https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95559
Bug ID: 95559
Summary: Compiling "{{}}" result is inconsistent in different
versions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
Bug ID: 95558
Summary: Invalid IPA optimizations based on weak definition
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 95456, which changed state.
Bug 95456 Summary: [11 Regression] gcc/gcc.c:6035:16: runtime error: null
pointer passed as argument 2, which is declared to never be null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95456
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95456
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #3 from Jeff Davis ---
Original larger case was discovered in PostgreSQL:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/99b2eab335c1592c925d8143979c8e9e81e1575f.ca...@j-davis.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #2 from Jeff Davis ---
Created attachment 48688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48688=edit
Example 3
Another example that works (i.e. builtin is properly replaced by memcpy as
described in the document).
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95456
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e6a6644db0ef0f369df4e5b1b337122d84c1a39
commit r11-1014-g2e6a6644db0ef0f369df4e5b1b337122d84c1a39
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95557
Bug ID: 95557
Summary: __STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT__ is int instead of
size_t
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #1 from Jeff Davis ---
Created attachment 48687
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48687=edit
Example 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
Bug ID: 95556
Summary: Not replacing __builtin___memcpy_chk() as documented
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #23 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Created attachment 48685
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48685=edit
Example of global assembly
See answers below.
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #22)
> Created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #4 from Bill Seurer ---
bootstrap works with that patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95374
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |accepts-invalid,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-05
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d82e9d37d843539127df59d7b8894e5e3baec9b9
commit r9-8657-gd82e9d37d843539127df59d7b8894e5e3baec9b9
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2039ad0eb5261a2e7eb1d3c9da7576a5c370c073
commit r9-8656-g2039ad0eb5261a2e7eb1d3c9da7576a5c370c073
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #2)
> alternative_order[0] is guaranteed to be set, because alternative_reject[i]
> <= alternative_reject[which_alternative] for i == which_alternative at
> least. We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2927ec5bc1276188efae82301d8fcffe4a245d1e
commit r10-8257-g2927ec5bc1276188efae82301d8fcffe4a245d1e
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7760318305a0eab43d59d9884486569409c2d52
commit r10-8256-gd7760318305a0eab43d59d9884486569409c2d52
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
This simplified testcase has been broken a lot longer (back to GCC 8, at
least); my patch just extended the breakage to templates that already affected
non-templates. The issue is that cloning the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95106
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:371739d01d00ae4c55902e0937b73ddee7d66391
commit r9-8655-g371739d01d00ae4c55902e0937b73ddee7d66391
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:075bec57a1c63a1b1de9d95909866a6548380390
commit r9-8654-g075bec57a1c63a1b1de9d95909866a6548380390
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:075bec57a1c63a1b1de9d95909866a6548380390
commit r9-8654-g075bec57a1c63a1b1de9d95909866a6548380390
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95428
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Richard Smith thinks the ABI is clear and compilers should always emit the
as-base ctor. Even though that wording was written before final was a thing.
Depends if Jason wants to argue the case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95106
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e20cd1b583347cb2ea8591a45d99df143f7c41a
commit r10-8255-g1e20cd1b583347cb2ea8591a45d99df143f7c41a
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95369
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cecc73af4980004502f4c327b6c639125defb379
commit r11-1010-gcecc73af4980004502f4c327b6c639125defb379
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95546
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I am curious, did this just start happening or is it a long time issue just
> reported.
The test is quite old: Feb 18 2018. I did not see any failure for it until now
(one instance).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
alternative_order[0] is guaranteed to be set, because alternative_reject[i] <=
alternative_reject[which_alternative] for i == which_alternative at least. We
know that which_alternative <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86568
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36442ee216acbe9a345ae625be53efbde8626477
commit r10-8254-g36442ee216acbe9a345ae625be53efbde8626477
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ee89130c278169b18b0123316ea4745120f
commit r10-8251-g2ee89130c278169b18b0123316ea4745120f
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3c17dfef86311a8b27b8e19854fd44cf8da29ee
commit r10-8253-gb3c17dfef86311a8b27b8e19854fd44cf8da29ee
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78c4b06ac3df51c460de835917549c8555ee4eaf
commit r10-8252-g78c4b06ac3df51c460de835917549c8555ee4eaf
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36442ee216acbe9a345ae625be53efbde8626477
commit r10-8254-g36442ee216acbe9a345ae625be53efbde8626477
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95540
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Michael Bruck from comment #5)
> > Since the coroutine traits are global, and the closure type is unique,
> > that provides a way to disambiguate instantiations of the traits for
> > lambdas with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
The reload_cse_simplify_operands() function allocates three arrays but resets
only two:
alternative_reject = XALLOCAVEC (int, recog_data.n_alternatives);
alternative_nregs = XALLOCAVEC (int,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95540
--- Comment #5 from Michael Bruck ---
> Since the coroutine traits are global, and the closure type is unique,
> that provides a way to disambiguate instantiations of the traits for
> lambdas with otherwise identical signatures.
