https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92018
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE also disappears if an empty line is added between the PUBLIC
statement and the INCLUDE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE also disappears if the include file starts with an empty line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 11 20:44:02 2019
New Revision: 276906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276906&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92049 - extra error with -fchecking=2.
The concepts merge broug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 11 20:53:26 2019
New Revision: 276907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92070 - bogus error with -fchecking=2.
* g++.dg/expr/co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92069
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90998
Dan Stahlke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dan at stahlke dot org
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92073
Bug ID: 92073
Summary: references/pointers to thread_local are not constant
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90297
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> svn blame says:
>
> 182796 pault for (args= e->value.function.actual; args; args =
> args->next)
> 182796 pault {
> 18279
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92074
Bug ID: 92074
Summary: [10 regression] 26% performance regression on Spec2017
548.exchange2_r
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regression] None |[7/8/9 Regression] None of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81512
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90052
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Warning for (x == 1 && x == |Warning for (x == 1 && x ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91796
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Maxim Egorushkin from comment #3)
> It seems to me that register allocation has been a weak spot in gcc for
> years.
Most such testcases show issues with arguments/return in very small functions,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
>
> probably also a missed-optimization for the new doloop stuff?
Thanks for the information!
This looks a good case with zero doloop_cost_for_address, but the dolo
101 - 119 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
