https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94804
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94811
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83403
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91614
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Martin, can you try to change the limits,
maybe that is just a limit for inline expansions
that is not right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94812
Bug ID: 94812
Summary: ppc incorrect mffs-based emulation of mffsl
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/5
44391.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94760
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5edc76acac7bbadd8d1b00c4cc5994b2a088542
commit r10-8005-gf5edc76acac7bbadd8d1b00c4cc5994b2a088542
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94474
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Andrew,
please update the reproducer, and explain in more detail
what you would like to be changed.
I still do not understand your idea.
But I try hard to do so.
Please be patient with me.
Bernd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94759
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94759
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b9c91b7f3279e23aed965c05197acf3b6f439f8d
commit r10-8004-gb9c91b7f3279e23aed965c05197acf3b6f439f8d
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Another test, where the name after . isn't an injected-class-name:
template struct B {
void foo ();
int i;
};
template
struct D : public B { };
template
void fn (D d)
{
d.template B::foo ();
d.temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94701
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94810
--- Comment #2 from Geoffrey Casper ---
I suppose that's a workaround, but there shouldn't be a seg fault in a
libstdc++ header file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94701
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:174b6f735019a11017284aaa23962cebd3943c99
commit r10-8002-g174b6f735019a11017284aaa23962cebd3943c99
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94811
Bug ID: 94811
Summary: Please make make_tuple noexcept when possible
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #22 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Ok, I stop shrinking the reproducer further down for the moment, let me know if
you need more help. Thanks for your efforts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94810
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why can't you just use a global object with a constructor and destructor? That
would get correctly ordered with respect to the std::ios_base::Init object that
needs to be created before std::cout can be use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48390
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48390&action=edit
gcc10-pr94809.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #20 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Thanks a lot for reverting, Thomas, shall I further reduce the reproducer, or
can you work with it now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90719
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90718
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90719
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f0eba390fb5f887874e37a1f626eeab4ad55a44
commit r9-8547-g1f0eba390fb5f887874e37a1f626eeab4ad55a44
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90718
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:253b6edd2fc3499f1f2bd0f2d55cd47f852cfa09
commit r9-8548-g253b6edd2fc3499f1f2bd0f2d55cd47f852cfa09
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94780
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.0|9.3.1
Summary|[10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93956
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93956
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8df7c404e233abb1e26d8b8370c460732904531
commit r10-8001-gd8df7c404e233abb1e26d8b8370c460732904531
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8df7c404e233abb1e26d8b8370c460732904531
commit r10-8001-gd8df7c404e233abb1e26d8b8370c460732904531
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94810
Bug ID: 94810
Summary: std::cout segmentation fault in
__attribute__((constructor)) function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90719
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6dffa67b46dc2d4deb25951f8b17e823f559cf3a
commit r10-8000-g6dffa67b46dc2d4deb25951f8b17e823f559cf3a
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Mon Ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90718
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6dffa67b46dc2d4deb25951f8b17e823f559cf3a
commit r10-8000-g6dffa67b46dc2d4deb25951f8b17e823f559cf3a
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Mon Ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90718
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
Patch is in upstream, syncing it down to gdc.
https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/3071
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90719
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
Patch is in upstream, syncing it down to gdc.
https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/3072
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94780
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b8e9006bb35641865358e2df4f6b3ae185b239a
commit r10-7999-g9b8e9006bb35641865358e2df4f6b3ae185b239a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79585
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f1cd1da1a805c3d00332da45c3ab78a3931af63
commit r10-7998-g5f1cd1da1a805c3d00332da45c3ab78a3931af63
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90750
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f1cd1da1a805c3d00332da45c3ab78a3931af63
commit r10-7998-g5f1cd1da1a805c3d00332da45c3ab78a3931af63
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94772
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94772
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64da1b761db248f4f0d2235a6055c025fbbc94eb
commit r10-7996-g64da1b761db248f4f0d2235a6055c025fbbc94eb
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #16 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 48388
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48388&action=edit
2nd reproducer, down to 800 kb
Now you can do just ./whizard_check to run the test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79585
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
With -fsanitize=undefined the result is correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94809
Bug ID: 94809
Summary: Different results between gcc-9 and gcc-6
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94804
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
For subtraction, it's even worse.
using i128 = __int128;
i128 sub128(i128 a, i128 b)
{
return a - b;
}
results in
sub128(__int128, __int128):
mov rax, rdi
sub rax, rdx
sbb rsi, rcx
mov rdx,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #15 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Wow, I have a first version, finally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #14 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 48387
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48387&action=edit
Reproducer, first try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I will submit a reproducer, unpack it, do 'make', then execute
./whizard_test --check simulations.