But the closure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa0d6c132c8fd7deb118f8309aa9dfe41a88e840
commit r9-8653-gfa0d6c132c8fd7deb118f8309aa9dfe41a88e840
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b3ea558da6479dabe5841bcb0f6bad3f7fea858
commit r10-8250-g4b3ea558da6479dabe5841bcb0f6bad3f7fea858
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcd96c9cce962ca5b2c6f8459597fb759f945ccf
commit r11-1009-gbcd96c9cce962ca5b2c6f8459597fb759f945ccf
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcd96c9cce962ca5b2c6f8459597fb759f945ccf
commit r11-1009-gbcd96c9cce962ca5b2c6f8459597fb759f945ccf
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Bug ID: 9
Summary: [11 regression] bootstrap build failure starting with
r11-959
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95509
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95509
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom Tromey :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:640e05e02b567fa5ccf4c207e6fc6c3e9a93b17c
commit r11-1004-g640e05e02b567fa5ccf4c207e6fc6c3e9a93b17c
Author: Tom Tromey
Date: Fri Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95554
Bug ID: 95554
Summary: spurious -Wnonnull on a conditional call
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95546
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 03:46:18PM +, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrote:
>
> I am curious, did this just start happening or is it a long time issue just
> reported. Locking mecahnisms were adjusted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65969
Haoxin Tu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haoxintu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95553
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95553
Bug ID: 95553
Summary: Incorrect/misspelled designators not triggering
compilation error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48677|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #21 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to bouanto from comment #20)
> Well, there's syntax for assembly at the top-level so the user can enter
> anything he wants, like in C.
> I can craft you an example if you need to, though.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95372
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.0|11.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95540
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Michael Bruck from comment #3)
> I think you misread, I was complaining about it passing the closure to the
> traits/constructor/allocator. But if that is what was agreed upon...
>
> Can the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95546
jvdelisle at charter dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at charter dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
Started between r11-878 and r11-896
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95540
--- Comment #3 from Michael Bruck ---
I think you misread, I was complaining about it passing the closure to the
traits/constructor/allocator. But if that is what was agreed upon...
Can the closure object that is being passed to the constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #20 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Well, there's syntax for assembly at the top-level so the user can enter
anything he wants, like in C.
I can craft you an example if you need to, though.
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #19 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to bouanto from comment #18)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16)
> > Created attachment 48677 [details]
> This API looks good.
Thanks.
[...snip...]
> > "Basic" asm
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
Victor Khimenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||khim at google dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95551
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #35 from Andrew Downing ---
I agree that the new implicit object creation rules sound very difficult to
implement correctly especially because the behavior in C is different. I'm
curious to see how that will all play out.
In this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95551
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> if (any (array /= [(-2*i, i = 1, 10)])) error stop 2
The A.10.2 is the array {-2,-4,...,-20} in static memory, which has been
removed with -O3 but there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95328
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95055
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95055
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|VLA ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
Bug ID: 95552
Summary: VLA ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95509
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547388.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95528
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 48683 [details]
> gcc11-pr95528.patch
>
> Untested fix.
The VECTOR_TYPE_P condition should be redundant.
Looks good to me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93542
--- Comment #2 from Mike Crowe ---
An updated version of the fix is available in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2020-May/050433.html which relies on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2020-May/050439.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91486
--- Comment #8 from Mike Crowe ---
I think that https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2020-May/050437.html fixes
this for std::future::wait_for including the __chrono_detail part mentioned in
comment 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #43 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Niels Möller from comment #42)
> And what's the easiest way to run the the right compiler process (I guess
> that's cc1) under gdb?
gcc -c t.c -wrapper gdb,--args
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95548
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:46:15PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > I think Honza ran into this himself.
> Yep, i converted code to use wide-ints. But it is nice to have short
> testcase.
For the testsuite
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:46:15PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > I think Honza ran into this himself.
> Yep, i converted code to use wide-ints. But it is nice to have short
> testcase.
For the testsuite perhaps also add another one with __int128_t and/or
__uint128_t enumerators (guarded with
> I think Honza ran into this himself.
Yep, i converted code to use wide-ints. But it is nice to have short
testcase.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95548
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I think Honza ran into this himself.
Yep, i converted code to use wide-ints. But it is nice to have short
testcase.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95551
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||94848
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95551
Bug ID: 95551
Summary: [OpenMP, OpenACC] -fopenmp/-fopenacc also with
-foffload=disable fails with: (.gnu.offload_vars+0x0):
undefined reference to `A.10.2'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95550
Bug ID: 95550
Summary: [OpenACC] ICE in expand_oacc_for, at omp-expand.c:6075
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95548
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95539
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9758d196f57950ea89baa5cdf6ebd7125b5056e0
commit r11-967-g9758d196f57950ea89baa5cdf6ebd7125b5056e0
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95254
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95254
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a182ef9ee011935d827ab5c6c9a7cd8e22257d8
commit r11-966-g9a182ef9ee011935d827ab5c6c9a7cd8e22257d8
Author: Fei Yang
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95528
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> In summary: from an AArch64 perspective, it's probably fine to
> check !VECTOR_MODE_P || VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P. But given the V1
> thing,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95528
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I'd say the vectorizer/simplify_vector_constructor just shouldn't attempt to
> use these (e.g. vec_pack*, vec_unpack* optabs) for !VEC_MODE_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95535
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:892b51cb73f24157391cd18c2215e8d703af97e7
commit r11-965-g892b51cb73f24157391cd18c2215e8d703af97e7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
