https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91684
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sat Sep 7 05:11:16 2019
New Revision: 275484
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275484=gcc=rev
Log:
add PR target/91684 to ChangeLog
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38093
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
So, if I understand the patch, isn't this just papering over the issue by
fixing the specific instance of the bfin target causing this genrecog crash?
That is, couldn't some other port also cause genrecog to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53074
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33104
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26966
--- Comment #31 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Mark Mitchell from comment #16)
> OpenBSD is not a primary or secondary platform.
Is the OpenBSD port even still maintained? I don't see any maintainer listed
for it in MAINTAINERS, and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91684
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #13)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #10)
>
> Yes, the warning is intended and Glibc was just patched to avoid it:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91647
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
with the path applied on x86_64-darwin16 (same results for c++98 / c++17
unless the line count in the test has changed, this is a progression - three
fewer fails - but it seems 3 different ones)
XPASS:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #20 from Sunil Pandey ---
Created attachment 46851
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46851=edit
Compile time regression reproducer.
attached reproducer show ~28X compile time regression after the commit. See the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43565
Jorg Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jorg.brown at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91693
--- Comment #1 from Jorg Brown ---
Related missed-optimization bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43565
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91683
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91696
--- Comment #1 from Craig Topper ---
I've also submitted a patch to clang to do the same.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67289
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91696
Bug ID: 91696
Summary: [X86] AVX512 intrinsics that only support SAE should
allow (_MM_FOUND_NO_EXC|_MM_FROUND_CUR_DIRECTION) to
match icc
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91695
Bug ID: 91695
Summary: [X86] get_available_features only sets FEATURE_GFNI
and FEATURE_VPCLMULQDQ when avx512_usable is true
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91692
--- Comment #3 from thomas at doczkal dot eu ---
On September 6, 2019 9:00:31 PM UTC, ian at airs dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91692
>
>--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
>Thanks for the bug report. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91694
Bug ID: 91694
Summary: configure.ac does not correctly check for gethostname
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91668
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=91692
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks for the bug report. The normal case when configuring GCC is to create a
new empty directory and run SRCDIR/configure in that directory, as documented
at https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91693
Bug ID: 91693
Summary: Comparing addresses of templated inline vars gets
bogus "not a constant expression" error
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91673
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced:
template
struct S {
using U = void() noexcept(B);
};
S s;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91668
--- Comment #4 from c.s.brady at warwick dot ac.uk ---
My belief was based on the same statement in section 6.3.3 of the F2003
standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91668
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #2)
> Is this actually required? My feeling would be that is is not, but I may
> well be mistaken.
>
> Does somebody have chapter & verse on this? And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91668
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67862
Andrew Sutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91686
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91692
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Doczkal ---
Created attachment 46848
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46848=edit
config.log file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91679
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91463
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91654
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Sep 6 19:27:58 2019
New Revision: 275475
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275475=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/91654
* config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91692
Bug ID: 91692
Summary: gcc build fails with --enable-languages="go"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91647
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91690
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=91684
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91463
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91463
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91668
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91684
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 46846
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46846=edit
untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91593
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Looking back at the code I see we are translating from Front-end to run time
regarding whether or not we actually are going to show the positive sign or not
or suppress it the sign altogether in floating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91691
--- Comment #2 from Alistair ---
I can also reproduce this with the 9.2 release.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91691
--- Comment #1 from Alistair ---
The full command line is:
gcc clnt_udp.c -c -std=gnu11 -fgnu89-inline -O2 -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wundef
-Werror -fmerge-all-constants -frounding-math -fno-stack-protector
-Wstrict-prototypes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91691
Bug ID: 91691
Summary: Cross compiling glibc produces a false
maybe-uninitialized error
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91690
Bug ID: 91690
Summary: Slow IEEE intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91689
Bug ID: 91689
Summary: internal compiler error: in decode_addr_const, at
varasm.c:2864
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91687
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||86999
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27221
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Fri Sep 6 16:03:42 2019
New Revision: 275469
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275469=gcc=rev
Log:
[Darwin, testsuite] Fix PR27221.