Still trying to get this below 1 MB. :(
In case you cannot fix this, please, Thomas, please, revert this. Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94795
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94808
Bug ID: 94808
Summary: [ICE] [Regression] Segfault during diagnostics from
concept check failure
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66570
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Probably it makes sense to ask on g...@gcc.gnu.org about whether libbacktrace
should be installed when installing GCC.
Yes, what you describe should work. Note that in the general case libbacktrace
must
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94807
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94807
Bug ID: 94807
Summary: Inconsistency in lambda instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94796
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup of bug 3507.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94797
--- Comment #3 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks so much!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter ---
fuck, sdill too big :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > Can you maybe bisect this to a specific (fortran) commit in GCC?
>
> Richard, when is the last time (presumabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Here we have "p->template A::a()" but cp_parser_expression only parses the
"p->template A" part, so we complain that a ; isn't following.
It's because cp_parser_template_name now considers the object scope:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92830
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92830
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa29cf0c3f19b648e30b16fd2485c3c17a528a6e
commit r10-7994-gfa29cf0c3f19b648e30b16fd2485c3c17a528a6e
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94797
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94775
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94797
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76458c912b0cdda59e094fa64b98aea9ffee214a
commit r10-7993-g76458c912b0cdda59e094fa64b98aea9ffee214a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94740
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Can you maybe bisect this to a specific (fortran) commit in GCC?
Richard, when is the last time (presumably) that either a fix can go in or
the patch can be re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94805
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94806
Bug ID: 94806
Summary: Failure to optimize unary minus for 128-bit operand
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94769
--- Comment #7 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Since gfc_resolve_dt is a non-static function we cannot assume anything about
argument DT. Argument DT gets passed to function check_io_constraints which
passes values depending on DT, namely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94805
Bug ID: 94805
Summary: variant hash algorithm is collision-prone
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66570
--- Comment #3 from Soeren A. ---
Thanks for your response, Ian. Do you know how the GCC release managers can be
asked for their stance regarding this? I would assume that they're not CC'ed on
this bug report and I'm not familiar enough with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94769
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 05:12:50PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94769
>
> Thomas Koenig changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #8)
> I'd like to understand what went wrong here... I suspect that
> the fix exposed another bug somewhere :-(
>
> Is it possible to isolate a test case like that? I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94795
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Gabriel Ravier from comment #2)
> Also, I can also provide this a very similar function for which such an
This optimization could be implemented with a simple combine splitter:
--cut here--
diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
I'd like to understand what went wrong here... I suspect that
the fix exposed another bug somewhere :-(
Is it possible to isolate a test case like that? If that is
the offending patch, I think it is probabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94775
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The assertion was introduced in a fix for PR79900 by the commit below:
g:423aec8b5756 1734) if (TYPE_USER_ALIGN (t) != TYPE_USER_ALIGN (result)
g:423aec8b5756 1735)|| TYPE_ALIGN (t) != TYPE_ALIG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94775
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The full stack trace shows the ICE occurs while formatting the text of a
warning. strip_typedefs is being called while formatting the type of an array
of d and when assertion below fires:
if (TYPE_USER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66570
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I personally am not going to make the decision as to whether GCC should install
libbacktrace. That is up to the GCC release managers.
Most projects that want to use libbacktrace separately from GCC are u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94697
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:562bfb1f0e64aa6398bdf4baa0a8b205f4b617ab
commit r10-7992-g562bfb1f0e64aa6398bdf4baa0a8b205f4b617ab
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94769
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #7 from Simon Braß ---
(In reply to Simon Braß from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > Can you maybe bisect this to a specific (fortran) commit in GCC?
>
> FYI, I'm hooking up with the bisect (I'm a collea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94739
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Manfred Schwarb from comment #9)
> Patch seems to work so far. Do you need any logfiles?
No need for it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
I have a preliminary patch which generates:
vpush.64{d0, d1, d2, d3, d4, d5, d6, d7}
vpush.64{d16, d17, d18, d19, d20, d21, d22, d23, d24, d25, d26,
d27, d28, d29, d30, d31}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94578
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93114
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94774
--- Comment #2 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> Moving the guard up would suppress the dump output in the "unsafe" case so I
> don't think that's what we want. OTOH, ether initializing the array,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94804
Bug ID: 94804
Summary: Failure to elide useless movs in 128-bit addition
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94797
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66570
Soeren A. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abr...@dar-clan.de
--- Comment #1 from Soere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94803
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94769
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 06:27:25AM +, stefansf at linux dot ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94769
>
> --- Comment #3 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ibm.com> ---
> Since one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94803
Bug ID: 94803
Summary: wrong class name in error message
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Relevant threads:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2017-June/478011.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2017-June/478247.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94795
--- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Also, I can also provide this a very similar function for which such an
optimization could be helpful :
int f(int x)
{
return -(x == 0);
}
LLVM optimises that function to this :
f(int):
cmp edi, 1
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
