https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94780
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:613e4ebc9c6a156f9efc656a2f2620ab22fc6b52
commit r10-10016-g613e4ebc9c6a156f9efc656a2f2620ab22fc6b52
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83234
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100801
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101702
Bug ID: 101702
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: in handle_argspec_attribute, at
c-family/c-attribs.c:3623
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101674
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:309ddde04f2335f51062690328f03ce889be7e22
commit r12-2647-g309ddde04f2335f51062690328f03ce889be7e22
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101701
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy R. ---
I see with gcc x86_64 it does get the fold correct if another term (val == 5)
is added to the if-else chain: https://godbolt.org/z/TE15Wf1bo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||94566
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101701
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
int foo(int val) {
if (val == 1) return val;
else if(val == 2) return val;
else if(val == 3) return val;
else if(val == 4) return val;
else return -1;
}
int bar(int val) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101701
Bug ID: 101701
Summary: GCC optimization and code generation for if-else
chains vs ternary chains vs a switch
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57858
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> It was fixed by adding another loop header copying pass before
> vectorization, aka ch_vect.
But that went in way in GCC 6 (r6-1951) but the loop header
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101689
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Internal compiler error |ICE with
|during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Hmm, thinking about expanding this further:
I am going to handle the non-special (bool) case as PR 101610.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101610
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> So looking at this one (and one which I just assigned myself):
> unsigned long f(unsigned long x)
> {
> if (x >= 64)__builtin_unreachable();
> x = x ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101691
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
LOOP_EXPR has nothing to do with this problem really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101691
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
cannot prove finiteness of loop 1
Note the C code you posted is not the same as the D code.
Using int is able to optimize away for C++ code but not for C code.
The reason why it is able to optimize away
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101514
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101514
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa9729e7d2ee69fa0b18c925aeb3c2750874a05b
commit r10-10015-gfa9729e7d2ee69fa0b18c925aeb3c2750874a05b
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101700
Bug ID: 101700
Summary: [Coarrays] segmentation fault calling member function
of derived type coarray object on remote image
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101536
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101536
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95cda605a8f7e6b54c428b7d2c37b4f2ebe4a8d8
commit r10-10014-g95cda605a8f7e6b54c428b7d2c37b4f2ebe4a8d8
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101699
--- Comment #1 from Harris Snyder ---
Sorry, I neglected to include gfortran version information:
$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/11/lto-wrapper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101699
Bug ID: 101699
Summary: [Coarrays] deferred-length character inside a derived
type coarray cannot be accessed by coindexing
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96636
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Should be fixed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/576431.html which rejects
this code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101698
Bug ID: 101698
Summary: Template type conversion operator from base class
preferred over matching overload
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101682
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101697
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101697
Bug ID: 101697
Summary: [11/12 regression] ICE compiling uClibc-ng for
h8300-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101132
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71003
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
The issue of __extension__ not working with the preprocessor came up again
here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575414.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101671
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b3560d3a9f2b55ba4807f2b0f8cbbf6cee9e6e3
commit r12-2634-g0b3560d3a9f2b55ba4807f2b0f8cbbf6cee9e6e3
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101517
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5e164effa30fd2b5c5bc3e6883d63889e96d8da
commit r12-2633-ge5e164effa30fd2b5c5bc3e6883d63889e96d8da
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sun Mar 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101517
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d68d275a00573be49f5e83eba52ce3f26d11db9e
commit r12-2632-gd68d275a00573be49f5e83eba52ce3f26d11db9e
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65018
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3dbd4d94bf380f3efa8bba9b203ce7d4c8f47fbb
commit r12-2631-g3dbd4d94bf380f3efa8bba9b203ce7d4c8f47fbb
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94780
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2065654435e3d97676366f82b939bc9273382dbe
commit r12-2630-g2065654435e3d97676366f82b939bc9273382dbe
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Fri Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101132
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:45cb789e6adf5d571c574a94b77413c845fed106
commit r12-2629-g45cb789e6adf5d571c574a94b77413c845fed106
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Sun Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101539
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cd005a255f15c1b4b3eaae71c844ea2592c9dce
commit r12-2628-g6cd005a255f15c1b4b3eaae71c844ea2592c9dce
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104
--- Comment #3 from Patrick McGehearty
---
I meant to say "IF mode" instead of KF mode.
Shall I resubmit with that correction?
