https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91431
Bug ID: 91431
Summary: Using class template for containers and iterators
rather than defining template only for iterators
caused a trouble
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
--- Comment #24 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #23)
> Thanks, missed that. Looks like Jason wants us to fix it retroactively,
> too. I suppose we should just revert my r264172.
Better to disable the section in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91430
Bug ID: 91430
Summary: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3962
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
A more general representation would facilitate implementing
__builtin_iseqsig (bug 77928).
(As noted in previous discussions, some processors, e.g. MIPS, actually
have a general
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
--- Comment #23 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks, missed that. Looks like Jason wants us to fix it retroactively, too.
I suppose we should just revert my r264172.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89413
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 46704
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46704=edit
another untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89647
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch submitted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359
--- Comment #18 from Brian T. Carcich ---
Thanks for the fix and your patience.
We got gfortran with this patch to build on a box running Linux 2.6.9 ca.
November 2011, and it solved the problem.
Well done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47191
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056
Bug 33056 depends on bug 47191, which changed state.
Bug 47191 Summary: Misleading error message if part-ref starts with DATA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47191
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90538
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91378
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
--- Comment #21 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #19)
> And now P1155/P1825 removes that text, so in C++20 mode the original
> testcase needs to call the move constructor again.
Actually, it's a DR, so not just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91429
Bug ID: 91429
Summary: Conditional explicit not respected with out-of-line
definition
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91422
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 12 20:21:37 2019
New Revision: 274320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274320=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-12 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91424
* frontend-passes.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91424
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 12 20:21:37 2019
New Revision: 274320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274320=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-12 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91424
* frontend-passes.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359
--- Comment #16 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Aug 12 20:09:00 2019
New Revision: 274319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274319=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-12 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91359
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91428
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
*be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91428
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91407
--- Comment #4 from Aso Renji ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> But it's not enabled by -Wall7
>
> Maybe QtCreator should be fixed instead.
Hmm, compile output in QtCreator:
g++ -c -pipe -g -Wall -W -fPIC -DQT_QML_DEBUG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42546
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89078
Bug 89078 depends on bug 42546, which changed state.
Bug 42546 Summary: ALLOCATED statement typo in the docs and for scalar variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42546
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42546
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Aug 12 19:48:37 2019
New Revision: 274318
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274318=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-01 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/42546
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91428
Bug ID: 91428
Summary: Please warn on if constexpr
(std::is_constant_evaluated())
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #31 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #30)
> (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #28)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #27)
> > > That's fine - essentially, you're building them from source and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91407
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But it's not enabled by -Wall7
Maybe QtCreator should be fixed instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84864
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49129
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85004
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77672
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91427
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91427
Bug ID: 91427
Summary: Implement P1825R0, Merged wording for P0527R1 and
P1155R3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #30 from Matt Thompson ---
(In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #28)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #27)
> > That's fine - essentially, you're building them from source and therefore
> > don't need to worry about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
--- Comment #20 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #19)
> And now P1155/P1825 removes that text, so in C++20 mode the original
> testcase needs to call the move constructor again. Marek, I don't see
> P1825R0 in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61257
--- Comment #6 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #2)
> > > Having explicit flags like --enable-systemtap /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
And now P1155/P1825 removes that text, so in C++20 mode the original testcase
needs to call the move constructor again. Marek, I don't see P1825R0 in
cxx-status.html, was there a reason not to add it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91407
--- Comment #2 from Aso Renji ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Is there a reason you need to use -Wnon-virtual-dtor ?
QtCreator with -Wall as default compile option. Yes, I can set custom compile
options, or use #pragma GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88095
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Aug 12 17:46:37 2019
New Revision: 274317
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274317=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88095, CTAD for literal operator templates per P0732
This patch fixes PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91378
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Aug 12 17:46:32 2019
New Revision: 274316
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274316=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/91378 - ICE with noexcept and auto return type.
Here, since the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90538
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Aug 12 17:46:25 2019
New Revision: 274315
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274315=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/90538 - multiple expansions of capture packs
Previously, with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91423
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Vec size = s.size;
you are invoking the copy constructor here ...
Which means you are taking the address (implicitly).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91418
--- Comment #5 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Darrell Wright from comment #4)
> The weird part is, other than compilers don't agree, but the lookup finds it
> if you put the template argument in
The idea there seems to be that `class A;`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91424
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> - the "2" location marker is a different color from the "1" location marker,
> if you have colorized output
That is now PR 91426.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91426
Bug ID: 91426
Summary: Different colors for errors with multiple locations
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83250
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Intrinsics now implemented for GCC 10+, keeping open for some optimizations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90361
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 12 16:41:27 2019
New Revision: 274314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274314=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90361 add missing macro definition
The src/c++17/string-inst.cc file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |8.5
--- Comment #30 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77711
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91424
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> Also:
> - there's no option flag controlling the warning
That one is by design. There is no way that this can even
be valid code.
> - the "2" location marker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91424
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #29 from Matt Thompson ---
Also, this did seem to build GCC:
CC="/Users/mathomp4/installed/Core/gcc-gfortran/8.2.0/bin/gcc
--sysroot=/Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX.sdk"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #28 from Matt Thompson ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #27)
> That's fine - essentially, you're building them from source and therefore
> don't need to worry about --with-gmp= configure options etc.
