https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
This is https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/167
In CWG today we decided that since this is all compiler magic anyway, we can be
a bit more magical to get around this problematic interaction with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93714
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93705
Kevin Hartman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
Bug ID: 93730
Summary: [Bug] internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at
varasm.c:1375
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93667
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
It is easy to prevent the ICE with the following, which prevents total
scalarization from happening. However, if someone marked a field with
such an attribute, the encompassing structure perhaps should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93733
Bug ID: 93733
Summary: F2008: G0.d output editing for
integer/logical/character data
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93732
Bug ID: 93732
Summary: [10 Regression] Incorrect symbol type when activating
LTO a compile step
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93732
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93722
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93639
--- Comment #4 from raphael grimm ---
Created attachment 47835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47835=edit
reduced to 11 lines and no includes
http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/be3bbfdf6a59b45e
on g++ (GCC) 9.2.0
output:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93027
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
--- Comment #2 from Akhilesh Kumar ---
Working on Arm architecture.
I am trying to reproduce the same with sample test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So you could just disable asan and keep ubsan (set ASAN_SUPPORTED=no in
> libsanitizer/configure.tgt for a particular darwin OS version, and if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93656
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d69147af203d4dcd2270429f90c93f1a37ddfff
commit r10-6622-g1d69147af203d4dcd2270429f90c93f1a37ddfff
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Feb 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93735
Bug ID: 93735
Summary: [GCOV] incorrect coverage for calling variable
arguments function with incremental expression in its
parameter list
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93481
Frederik Harwath changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Jason, do you think the current spec is clear enough on when the consteval
evaluation of default arguments ought to happen (and does our implementation
match that), or does it need clarification?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #168 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-13 12:24 a.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> Tonight I have been trying to find a test case where this problem can be
> reproduced with gcc and then compiled with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Bug ID: 93734
Summary: Invalid code generated with -O2 -march=haswell
-ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93609
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laurent.stacul at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
Bug ID: 93731
Summary: [10 regression] asan tests cause kernel panic on
Darwin 11
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93715
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So you could just disable asan and keep ubsan (set ASAN_SUPPORTED=no in
libsanitizer/configure.tgt for a particular darwin OS version, and if it is
32-bit only, also test x$ac_cv_sizeof_void_p = x4 ?
Of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 03:46:17PM +, mail.luis at web dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
>
> --- Comment #3 from Luis Kornblueh ---
> Thanks @kargl for simplifing my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #2 from Luis Kornblueh ---
Created attachment 47838
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47838=edit
New testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
These systems are EOL so we can't expect any fixes to the systems themselves.
The question is "is the latest imported as an version even supposed to support
10.7"?
I have a patch to unsupport the sanitiser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
Bug ID: 93736
Summary: Add .f18 and .F18 file suffixes
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 04:40:08PM +, thenlich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
>
> --- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich ---
> I don't know why the Fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #3 from Luis Kornblueh ---
Thanks @kargl for simplifing my still very long case. However, a bug has been
introduced in this version.
The nested transfers cannot be split into two as the result of the first
transfer is not a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93643
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
Peter Bisroev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47829|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich ---
I don't know why the Fortran compiler doesn't treat all files as free-form
Fortran source files, unless they have a known extension indicating otherwise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
Bug ID: 93737
Summary: inline memmove for insertion into small arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> These systems are EOL so we can't expect any fixes to the systems themselves.
