https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91035
--- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
It's hard to see how this could be a bug in the Go frontend. At first glance
this looks like a problem with the split-stack support on S/390.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91468
Bug ID: 91468
Summary: Suspicious codes in ipa-prop.c and ipa-cp.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91089
--- Comment #2 from Feng Xue ---
I've already created a patch under review. Please give some comments. Here it
is: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg00937.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91088
--- Comment #3 from Feng Xue ---
I've already created a patch under review. Please give some comments. Here it
is: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg00959.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91347
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
If DSE bug can't be fixed, the attached patch appears to work around the issue
by disabling
tail calls on pa when an argument is passed on stack.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89179
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91467
Bug ID: 91467
Summary: [concepts] ICE: in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15545
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89179
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
sz = sz_fn{};
int main()
{
auto arr = std::array{1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
return !std::is_invocable_v;
}
~~~
results in:
~~~~
In file included from :1:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20190815/include/c++/10.0.0/type_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91465
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91465
Bug ID: 91465
Summary: unexpected expression of kind overload (ICE)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91443
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Aug 15 22:52:40 2019
New Revision: 274551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274551=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-15 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91443
* frontend-passes.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91464
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64372
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 15 21:55:19 2019
New Revision: 274550
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274550=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/90393 - ICE with thow in ?:
My previous patch for 64372 was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 15 21:55:19 2019
New Revision: 274550
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274550=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/90393 - ICE with thow in ?:
My previous patch for 64372 was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91464
Bug ID: 91464
Summary: C++ extern "C" namespace A {int value;}; is definition
not declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91463
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91463
Bug ID: 91463
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds accessing past the end of a
statically initialized flexible array member
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82992
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91462
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91462
Bug ID: 91462
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds writing to an empty flexible
array member in a ctor
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91460
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i386
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91460
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91461
Bug ID: 91461
Summary: Don't turn on X86_TUNE_SSE_TYPELESS_STORES for
AVX/AVX512
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87519
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90473
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81429
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90884
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Aug 15 18:35:07 2019
New Revision: 274547
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274547=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/90884 - stray note with -Wctor-dtor-privacy.
* class.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90473
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Aug 15 18:33:43 2019
New Revision: 274546
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274546=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/90473 - wrong code with nullptr in default argument.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87519
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Aug 15 18:32:33 2019
New Revision: 274545
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274545=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/87519 - bogus warning with -Wsign-conversion.
* typeck.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81429
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Aug 15 18:31:16 2019
New Revision: 274544
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274544=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/81429 - wrong parsing of constructor with C++11 attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90878
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Aug 15 18:15:33 2019
New Revision: 274543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274543=gcc=rev
Log:
i386: Separate costs of pseudo registers from hard registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91460
Bug ID: 91460
Summary: gcc -mpreferred-vector-width=256 is slower than
-mpreferred-vector-width=128 for some loops
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91456
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Aug 15 16:07:27 2019
New Revision: 274542
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274542=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/91456 make INVOKE work with uncopyable prvalues
In C++17 a function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am not 100% sure if hashing calle names works safely, since they will all be
something like "static construction" or so, so I guess one can construct two
different translation units that will end up with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91459
--- Comment #1 from mike.k at digitalcarbide dot com ---
'foo3' in the assembly output should be 'foo2'. I'd changed the function name
in my test code and did not update the assembly. Apologies.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91035
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
looks like .L34 should be referenced instead of of .L37.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91459
Bug ID: 91459
Summary: Tail-Call Optimization is not performed when return
value is assumed.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90884
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Marek, should this be backported to release branches too?
Ha, I'm just about to backport a few patches to 9.3, so I'll include this one
too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71484
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91035
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 46718
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46718=edit
expvar assembler file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90884
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Marek, should this be backported to release branches too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71484
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Olivier Kannengieser from comment #2)
> In GCC 8.1,
>
> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wctor-dtor-privacy",
> does not fully disable the diagnostic message:
>
> --> without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71484
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kyle J Strand from comment #0)
> A class whose only user-declared methods are `private`, but which *does*
> have an implicit public constructor, can trigger `-Wctor-dtor-privacy`.
>
> See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91035
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
confirmed with trunk 20190815
build dir on
https://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/tst-gotools.tar.xz
.L37 referenced in expvar.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #24 from Tamar Christina ---
> if (pb[len] != cur[len])
Ah sorry, it also access cur + len, so no, indeed I think only unrolling is
possible here. Unless cur was originally a static array and you can tell it's
size under LTO?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91458
Bug ID: 91458
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19807.C -std=gnu++98
scan-tree-dump-times optimized "[(void
.) + 8B]" 3
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91455
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Aug 15 14:13:10 2019
New Revision: 274538
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274538=gcc=rev
Log:
[libsanitizer] Fix PR bootstrap/91455
If a target does not support libbacktrace, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91448
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Discussion on excess errors for g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-4.C move to Bug
91457:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91371
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I haven't fully tested this idea yet, but ...