>
> For the record, I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83250
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 12 15:55:56 2019
New Revision: 274313
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274313=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/83250
PR target/91340
* config/i386/avxintrin.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91340
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 12 15:55:56 2019
New Revision: 274313
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274313=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/83250
PR target/91340
* config/i386/avxintrin.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87108
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template struct array { };
template struct A; // incomplete
template
struct A>
{
};
A> a;
91271.cc:10:13: error: aggregate ‘A > a’ has incomplete type and
cannot be defined
A> a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60679
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is core issue 1647.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91271
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87108
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhangbonian17 at 163 dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81043
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77781
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #26)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #25)
> >
> > > Oh, yes. I was thinking of things we'll be building with this new GCC. I
> > > just wish I could figure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91407
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #26 from Matt Thompson ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #25)
>
> > Thanks for the explanations. I'm trying a new build now with gcc-8.2.0 as
> > the compiler passed to configure.
> >
> > Here's a(nother dumb) question:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91419
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Jeff also noticed this. The issue should happen on targets where
> alignof(int) != sizeof(int) since there we cannot conclude that with int *p,
> *q; the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #24)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #23)
> > --with-sysroot=/opt/iains/SDKs/darwin18-2
> > this is the sysroot that will be built into the compiler and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #24 from Matt Thompson ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #23)
> --with-sysroot=/opt/iains/SDKs/darwin18-2
> this is the sysroot that will be built into the compiler and used
> automatically when it's invoked (in this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Lyon ---
Indeed, although r274163 fixes the problem I reported, it also introduces a
regression when compiling the very same testcase but adding -mthumb:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c -O2 (internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #22)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #17)
>
> > > I have tried the same configure line with gcc 8.2.0 loaded,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91300
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91323
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*|x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> Maybe we should make "is this an ordered comparison" separate from the
> actual comparison code.
I was considering having a single .IFN_FENV_CMP (a, b, opts)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #22 from Matt Thompson ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
> (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #17)
>
> > > b) (remind me) what is the "--with-native-system-header-dir=/usr/include"
> > > meant to provide? It seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #21 from Matt Thompson ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #20)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #17)
> >
>
> > > Now, I'm not sure that gcc itself needs /usr/include,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
> (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #17)
>
> > Now, I'm not sure that gcc itself needs /usr/include, but many of the
> > libraries and more I compile with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #17)
> > b) (remind me) what is the "--with-native-system-header-dir=/usr/include"
> > meant to provide? It seems like you are maybe mixing cross-configuration
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
FWIW: this was my clang-bootstrapped test of the release candidate:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-08/msg00645.html
--prefix=/opt/iains/x86_64-apple-darwin18/gcc-9-wip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83250
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That said, I think we should eventually try to add some define_insn_and_split
that would help with generating better code e.g. on
#include
__m256d
foo1 (__m128d __A)
{
return _mm256_insertf128_pd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #17 from Matt Thompson ---
Iain,
The (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #16)
> Hi Matt,
>
> (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #15)
>
> > I seem to still have issues. I downloaded 9.2.0 this morning and built it
> > with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Maybe we should make "is this an ordered comparison" separate from the
actual comparison code.
That would make things quite a bit simpler as well. Maybe we can pull
that through to RTL, as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83250
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > where we end up with
> >
> >[local count: 1073741824]:
> > if (a_3(D) < b_4(D))
> > goto ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
Hi Matt,
(In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #15)
> I seem to still have issues. I downloaded 9.2.0 this morning and built it
> with:
>
> $ ../gcc-9.2.0/configure
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91375
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 12 12:59:08 2019
New Revision: 274311
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274311=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-12 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-08-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #44 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 12 12:59:08 2019
New Revision: 274311
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274311=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-12 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-08-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #15 from Matt Thompson ---
Iain,
I seem to still have issues. I downloaded 9.2.0 this morning and built it with:
$ ../gcc-9.2.0/configure
--prefix=/Users/mathomp4/installed/Core/gcc-gfortran/9.2.0
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> where we end up with
>
>[local count: 1073741824]:
> if (a_3(D) < b_4(D))
> goto ; [50.00%]
> else
> goto ; [50.00%]
>
>[local count:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91424
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
A third problem: Zero-trip do loops are warned about.
program main
implicit none
integer :: i
real :: a(2)
do i=1,3,-1
a(i) = 2.
end do
print *,a
end program main
gets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91423
--- Comment #3 from Anders Schau Knatten ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think GCC tells you that deriving from std::array from a packed struct is
> going to cause trouble because std::array expects to be naturally aligned?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
There are quite many different cases to test, and many *more* do not currently
generate the wanted code because it isn't optimised properly on gimple level,
and that makes it hard to test the RTL /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
I think part of the problem with the current or_comparison optimization is that
it relies on invert_tree_comparison in many cases, and that doesn't really work
for floating point (and we handle the unsafe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91425
Bug ID: 91425
Summary: Ordered compares aren't optimised properly
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #22 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #21)
> Fixed on trunk.
I ran an AArch64 bootstrap on GCC9 branch and that is fine.
1 - 100 of 303 matches
Mail list logo