>
> The question is "is the latest imported as an version even supposed to
> support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93643
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
commit r10-6628-gabc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91476
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
commit r10-6628-gabc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a0c4f5b373e236cb4af5491f50862d41fd8775a
commit r10-6629-g9a0c4f5b373e236cb4af5491f50862d41fd8775a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92572
--- Comment #7 from Walt Karas ---
I see this problem running in a Docker container on a MacBook. When I try it
on the Mac (clang, Darwin kernel), the output is 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I was thinking for small N, the middle-end could make it work by emitting
copies of the sequences using MEM_REFs, along these lines:
char _2[N - 2];
_2 = MEM [(char * {ref-all}) + 1];
MEM [(char *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 47841
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47841=edit
Patch to treat sign_extend as is_just_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #172 from Peter Bisroev ---
Hi Dave,
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #168)
> There seems to be something broken regarding stub insertion for calls to
> weak functions. Are we
> using the correct branch form for calls to weak?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93228
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #173 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-13 1:11 p.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> If I try to compare this to aCC dump in attachment 47840, I do not see any
> calls to weak. Equivalent section to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68061
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:59:18PM +, thenlich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich ---
> Additionally, we could also imply -std=f2018 with the .f18/.F18 suffix. That
> would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bacdd5e978dad84e9c547b0d5c7fed14b8d75157
commit r10-6625-gbacdd5e978dad84e9c547b0d5c7fed14b8d75157
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93572
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #171 from Peter Bisroev ---
Comment on attachment 47839
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47839
GCC 4.9.4 gimple-expr.c dump (aCC)
Obsoleted by attachment 47840 as in this attachment inlining with aCC was not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18)
> Created attachment 47841 [details]
> Patch to treat sign_extend as is_just_move
Do you think zero_extend should maybe be treated as such too? What about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #174 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-13 2:44 p.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> The first thing to note is aCC doesn't use weak. Instead, it uses COMDAT
> sections. Probably, HP ld does support
> weak but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #176 from Peter Bisroev ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #174)
> On 2020-02-13 2:44 p.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> > The first thing to note is aCC doesn't use weak. Instead, it uses COMDAT
> > sections.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92906
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:994e0ad41529f5518fd013474a657968807d9ca5
commit r10-6630-g994e0ad41529f5518fd013474a657968807d9ca5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93670
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20ac13c895c5abe7a350de0b664abf190aa28a16
commit r9-8224-g20ac13c895c5abe7a350de0b664abf190aa28a16
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7276dd4c7480dd952f0d4a9322ca04ca29f5126f
commit r9-8227-g7276dd4c7480dd952f0d4a9322ca04ca29f5126f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93673
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:488a947b2ddd57a6f44a6aecc32862f8cbf4ec77
commit r9-8225-g488a947b2ddd57a6f44a6aecc32862f8cbf4ec77
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Wrong code |[8 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93637
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #175 from Peter Bisroev ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #173)
> On 2020-02-13 1:11 p.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> > If I try to compare this to aCC dump in attachment 47840 [details], I do
> > not see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18)
> > Created attachment 47841 [details]
> > Patch to treat sign_extend as is_just_move
>
> Do you think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b2fbe3e723b20ea9089e5f45c55b79feb37085b
commit r9-8213-g3b2fbe3e723b20ea9089e5f45c55b79feb37085b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:764e831291a2e510978ca7be0bffb55589a5a0b6
commit r9-8214-g764e831291a2e510978ca7be0bffb55589a5a0b6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93675
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93515
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05fa0de35ec63db2c3aacd30cc34a7389b3c4e5d
commit r9-8221-g05fa0de35ec63db2c3aacd30cc34a7389b3c4e5d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93515
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3266b1311723841ec553277f1fb6bfddef8809d
commit r9-8220-gd3266b1311723841ec553277f1fb6bfddef8809d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93557
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:520b364da0b20dcb492229757190cc3f30322052
commit r9-8219-g520b364da0b20dcb492229757190cc3f30322052
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65782
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a91e5d88970c8d865a49f2a4ed4e17ee2c58b73f
commit r9-8222-ga91e5d88970c8d865a49f2a4ed4e17ee2c58b73f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93696
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08cf145f991327d943d785066709f5f39d20bd85
commit r9-8226-g08cf145f991327d943d785066709f5f39d20bd85
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93637
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7cbce7a174292adc7c9d6db81bba6922a591d69
commit r9-8223-gb7cbce7a174292adc7c9d6db81bba6922a591d69
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93463
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:244f4b8c2823531a1e479a3773272af539dda258
commit r9-8215-g244f4b8c2823531a1e479a3773272af539dda258
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91118
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b124e3c9c35121969cc23d0aea4bcb2c406fd21
commit r9-8216-g4b124e3c9c35121969cc23d0aea4bcb2c406fd21
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:329475795c6eeaa2b122672091c9119b9d6c5564
commit r9-8217-g329475795c6eeaa2b122672091c9119b9d6c5564
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93555
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d42f9eaa3e189d4228a4b3a63d02b83fed6385e7
commit r9-8218-gd42f9eaa3e189d4228a4b3a63d02b83fed6385e7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With that above patch, I get (T0 is original, T2 is with patch, these are
file sizes of a Linux build, mostly defconfig):
T0T2
alpha 6049096 100.020%
arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #13 from Li Jia He ---
In this optimization we assume n is either positive or divisible by the nth
power of 2.
So the result of the % is non-negative. However, it is not reasonable for
translating (a % 32)) to (a & 31). If a is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93619
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The target (non-testsuite) part is located at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00837.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
--- Comment #5 from DIL ---
If this helps, the gcc/gfortran svn repository from 17 Jan 2019 already had
this regression bug while gcc/gfortran 8.2.0 did not. Hopefully this may help
shorten the length of bisection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93696
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
Peter Bisroev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47839|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
Bug ID: 93738
Summary: [8/9 regression] test case
gcc.target/powerpc/20050603-3.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90515
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux-gnu
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo