https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91584
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91620
--- Comment #1 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(The issue number in the case seems a typo. It is introduced in
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL358534.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #18)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> > The current solution is a bit annoying for implicitly-derived interfaces.
> >
> > Consider a code like:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91605
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hmm, for whatever reason the decl-align of the
"to" is 256 bit normally but when -fpack-struct
is used only 8 bit aligned, but it is a reg.
The reason for the ICE is that the movmisalign
optab is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89767
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 30 12:29:13 2019
New Revision: 275139
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275139=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-03-21 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80603
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Would also be a suitable enhancement for fold_const_aggregate_ref in general
if you consider IPA-VRP propagation and
_1 = AGGR[param_2(D)];
return _1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89872
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 30 12:33:40 2019
New Revision: 275144
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275144=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-03-29 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89621
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 30 12:33:00 2019
New Revision: 275143
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275143=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-03-28 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89796
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 30 12:32:15 2019
New Revision: 275142
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275142=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-03-26 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90954
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 30 12:47:28 2019
New Revision: 275161
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275161=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-06-25 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90756
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 30 12:48:18 2019
New Revision: 275162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275162=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-07-04 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66434
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > > It was fixed in r227942 and I see all active branches (7,8,9)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89361
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89512
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89587
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90770
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Aug 30 13:50:01 2019
New Revision: 275172
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275172=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90770 fix missing src/debug/Makefile
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91616
Bug ID: 91616
Summary: Incorrect data address computation in very simple code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91617
Bug ID: 91617
Summary: [10 regression] Many go test case failures after
r275026
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83661
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
sincos performs range reduction for the argument just once, which is fairly
important. A well-optimized sincos also shares some computations for the
sin/cos parts, as done in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51333
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also fixed for 8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91621
Bug ID: 91621
Summary: libgo/mksysinfo.sh: please avoid test ==
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r249385.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91564
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91617
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The cited revision was not to libgo, so my assumption is that there was
something wrong with it and there is nothing to change in the Go frontend. Let
me know if I'm mistaken.
This was also filed as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602
--- Comment #6 from Jim Wilson ---
By the way, the underlying problem here is, as Andrew Waterman mentioned, that
the RISC-V linker does aggressive link time relaxations to reduce code size,
and this makes lib128 with label subtraction unsafe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91551
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91587
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Aug 31 00:32:48 2019
New Revision: 275236
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275236=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91587
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91606
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602
--- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson ---
The wiki is wrong. Combined tree builds should not be used anymore.
Combined tree builds date back to when Cygnus was maintainer for everything.
We put everything in a single source tree, and wrote configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91551
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Aug 30 23:02:37 2019
New Revision: 275228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275228=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91551
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91565
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Aug 30 23:30:35 2019
New Revision: 275230
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275230=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91565
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91587
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91587
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Aug 31 03:27:45 2019
New Revision: 275241
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275241=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91587
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #21 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:38:09PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> > The current solution is a bit annoying for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91564
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Aug 30 23:19:30 2019
New Revision: 275229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275229=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91564
* check.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91565
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91622
Bug ID: 91622
Summary: Compiler internal error DJGPP GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems like uleb128 is not supported at all in riscv. This should be fixed on
the gas side. No other target has issues with uleb128.
Yeah, this is a bit a rat hole. Of course there's nothing about
RISC-V that precludes the use of the leb128 data formats. We fib that
they aren't supported to prevent the DWARF emitters from subtracting
label addresses at assembly time. RISC-V linker relaxations foil the
assumption that those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Waterman ---
Yeah, this is a bit a rat hole. Of course there's nothing about
RISC-V that precludes the use of the leb128 data formats. We fib that
they aren't supported to prevent the DWARF emitters from subtracting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91603
Bug ID: 91603
Summary: Unaligned access in expand_assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602
Bug ID: 91602
Summary: GCC fails to build for riscv in a combined tree due to
misconfigured leb128 support
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
301 - 348 of 348 matches
Mail list logo
