https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92585
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
knight4553kai at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||knight4553kai at gmx dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92592
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47295|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 20 07:33:19 2019
New Revision: 278477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278477=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-11-20 Richard Biener
PR c/92088
c/
* c-decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92592
Bug ID: 92592
Summary: Redundant comparison after subtraction on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org|rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63707
Иван Бубников changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.bubnikov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92393
Иван Бубников changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92393
--- Comment #2 from Иван Бубников ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Another dup of PR 63707 ?
Yes, it seems so. I`ll mark my request as duplicate. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #39 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Nickolay Kolchin-Semyonov from comment #38)
> Since this is a long standing problem, maybe this limitation should be
> mentioned in official documentation?
Maybe... although, if documented,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86932
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
> Fixed on trunk so far.
So... just waiting on a backport to the branch for 8, then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53360
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52953
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67314
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-01-16 00:00:00 |2019-11-20
--- Comment #8 from Eric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47361
hart3778avery at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hart3778avery at gmx dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92591
Bug ID: 92591
Summary: ICE in optimize_sc, at modulo-sched.c:1063
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92534
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92578
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> With newcnt-=2 you get
>
> movl%edx, %r8d
> movl%esi, %eax
> leal-2(%rsi), %edx
> cmpl%r8d, %edi
> cmove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
Bug ID: 92590
Summary: Cannot expose protected default constructor with
"using" keyword in gcc 10
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92589
--- Comment #2 from Kees Cook ---
Is there anything to enforce a strict "only consider empty array size as
flexible array member" mode? This is an unfortunate weakening of the array
bounds checker as there are plenty of structures that have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92589
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought GCC documented this differently. So this is just a documentation
issue.
GCC allows even non-1 sized fields to be considered flexible arrays if they are
at the end of the struct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92589
Bug ID: 92589
Summary: heuristic to avoid flexible array members too liberal
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83258
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jleahy+gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92320
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 92320, which changed state.
Bug 92320 Summary: Constexpr function pointer derived from lambda is not
accepted as template parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92320
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 92320, which changed state.
Bug 92320 Summary: Constexpr function pointer derived from lambda is not
accepted as template parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92320
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86011
Patrick Oppenlander changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.1.0 |9.2.0
--- Comment #3 from Patrick
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-07-03 00:00:00 |2019-11-19
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92414
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 19 21:28:22 2019
New Revision: 278468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278468=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92414
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr): If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92583
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
You are right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It should do something like
if (!VECTOR_UNIT_NONE_P (V2DImode))
return V2DImode;
and similar for all existing entries.
Putting the same conditionals in multiple places is prone to error, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92439
--- Comment #2 from Dimitri Gorokhovik ---
Hi Andrew,
could the diagnostics in your patch be further improved?
For example, in this invalid code:
template constexpr bool r () { return true; };
template
requires r ()
constexpr inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92588
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92588
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
s it's too many files one needs:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rd5OIekl9To5tT0Duw5mXNX4BzJ3kBVg/view?usp=sharing
GCC compiler version needed:
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.0 20191119 (experimental) (SUSE Linux)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91165
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
My reduced test-case is probably very similar:
template constexpr _Tp forward(_Tp p1) { return p1; }
template struct A {
_T1 first;
_T2 second;
constexpr A(_T1 p1, _T2 p2) : first(p1), second(p2) {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91165
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
Bug ID: 92587
Summary: Compiler is unable to generate finalization wrapper
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91073
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92586
Bug ID: 92586
Summary: ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:13479 with nested
allocatable derived types
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
int f0(void) { return 0x == -1; }
int f1(unsigned x) { return x == -1; }
int f2(int y) { return 0x == y; }
int f3(unsigned x, int y) { return x == y; }
All of them warn the same, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90981
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90898
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47302
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47302=edit
gcc10-pr90898.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67228
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 79262, which changed state.
Bug 79262 Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] load gap with store gap causing
performance regression in 462.libquantum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79262
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79262
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67228
Alisdair Meredith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alisdairm at me dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90842
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92578
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> With newcnt-=2 you get
>
> movl%edx, %r8d
> movl%esi, %eax
> leal-2(%rsi), %edx
> cmpl%r8d, %edi
> cmove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90840
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79262
--- Comment #8 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Tue Nov 19 15:57:54 2019
New Revision: 278452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278452=gcc=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR79262: Adjust vector cost
PR79262 has been fixed for almost all AArch64 cpus,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92585
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64*-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92585
Bug ID: 92585
Summary: [10 regression] r278411 breaks bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84930
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92534
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89913
--- Comment #5 from asutton at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: asutton
Date: Tue Nov 19 15:26:16 2019
New Revision: 278451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278451=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89913
gcc/cp/
* pt.c (get_underlying_template): Exit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92527
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> I have a patch for the bb-slp-21.c failure. Are you still seeing the
> bb-slp-div-2.c failure? I can't reproduce it with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92078
--- Comment #4 from asutton at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: asutton
Date: Tue Nov 19 15:18:50 2019
New Revision: 278450
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278450=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92078
gcc/cp/
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90840
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92527
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
I have a patch for the bb-slp-21.c failure. Are you still seeing the
bb-slp-div-2.c failure? I can't reproduce it with a hacked-up cross, and I'm
not sure from the dump why we failed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92539
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92537
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92584
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I noticed that the speed drop back on the trunk happened since r278281.
> Would you be interested in what loop optimization made the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90767
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47298
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47298=edit
gcc10-pr90767.patch
Untested fix. Though, that only fixes the ugly ... not supported by dump_expr
part, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92581
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 19 14:00:46 2019
New Revision: 278445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278445=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-11-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92581
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92581
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92584
Bug ID: 92584
Summary: A 454.calculix optimization opportunity
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92583
Bug ID: 92583
Summary: internal compiler error: in tsubst_copy, at
cp/pt.c:15552
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92526
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92527
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92534
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90597
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92543
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
--- Comment #29 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #28)
> The last release of gcc-7 has now been made, so it's end-of-life and no
> further fixes for it will be made.
Well, yes, but I'm about to build the final
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90451
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92582
Bug ID: 92582
Summary: [10 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation
fault with concept on constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92578
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92581
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92581
Bug ID: 92581
Summary: [10 Regression] condition chains vectorized wrongly
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92574
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
Similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
The original idea was handle this as much as possible in ivopt which is
difficult given ivopt code has lots of (scev/niter) validity checks. In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92577
--- Comment #3 from Lucas Bader ---
Thanks for the clarification. I know that the standard quotes refer to new and
I added them under the impression that an allocator is allowed to return
nullptr from its allocate function. This would make the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92580
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See PR 85689 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87389
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paultargosz86 at googlemail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92580
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.kenzel at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92579
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-03-28 00:00:00 |2019-11-19
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89931
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
