https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43432
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45720
Bug 45720 depends on bug 43432, which changed state.
Bug 43432 Summary: Missed vectorization: "complicated access pattern" for
increasing and decreasing data indexing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43432
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
Bug 45764 depends on bug 43432, which changed state.
Bug 43432 Summary: Missed vectorization: "complicated access pattern" for
increasing and decreasing data indexing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43432
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46828
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87276
Bug ID: 87276
Summary: Buggy code with -O2 in trunk revision 264170: MPFR
test tstrtofr fails
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87275
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85395
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Sep 10 21:25:33 2018
New Revision: 264196
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264196=gcc=rev
Log:
fix PR 85395
2018-09-10 Janus Weil
PR fortran/85395
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85872
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-05-22 00:00:00 |2018-9-10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lvenkatakumarchakka at gmail
dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 69578, which changed state.
Bug 69578 Summary: -Wuninitialized not issuing warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69578
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69578
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87275
Bug ID: 87275
Summary: unsequenced writes not diagnosed in constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85458
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin ---
The patch was approved by Jeff Law.
The ICE indicates that there was a negative priority generated in testcase
on ia64.
Negative priorities present a problem for targets that define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 2. Actually, you get the same failure on GNU-Linux if you try to configure
> defaults on (for example) an x86_64 system without 32bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87274
Bug ID: 87274
Summary: -std=c++11 breaks quadmath macros
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87273
Bug ID: 87273
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in merge_fences, at
sel-sched-ir.c:708
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87269
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat ice2.ii
namespace {
void operator"" a(const char *, unsigned long);
}
inline namespace b {
void operator"" a(unsigned long long );
}
namespace c {
struct d {
using e = bool ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87271
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87272
Bug ID: 87272
Summary: Infinite loop for incorrect hardware clock
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87270
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87271
Bug ID: 87271
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in rpo_elim::~rpo_elim
(this=0xbfbfe15c, __in_chrg=) at
../../gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c:5709 on FreeBSD 10.4
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
I see it failing with 4 years old revision r216027 on the Haswell machine.
Looking at portability issues:
https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/Docs/benchmarks/549.fotonik3d_r.html
```
It is perhaps worth mentioning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
If I'm correct it's also problematic on Haswell with -march=native.
Particularly the only affected file is power.fppized.o.
I also tried -mno-fma4 and -mno-fma and it does not help. From the assembly
diff,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87270
Bug ID: 87270
Summary: "FINAL" subroutine is called when compiled with
"gfortran -O1", but not "gfortran -O0"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84554
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That does look like a problem. But why are the mpfr tests running as part of
bootstrap? I don't think they do for me.
I only see tversion built as part of "make check"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85458
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87269
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
--- Comment #15 from Stephan Bergmann ---
I see that with the fix from comment 13 included, the slightly changed source
#include
struct S1 { S1(S1 &&); };
struct S2: S1 {};
S1 f(S2 s) { return std::move(s); }
causes -Wredundant-move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87269
Bug ID: 87269
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15475
starting from r261802
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> We are not dependent on the Xcode supplied tools for some time now, since
> upstream dsymutil is functional. So, if that were to happen - we would
> simply (as the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83428
--- Comment #5 from Wolfgang Roehrl ---
Hello,
I just came back from holidays and I read your comments on my bug report. For
two reasons I still think that the compiler should not use dynamic
initialization for objX - at least not without any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87262
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #5)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
>
> >
> > 3. I don't see why GCC should be subject to the vendor's support policy. As
> > far as I am concerned, with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87263
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84554
--- Comment #4 from matthew.hambley at metoffice dot gov.uk ---
I have further information. From the build log: (long paths reduced with
ellipses)
.../gcc-8.2.0-build/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B.../gcc/8.2.0/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87266
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87267
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87268
--- Comment #3 from ead ---
Sorry, I only saw that clang gives me what I expect... and overlooked the
warning.
call_doit should return void and not int.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87268
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So you might have undefined code in c if the return value is used there. In c++
it is undefined even without using it. Also noreturn is never sibcalled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87268
Bug ID: 87268
Summary: Missed optimization for a tailcall
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
43 matches
Mail list logo
