https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
6.22% 80774 wrf_r_peak.pgo __module_mp_wsm5_MOD_nislfv_rain_plm
5.50% 71494 wrf_r_peak.pgo __module_mp_wsm5_MOD_wsm52d
vs.
4.04% 49253 wrf_r_peak.std
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #7)
> Out of curiosity I tried to have a look at the debug output:
>
> It seems to me that it gets stuck in the circuit detection of a source line
> that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #9 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Created attachment 46320 [details]
> Dot of basic blocks at p4est_triangulation.f90':688
>
> Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90406
--- Comment #2 from Roman Lebedev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> That is again a clang bug. if clause is on the parallel (after all, it is
> not a combined/composite construct in this case), so the expression in the
> clause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89221
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu May 9 09:51:59 2019
New Revision: 271028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271028=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR89221] Continue to default to '--disable-frame-pointer' for x86 GNU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90403
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90383
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
struct alignas(8) A { constexpr A (bool x) : a(x) {} A () = delete; bool a; };
struct B { A b; };
constexpr bool
foo ()
{
B w{A (true)};
w.b = A (true);
return w.b.a;
}
static_assert (foo (), "");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90409
Bug ID: 90409
Summary: std::move[_backward] could be more optimized for deque
iterators
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch that I've been testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #8 from Marius Maraloi ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> Created attachment 46317 [details]
> Don't provide test_text for wrap fixes.
>
> The problem here is that the version I applied still had "test_text" set to
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90419
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
I talked to Palmer. Apparently what you want to do is build multilibs for lp64
and lp64d, to test the linux multilib support. That isn't currently supported.
I would suggest applying a local patch to change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90419
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
Bug ID: 90420
Summary: [GCOV] wrong coverage with "-O3" or "-O2"
optimizations for function call
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90387
JunMa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
--- Comment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 9 May 2019, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
>
> --- Comment #34 from bin cheng ---
> So we could have three different addressing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90402
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90401
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90402
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Aww. So this is caused by doing VN on the if-converted body which elides
a PHI node, sth not expected here. Have to do a bit more surgery here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46319
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46319=edit
Unreduced test-case
Yes, I used creduce. I'm attaching unreduced test-case.
101 - 131 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