The test can't succeed on 32b powerpc Darwin since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91688
Bug ID: 91688
Summary: -Woverride-init could use an intermediate mode of
operation
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78744
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67958
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Fri Sep 6 15:59:54 2019
New Revision: 275468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275468=gcc=rev
Log:
[Darwin, testsuite] Fix PR67958.
These tests require specific scan-asms in some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71394
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63891
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Fri Sep 6 15:56:18 2019
New Revision: 275467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275467=gcc=rev
Log:
[Darwin, testsuite] Fix PR63891 (darwin-weakimport-3).
This is a testcase failing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91687
--- Comment #1 from barnaby.wilks at arm dot com ---
(In reply to barnaby.wilks from comment #0)
> Some architectures have instructions that allow the expressions of the form
> "(x * y) - z" to be done in one instruction (for example the FNMSUB
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Fri Sep 6 15:51:01 2019
New Revision: 275466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275466=gcc=rev
Log:
[Darwin, testsuite ] Fix for PR58321.
Darwin doesn't emit a .file directive by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91687
Bug ID: 91687
Summary: Fused multiply subtract not generated when same
operand appears in multiplication and subtraction.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11247
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91686
Bug ID: 91686
Summary: ICE in gimplify:2554
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91670
--- Comment #2 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ctice
Date: Fri Sep 6 14:54:48 2019
New Revision: 275460
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275460=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix testcase to not use LTO with -fvtable-verify.
2019-09-05 Caroline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19544
Nic Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nic at buymore dot pro
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86647
--- Comment #5 from Yann Droneaud ---
I've reproduced the issue with
bool test(void)
{
return ((unsigned int)0 - 1) < 0;
}
See https://godbolt.org/z/b1QqIC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86647
--- Comment #4 from Yann Droneaud ---
*** Bug 91685 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91685
Yann Droneaud changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81642
Yann Droneaud changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yann at droneaud dot fr
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86647
Yann Droneaud changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yann at droneaud dot fr
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91685
Bug ID: 91685
Summary: -Wtype-limits warns for constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91684
Bug ID: 91684
Summary: [10 regression][ARM] ICE in gen_movdi, at
config/arm/arm.md:5079
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91125
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Sep 6 12:51:44 2019
New Revision: 275456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275456=gcc=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Deprecate -frepo option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89549
--- Comment #11 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
Would be nice to fix this for the last release of GCC 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
So to outline the desired approach again the idea is to make the SCC finding
(the DFS walk) in check_reduction_path the first-class operation of
vect_is_simple_reduction, not passing in the reduction code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mika.fischer at zoopnet dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91675
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91675
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90441
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
on 10.0.0 20190906 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91667
--- Comment #2 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> The warning is still in GCC 9 but has gone away in GCC 10.0 with r274837.
While I trust you one this, ...
> In bug 91490, comment #4 I said: I'm not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91681
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91665
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88128
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Viktor Ostashevskyi from comment #3)
> > Is it possible to make std::span from std::vector?
>
> Yes, that works with current trunk.
Although
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88128
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Viktor Ostashevskyi from comment #3)
> Was this bug fixed for implenting it?
No.
> Is it possible to make std::span from std::vector?
Yes, that works with current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91682
Bug ID: 91682
Summary: IPA-cp can not propagate value for by-ref argument in
form of *arg = param op constant
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91681
Bug ID: 91681
Summary: Missed optimization for 128 bit arithmetic operations
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91680
Bug ID: 91680
Summary: Integer promotion quirk prevents efficient power of 2
division
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88128
--- Comment #3 from Viktor Ostashevskyi ---
I see that std::span implementation was proposed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-08/msg00068.html.
Was this bug fixed for implenting it?
Is it possible to make std::span from std::vector?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91507
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91670
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91672
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91676
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91675
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91603
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Okay, Thanks!
Looks like these neon instructions don't work at all in big-endian.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91125
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91603
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91125
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Sep 6 06:58:42 2019
New Revision: 275450
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275450=gcc=rev
Log:
Remove support for repo files (PR c++/91125).
2019-09-06 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30277
nicbrown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||contacts at buymore dot pro
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21809
nicbrown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||contacts at buymore dot pro
--- Comment #23
98 matches
Mail list logo