There are two kinds of function type we need to detect: referenceable
functions, and abominable functions.
A referenceable function type is a non-class type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Martin Sebor wrote on 2019-08-14:
I don't know about the flifetime-dse2.C test but the Warray-bounds-4.C warning
is the result of a recent enhancement to the strlen optimization, either
r274486 or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457
Bug ID: 91457
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-4.C -std=gnu++98
(test for warnings, line 25)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91447
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-08-15 3:32 a.m., marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Created attachment 46716
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46716=edit
> Patch candidate
>
> @John: Can you please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91454
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 91453 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91453
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91455
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91453
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Latest SVN creates the following RTX in _.ira dump:
(insn 144 12 145 2 (set (subreg:V2DI (reg:DI 161) 0)
(vec_merge:V2DI (vec_duplicate:V2DI (reg:DI 111 [ ubound.0 ]))
(const_vector:V2DI [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91453
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Are you sure? It compiles OK with gcc-9 for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91456
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91456
Bug ID: 91456
Summary: std::function and std::is_invocable_r do not
understand guaranteed elision
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91454
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 15 12:44:23 2019
New Revision: 274535
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274535=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-15 Richard Biener
PR target/91454
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91454
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91455
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91455
Bug ID: 91455
Summary: [10 Regression] Revision r274426 breaks bootstrap on
darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder why we can't simply use .init_array and thus get away with a
local symbol on targets that support this. Uh, so the symbol is already
local but we're keeping it in our stripping process it seems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89856
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Vollmer ---
These linker warnings then also seem to result in actual address-sanitizer
errors (which may or may not be spurious):
(Output not from the provided example, but the shown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91445
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 15 12:05:31 2019
New Revision: 274533
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274533=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91445
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91091
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 15 12:02:47 2019
New Revision: 274532
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274532=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91445
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91445
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 15 12:02:47 2019
New Revision: 274532
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274532=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91445
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40976
Bug 40976 depends on bug 91390, which changed state.
Bug 91390 Summary: treatment of extra parameter in a subroutine call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89856
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Vollmer ---
I'm seeing the same warning in a similar context when using the
address-sanitizer, e.g.
> cat lib.cpp
#include
#include
inline const std::string ()
{
static const std::string str = "abc";
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91436
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #0)
> When the reason for an undefined function is too low c++ standard, g++ still
> suggests to include the header where it's supposed to be.
N.B. this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91436
--- Comment #6 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91436
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91436
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Aug 15 11:35:58 2019
New Revision: 274530
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274530=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/91436 fix C++ dialect for std::make_unique fix-it hint
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28834
nicbrown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||contacts at buymore dot pro
--- Comment #33
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91088
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91089
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91454
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Btw, remove_partial_avx_dependency suggests the VEC_MERGE/DUPLICATE form
> is canonical for V2DFmode ... (is it?).
Not according to
typedef double v2di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91454
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, remove_partial_avx_dependency suggests the VEC_MERGE/DUPLICATE form
is canonical for V2DFmode ... (is it?).
Otherwise untested fix:
Index: gcc/config/i386/i386-features.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91444
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91444
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Aug 15 09:23:06 2019
New Revision: 274524
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274524=gcc=rev
Log:
Add missing check for BUILT_IN_MD (PR 91444)
In this PR we were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91454
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91454
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Instead we seem to use
(insn 6 3 7 2 (set (reg:V2DI 85)
(vec_concat:V2DI (reg/v:DI 83 [ x ])
(const_int 0 [0]))) "t.c":5:10 4212 {*vec_concatv2di_0}
(nil))
bah. Is there a helper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91454
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like we miss a pattern for
(insn 162 16 163 2 (set (subreg:V2DI (reg:DI 169) 0)
(vec_merge:V2DI (vec_duplicate:V2DI (reg:DI 101 [ ubound.0 ]))
(const_vector:V2DI [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91445
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
On trunk the following hunk "fixed" it.
@@ -2054,7 +2088,9 @@ vn_reference_lookup_3 (ao_ref *ref, tree
}
}
- if (*disambiguate_only)
+ /* If we are looking for redundant stores do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91444
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82328
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91446
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Index: gcc/config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h
===
--- gcc/config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h(revision 274422)
+++ gcc/config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91447
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46716
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46716=edit
Patch candidate
@John: Can you please test it for me?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91446
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91447
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91444
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, UBSAN says:
>
> $ ./xgcc -B. /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr48616.c -c
> -c
> ../../gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c:5566:13: runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91445
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91444
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