- patrick
On 7/20/2021 5:46 PM, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Chris Jones from comment #14)
> Apologies, typo above. I meant to say the --without-build-config workaround
> no longer works with 11.2.0
OK.. I plan to do a Darwin/macOS 11.2 patch set this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #14 from Chris Jones ---
Apologies, typo above. I meant to say the --without-build-config workaround no
longer works with 11.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
Chris Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonesc at hep dot phy.cam.ac.uk
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101677
--- Comment #2 from Joe Loser ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >This bug can be worked around by using a complete type instead when defining
> >the concept.
>
> It does not even have to be complete type; just defined before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98859
Yongwei Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wuyongwei at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79062
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101696
Bug ID: 101696
Summary: Function multiversioning not usable with new x86-64-v*
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79062
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-01-12 00:00:00 |2021-7-30
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101688
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101694
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101695
Bug ID: 101695
Summary: calling incorrect destructor of same-name class in
anonymous namespaces in separate translation units
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101682
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021, eggert at gnu dot org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> The grammar at the start of section 6.7 of the current C2x draft (N2596) says
> that attribute specifiers may appear either
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101694
Bug ID: 101694
Summary: [12 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C
fails after r12-2591 for 32 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101693
--- Comment #1 from Tomasz Sobczyk ---
PS. when
#define USE_VNNI
is commented out it exhibits similar behaviour to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101693
Bug ID: 101693
Summary: Terrible SIMD register allocation with a tight loop
operating on 8 registers.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101685
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101685
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:854ef6e50acf1b182ddaf007cff2cf60545692b0
commit r12-2624-g854ef6e50acf1b182ddaf007cff2cf60545692b0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Jul 30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65018
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> From Jakub on IRC: "note that at some point, there used to be
> __secure_getenv instead. perhaps look at libgfortran configury what it does
> for this"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101689
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
struct A {
virtual void foo (int x) { C e(, ); bar (); }
virtual bool bar ();
struct C { C (int *, int *); };
int f;
};
struct B : A {} d;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101683
--- Comment #6 from bartoldeman at users dot sourceforge.net ---
"really not many people care about floating point exceptions". I think more
people should :) but this is indeed the context.
We found this issue on a supercomputer running
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101692
Bug ID: 101692
Summary: Program crushes at unpredictable moment of time
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101691
Bug ID: 101691
Summary: d: Use of LOOP_EXPR prevents removing no-op loops.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101690
Bug ID: 101690
Summary: failure to shrink wrap simple loop with more
aggressive jump threading
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101689
--- Comment #4 from Theodore.Papadopoulo at inria dot fr ---
Sorry, it was indeed too big, but I had not seen the message. Attached now.
Sorry for not having found time to reduce the test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101689
--- Comment #3 from Theodore.Papadopoulo at inria dot fr ---
Created attachment 51224
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51224=edit
Preprocessed code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101689
--- Comment #1 from Theodore.Papadopoulo at inria dot fr ---
Also submitted as
Bug 1986538 - Internal compiler error during GIMPLE pass: ehcleanup
in readhat bugzilla, but I guess it is better here. Will close that one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101689
Bug ID: 101689
Summary: Internal compiler error during GIMPLE pass: ehcleanup
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66791
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Prathamesh Kulkarni
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a973aec601cb69024e0ebf6b0961906cec7c446
commit r12-2609-g5a973aec601cb69024e0ebf6b0961906cec7c446
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65018
rschiron at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rschiron at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 57858, which changed state.
Bug 57858 Summary: AVX2: ymm used for div, not for sqrt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57858
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57858
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101688
Bug ID: 101688
Summary: g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails on x86-32
with new jump threader
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101687
Bug ID: 101687
Summary: Scoped enumerators of a member enumeration shall not
be referred by a class member access expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101686
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
g++.dg/modules/pr101582-1.C testcase covers it with xfailed dg-error lines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101686
Bug ID: 101686
Summary: export ; or export {} should not be accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101582
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101582
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77ab4e3be2d92b1ff671d58418d852195f10dd20
commit r12-2607-g77ab4e3be2d92b1ff671d58418d852195f10dd20
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101396
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101396
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:291416d3782e12e983483a3f7b2154a3dbfc9e1f
commit r12-2606-g291416d3782e12e983483a3f7b2154a3dbfc9e1f
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Sat Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #15 from Christoph Reiter ---
Still the same error with GCC 11.2 and binutils 2.37:
https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/pull/9088/checks?check_run_id=3196226530
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101683
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> eh, guess nothing implemented UNSIGNED_FIX ...
Just looked, no; just happened nobody ran into this until now. Either because
of luck or really not many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101685
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101683
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
eh, guess nothing implemented UNSIGNED_FIX ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-30
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101678
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] Concept |[11/12 Regression] Concept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101676
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
why is | better than ^?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57858
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #6 from
91 matches
Mail list logo
