https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92154
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92274
Bug ID: 92274
Summary: 'make' fails when objdir and srcdir paths contain
spaces
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92275
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92275
Bug ID: 92275
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: error: definition in block 11
does not dominate use in block 15 since r277566
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92277
Bug ID: 92277
Summary: ICE with assumed rank
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92127
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92276
--- Comment #2 from Lijian Zhang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Instead of trying to force the compiler to unroll with -funroll-loops you can
> use #pragma GCC unroll N on individual loops instead.
>
> The attributes should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92275
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
We run into
tree guard_arg = find_guard_arg (loop, epilog, update_phi);
/* If the var is live after loop but not a reduction, we simply
use the old arg. */
if (!guard_arg)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #10)
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
> probably just need -fno-inline-functions and --param
> inline-insns-auto-O2= to reproduce again?
>
> Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92276
Lijian Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
Bug ID: 92279
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in error: non-trivial conversion
in 'constructor' since r276416
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92269
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92275
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Yes, as mentioned in the bug title, it started with r277566.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
Bug ID: 92281
Summary: Inconsistent canonicalization of (minus (minus A B) C)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92278
Bug ID: 92278
Summary: [10 regression] LTO ICE
ipa_get_ith_polymorhic_call_context ipa-prop.h:616
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92276
--- Comment #4 from Lijian Zhang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Instead of trying to force the compiler to unroll with -funroll-loops you can
> use #pragma GCC unroll N on individual loops instead.
>
> The attributes should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92278
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Created attachment 46781 [details]
> Test-case #2
>
> Since the same revision I see similar error:
>
> $ g++ -flto -O2 *.ii
> 1.ii:14:3: warning: type ‘struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91393
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88220
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92206
gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92280
Bug ID: 92280
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr83008.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92280
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92206
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 30 09:21:09 2019
New Revision: 277603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277603=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-30 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65930
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92272
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92278
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
probably just need -fno-inline-functions and --param inline-insns-auto-O2= to reproduce again?
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 65930, which changed state.
Bug 65930 Summary: Reduction with sign-change not handled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92090
Xiong Hu XS Luo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11776
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||heiko at hexco dot de
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92274
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92262
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 30 09:52:01 2019
New Revision: 277605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277605=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92262
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 65930, which changed state.
Bug 65930 Summary: Reduction with sign-change not handled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92254
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> After much slow reduction, the reduced C++ source code seems
> to be
>
> class b;
> struct c {
> using aj = b *;
> };
> struct d {
> using aj = c::aj;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92277
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88220
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Oct 30 10:38:52 2019
New Revision: 277607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277607=gcc=rev
Log:
Use symtab_node::order in LTO sections with body.
2019-10-30 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91393
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Oct 30 10:38:52 2019
New Revision: 277607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277607=gcc=rev
Log:
Use symtab_node::order in LTO sections with body.
2019-10-30 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92275
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92148
--- Comment #1 from Gaius Mulley ---
is this still true? As I've git pushed a number of dependency fixes to the
master branch (in gm2/Make-lang.in). It built with make -j 24 on amd64 debian
stretch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92276
Bug ID: 92276
Summary: Embedded __attribute__ ((optimize("unroll-loops"))) is
not working together with '__attribute__
((__always_inline__))'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92276
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Instead of trying to force the compiler to unroll with -funroll-loops you can
use #pragma GCC unroll N on individual loops instead.
The attributes should not conflict in any way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92278
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Created attachment 46775 [details]
> Reduced source files
>
> $ gcc -c -flto 5.i -o 5.o && c++ -O2 -flto=16 -shared -o zynaddsubfx 1.ii
> 2.ii 3.ii 4.ii 5.o
> ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Apparently quite some files are different with the revision:
CalculiX.o
beamsections.o
cycsymmods.o
e_c3d.o
e_c3d_rhs.o
e_c3d_th.o
el.o
envtemp.o
extrapolate.o
gen3delem.o
incplas.o
linel.o
mastruct.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89346
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92278
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg02139.html for a possible
fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92288
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92288
Bug ID: 92288
Summary: [10 Regression] 502.gcc_r ICE with -O3 -march=skylake
-fno-checking since r277621
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92289
--- Comment #1 from Tony E Lewis ---
Sorry: I should have said...
