https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79363
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Bug 69698 depends on bug 79363, which changed state.
Bug 79363 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE with NSDMI and array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79363
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #50 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The generic code rounded up the allocation size twice, and that isn't needed.
The problem has been solved for other targets before; a patch for Darwin is
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87750
--- Comment #3 from Mark Atkinson ---
(In reply to Mark Atkinson from comment #2)
> Created attachment 44906 [details]
> Bug repro (godbolt link copy-paste)
Incidentally godbolt copies with syntax colour coding etc., but will only paste
as such
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79571
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79797
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78707
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78856
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87757
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79457
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79734
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79410
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80173
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87696
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
On the other hand, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01599.html
looks fine. Three text/plain attachments, all linked to separately.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80110
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79993
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80017
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80162
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83808
Bug 83808 depends on bug 79993, which changed state.
Bug 79993 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in tree_to_uhwi, at tree.c:7344
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79993
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79960
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87757
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
prior to that gimplify.c code, the location of the argument is correctly set,
as:
t.c:8:31: note:
8 | __builtin_sprintf (e, "%s", [0]);
| ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #49 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #46)
> Yeah, PowerPC doesn’t have addressing via PC, thus it requires to do tricks
> like that
No, we don't have to do such strange code. The usual way is to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79212
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78911
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84823
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85924
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85891
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79704
Bug 79704 depends on bug 68128, which changed state.
Bug 68128 Summary: A huge regression in Parboil v2.5 OpenMP CUTCP test (2.5
times lower performance)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68128
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70927
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68128
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #48 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #44)
> I got assembly of pr78468.c from various versions of GCC
>
> • 7.3 produces absolutely the same as patched 8.2
> • 6.4 produces slightly different assembly with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87757
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Aldy: do you remember why the arguments need to have the same location as the
call itself?
The first case works because during gimplify_arg it's wrapped in a NOP_EXPR
which is casting from char[] to char *,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87750
--- Comment #2 from Mark Atkinson ---
Created attachment 44906
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44906=edit
Bug repro (godbolt link copy-paste)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #57 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The blrl thing ("skip a return") doesn't kill the return stack; all CPUs
with a return stack can recover it here afaik. Recovery of course takes
a little time still. Newer CPUs predict BL+4 as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81234
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Bug 69698 depends on bug 81234, which changed state.
Bug 81234 Summary: [6 Regression] stray notes for a flexible array member not
at end of struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81234
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #55 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #52)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #50)
> > The generic code rounded up the allocation size twice, and that isn't
> > needed.
> >
> > The problem has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #56 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #55)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #52)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #50)
> > > The generic code rounded up the allocation size twice, and that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80769
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 80202, which changed state.
Bug 80202 Summary: [6 Regression] Spurious warning "array subscript is below
array bounds" with if-statement and char to unsigned int conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80202
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80631
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81073
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87597
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tobias, are you going to backport the fix to the release branches?
Jakub's comment 8 sounds like it might already be too late for 6.5, but it
would be great to have this at least on the 7 and 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #53 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #52)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #50)
> > The generic code rounded up the allocation size twice, and that isn't
> > needed.
> >
> > The problem has been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82085
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81675
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81126
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #16 from Petr ---
Thanks a lot! I hope much more code would benefit from this change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #51 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #49)
> (In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #46)
> > Yeah, PowerPC doesn’t have addressing via PC, thus it requires to do tricks
> > like that
>
> No, we don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #54 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment 51)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment 49)
> > (In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment 46)
> > > Yeah, PowerPC doesn’t have addressing via PC, thus it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87761
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
All of those look like register allocation problems, except perhaps that
last one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #58 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #53)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #52)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #50)
> > > The generic code rounded up the allocation size twice, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58372
David Grayson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidegrayson at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87741
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Send email issues to postmas...@sourceware.org (not overseers, that's
another mailing list on the same server).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #60 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #59)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #58)
>
> > This patch
> > (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/txtNTsImfm9sQ.txt) is okay
> > for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68226
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78580
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78774
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79388
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #47 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #45)
> (In reply to self from comment #44)
>
> > I can’t get where is the value of STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET in published assembly
> > and why do you think it is wrong
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82336
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79325
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #52 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #50)
> The generic code rounded up the allocation size twice, and that isn't needed.
>
> The problem has been solved for other targets before; a patch for Darwin is
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
I looked at one of the failing tests (gcc.target/aarch64/cvtf_1.c)
the code looks worse than before, generating an extra instruction
in each of the routines. Here is an example from one function where
there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
--- Comment #10 from Mike Gulick ---
In hopes of seeing some progress on this bug, I will rebase the patches on the
latest gcc master branch and re-test. I will also refactor the main patch to
separate out the functional fix from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #59 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #58)
> This patch
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/txtNTsImfm9sQ.txt) is okay
> for trunk and all open branches, btw.
It needs some update,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
--- Comment #9 from Pádraig Brady ---
Facebook
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
Bug ID: 87763
Summary: [9.0 Regression] aarch64 target testcases fail after
r265398
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87764
Bug ID: 87764
Summary: gfortran crashes with illegal code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87473
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Oct 26 18:50:51 2018
New Revision: 265543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265543=gcc=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-10-26 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87050
--- Comment #12 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Based on a recursive grep of the wwwdocs repo the only remaining use of "xhtml"
is a variable "XHTML" in htdocs/style.mhtml which, AFAICS, doesn't any longer
actually have anything to do with XHTML.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71880
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87663
--- Comment #3 from Lukas Mosimann ---
```
template
struct integral_constant {
static constexpr T value = v;
using value_type = T;
using type = integral_constant;
};
template
struct F : integral_constant::value -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87663
--- Comment #4 from Lukas Mosimann ---
Okay one last comment from my side (sorry for this two updates in short
intervals). I tried to further simplify it, and I came up with this code which
I think has the same problem.
```
template
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
Bug ID: 87769
Summary: GCC build from source uses headers and libraries from
directories host machine.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87758
--- Comment #2 from John Ericson ---
Indeed it has. Are you worried about the breakage then? Could we make a new
--print-library-name= ? The old name is pretty bad anyways, so I'd like a flag
with that name to exist regardless.
I am still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
--- Comment #10 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
> Still better than duplicating the whole class IMO.
The `optional` example in P1144R0 Appendix B looks scarier than I should have.
For one thing, I omitted all the boring user-facing API of `optional`
M",@progbits,16
.align 16
.LC0:
.long 1073741824
.long 0
.long 0
.long 0
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.0 20181026 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-efi-2 broadcast-4]$
vbroadcastss should be replaced by memory broadcast.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
I was looking into using relocation in std::swap. For a type like deque (if we
ignore the swap overload), using memcpy is really worth it. For a more simple
type like int, using memcpy loses type information,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87766
Eric Fiselier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87765
Bug ID: 87765
Summary: Internal compiler error: coerce_template_parms (8.2)
or cxx_eval_constant_expression (trunk)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87473
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Oct 26 19:38:45 2018
New Revision: 265547
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265547=gcc=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-10-26 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77703
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62130
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87766
Bug ID: 87766
Summary: ICE using __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ in dependent context
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE5186:
.size foo, .-foo
.section.rodata.cst32,"aM",@progbits,32
.align 32
.LC0:
.quad 3
.quad 3
.quad 3
.quad 3
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.0 20181026 (experimental)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59784
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87768
Bug ID: 87768
Summary: ICE in tsubst_copy_and_build, at cp/pt.c:19002 when
using concepts
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 493 matches
Mail list logo
