: 87905
Summary: structures in two different cpp source files with same
name get flagged by ODR warning
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87884
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> In general we have issues with warnings when sanitizers are used.
> Martin: What about notifying users that one should not combine sanitizers
> and warnings? It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86850
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> diff --git a/gcc/vec.h b/gcc/vec.h
> index f8c039754d2..407269c5ad3 100644
> --- a/gcc/vec.h
> +++ b/gcc/vec.h
> @@ -1688,7 +1688,7 @@ template
> inline void
> vec::splice (const vec )
> {
> - if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87892
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87884
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> In general we have issues with warnings when sanitizers are used.
More than that.
You also have a compile-time errors now!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87904
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87904
Bug ID: 87904
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in lookup_mark, at cp/tree.c:2322
since r265679
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87896
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|7.3.1 |
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87902
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #82 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > Yep, this is because they used to be arrays indexed by symbol UIDs which
> > Martin converted to hash tables. Inliner happily calls summary_get each
> > time it needs the summary. I have some patches to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87762
--- Comment #3 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iii
Date: Tue Nov 6 13:20:21 2018
New Revision: 265844
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265844=gcc=rev
Log:
S/390: Introduce relative_long attribute
In order to properly fix PR87762,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #81 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 6 Nov 2018, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
>
> --- Comment #80 from Jan Hubicka ---
> >
> > flat perf profile:
> >
> > Samples:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86850
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #80 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> flat perf profile:
>
> Samples: 510K of event 'instructions:p', Event count (approx.): 715615147320
>
> Overhead Samples Command Shared Object Symbol
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87903
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87903
Bug ID: 87903
Summary: Documentation for __builtin_cpu_supports and
__builtin_cpu_is is not complete
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87902
Bug ID: 87902
Summary: [9 Regression] Shrink-wrapping multiple conditions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86850
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87884
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-11-6
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87892
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/google/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87892
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37150
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener ---
On the original testcase I now get
> ./f951 -quiet -Ofast t.f90 -march=core-avx2 -fopt-info-vec
t.f90:157:0: optimized: loop vectorized using 32 byte vectors
t.f90:158:0: optimized: basic block part
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27563|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87901
Bug ID: 87901
Summary: partial DSE of memset doesn't work for other kind of
stores
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87900
Bug ID: 87900
Summary: malloc + memse to calloc doesn't work for aggregate
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87885
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87865
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
> It required removing all system includes from all dmd frontend sources, but I
> think this OK now. I have verified that gcc_assert() is being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.0 |9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Nov 6 10:49:34 2018
New Revision: 265837
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265837=gcc=rev
Log:
Enable libsanitizer on Solaris (PR sanitizer/80953)
gcc:
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87899
Bug ID: 87899
Summary: [9 regression]r264897 cause mis-compiled native
arm-linux-gnueabihf toolchain
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Nov 6 10:42:05 2018
New Revision: 265836
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265836=gcc=rev
Log:
Cherry-pick Solaris sanitizer fixes (PR sanitizer/80953)
PR sanitizer/80953
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87881
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87889
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 6 10:23:30 2018
New Revision: 265833
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265833=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-11-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87889
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85787
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87723
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Tue Nov 6 10:22:05 2018
New Revision: 265832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265832=gcc=rev
Log:
S/390: Fix PR87723
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-11-06 Andreas Krebbel
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
One more test-case:
$ cat ice.ii
struct c {
int b;
};
struct e : c {
constexpr e() : c{} {}
};
using d = e;
const int ((2, d{}).b);
$ g++ ice.ii -c
ice.ii:8:24: internal compiler error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87885
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, I now recall. The intend was really to have three values
- profile before pass was run (which you can see from stats of previous
pass)
- profile after pass was run
- profile after cleanups
This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87895
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
And another one, apparently:
#pragma omp declare simd
int
vm (int *ty, int oh)
{
if ((oh == 0) ? (*ty = 0) : *ty)
return 0;
}
% x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-9.0.0-alpha20181104 -O1 -fopenmp -c logpnyyb.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87885
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
The patch makes sense to me. I am not sure why it was run after pass but before
cleanups originally... Seems like a bug.
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