Even the original warning isn't ideal because the compiler has enough
information to know that all paths through f() either return a value or throw.
So I don't think it should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
Bug ID: 92283
Summary: [10 Regression] 454.calculix miscomparison since
r276645 with -O2 -march=znver2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92286
Bug ID: 92286
Summary: Possible improvement for -Wduplicated-cond warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92234
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92285
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Though with -O2 we should produce "exact" FP math (and vectorization is off).
So maybe we hit a latent issue after the extra unrolling from the rev. in
question.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 92275, which changed state.
Bug 92275 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: error: definition in block 11 does not
dominate use in block 15 since r277566
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92275
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92275
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67183
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92284
Bug ID: 92284
Summary: Subroutine with bind(c) attribute causing varied
problems
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11776
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79274
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,*-*-d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92285
Bug ID: 92285
Summary: Layout of istreambuf_iterator subobject depends on
-std mode
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92231
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47131
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47131=edit
gcc10-pr92231.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92290
Bug ID: 92290
Summary: Inconsistent -Warray-bounds warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92282
Bug ID: 92282
Summary: gimple for (a + ~b) is harder to optimize in RTL when
types are unsigned
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92282
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, x86 manages to generate
movq%rdi, %r9
movq%rsi, %r8
movq%r9, %rsi
movq%r8, %rdi
subq%rdx, %rsi
sbbq%rcx, %rdi
movq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92282
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergey.shalnov at intel dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92278
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> Martin, do you have any idea?
Yes, the jump functions are thrown away at stream-in time because
e->possibly_call_in_translation_unit_p returns false in:
static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92276
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Lijian Zhang from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Instead of trying to force the compiler to unroll with -funroll-loops you
> > can
> > use #pragma GCC unroll N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92148
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
I will check with the next upload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92285
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92289
Bug ID: 92289
Summary: Worse "control reaches end of non-void function"
diagnostic with undefined sanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92234
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
--enable-languages=c,ada,c++,go,brig,d,fortran,objc,obj-c++
--prefix=/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot
--with-gcc-major-version-only
--program-prefix=
--enable-shared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92275
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 30 13:52:27 2019
New Revision: 277621
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277621=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-30 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92275
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
So the problematic file is results.f. If I use code from the previous revision
for the file, there is no miscomparison.
Now I'll bisect which loop is causing the miscompilation. Optimized dumps
differ quite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92287
Bug ID: 92287
Summary: Mismatches in the calling convention for zero sized
types
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47132
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47132=edit
Debugging patch
With the attached patch (and r276645) run succeeds.
If you change s/counter < 2/counter < 1/ then it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92287
Jozef Lawrynowicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jozefl.gcc at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92286
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92231
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92269
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79274
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-10-30 10:12 a.m., iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> when you say "Think this is a result of emutls." - you mean that hppa is also
> (Darwin does) using emuTLS?
hppa uses emutls on hpux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92272
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Oct 30 15:48:11 2019
New Revision: 277629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277629=gcc=rev
Log:
Apply C++20 changes to various iterator types
This ensures that __normal_iterator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92272
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|jwakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88337
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
First steps: this now compiles in c++2a:
struct B {
virtual void baz () {}
};
struct D : B { };
constexpr bool
fn ()
{
bool ok = true;
B b;
B *b1 =
if (D *pd = dynamic_cast(b1))
ok = false;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Constraint normalization|[concepts] hard error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
> On further thought, I'm not sure normalizing the dependent form is really
> necessary, either here or for nested-requirements, as long as we get the
> proper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92284
José Rui Faustino de Sousa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47130|0 |1
is obsolete|
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
