https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89903
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89896
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Index: gcc/lto-wrapper.c
===
--- gcc/lto-wrapper.c (revision 270053)
+++ gcc/lto-wrapper.c (working copy)
@@ -1671,7 +1671,7 @@ cont:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89885
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89886
--- Comment #2 from vfdff ---
it was worked in function varpool_node::finalize_decl (tree decl)
/* Set definition first before calling notice_global_symbol so that
it is available to notice_global_symbol. */
node->definition = true;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89901
Jonny Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
[...]
> I posted this to gcc-patches in three parts, it would be good if you can test
> it on solaris before I commit.
Sure: I meant to do so once
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89901
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #0)
> > > Could g++ indicate the carat on returned var?
> >
> > It is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89901
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |c++
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89901
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #0)
> > Could g++ indicate the carat on returned var?
>
> It is doing.
>
> The declaration of a variable 'const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #52 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 1 11:36:25 2019
New Revision: 270055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270055=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-04-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/46590
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89901
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #0)
> Could g++ indicate the carat on returned var?
It is doing.
The declaration of a variable 'const char** a' is not "the returned var".
The value returned by f()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-270053-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-i686
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190401 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89902
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
If -mavx512f is used instead, gcc-7 does not ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
ad model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190401 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89901
Bug ID: 89901
Summary: carat of build error at wrong letter
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89899
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
With the MSVC compiler 'volatile' has additional non-standard semantics.
You need to use locks or atomics for other compilers.
http://isvolatileusefulwiththreads.in/c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89897
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89899
--- Comment #2 from hosang ---
Our member mentioned this code is lock-free implementation for performance.
The gcc result is different from msvc.
Is there any chance impractical memory write reorder by gcc?
Thank you very much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89900
Bug ID: 89900
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
check_instantiated_arg)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #51 from Richard Biener ---
Alternative patch, the first one doesn't seem to work (probably
all_blocks is sometimes NULL, will debug).
Index: gcc/df.h
===
--- gcc/df.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #49 from Richard Biener ---
I have a fix for the copy-headers issue. Afterwards:
tree copy headers : 0.03 ( 0%) 0.01 ( 3%) 0.03 ( 0%)
4763 kB ( 3%)
with the remaining worst offenders being
df live
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed with following backtrace:
#0 0x01301f52 in node::PerIsolatePlatformData::RunForegroundTask
(task=...) at /usr/include/c++/8/bits/unique_ptr.h:342
#1 0x01303523 in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89791
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 89791 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
>
> --- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
> With -O2, the combiner takes up quite a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
>
> --- Comment #32 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> Historically, a local register asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80782
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89861
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Apr 1 07:17:38 2019
New Revision: 270053
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270053=gcc=rev
Log:
Enhance option suggestion for options expected an argument (PR driver/89861).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89861
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 1 07:16:38 2019
New Revision: 270052
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270052=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-04-01 Richard Biener
PR c/71598
* gimple.c: Include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89840
Damian Rouson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89840
--- Comment #2 from Damian Rouson ---
The PR was cited in the original description: Bug 64777. It was closed for
lack of a test cased and the person who closed it suggested opening a new PR if
a test case was provided so I attempted to do so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89899
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89896
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89899
Bug ID: 89899
Summary: g++ compiler error report
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
101 - 146 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
