https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87873
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The vectorizer is confused by a LC PHI node with a constant argument. That's
indeed sth that usually doesn't happen.
It's simple to avoid this propagation being done but the question is whether
code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87813
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87813
>
> --- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87869
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87873
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Adding checking code reveals that at least SCCP happily propgates constants
into LC PHI nodes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87715
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Summary|problems with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87868
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87879
Bug ID: 87879
Summary: -Wformat-nonliteral could see more things as literals
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87848
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
Bug ID: 87880
Summary: [9 regression] All macOS asan execution tests FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87853
--- Comment #7 from xuepeng guo ---
Author: xguo
Date: Mon Nov 5 09:51:09 2018
New Revision: 265792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265792=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-11-05 Xuepeng Guo
PR target/87853
* config/i386/emmintrin.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87881
Bug ID: 87881
Summary: gfortran.dg/inquiry_type_ref_(1.f08|3.f90) fail on
darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87706
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
> cow is already dead at profile time (if it would not, we would end up using
> the counter). It seems to me that one remove unreachable code pass is
> missing.
> We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87875
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, it needs it executable only if the kernel would create an executable
stack normally (i.e. check PT_GNU_STACK segment headers or all libraries and
executable, or check if the real stack is executable or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87875
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, it needs it executable only if the kernel would create an executable
stack normally (i.e. check PT_GNU_STACK segment headers or all libraries and
executable, or check if the real stack is executable or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> WORKSFORME on x86_64-apple-darwin18.2.0 configured with
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Weird: can you check where the definition of
> ___cxa_rethrow_primary_exception is coming from in your case? On my
> 10.14.2 Beta1 system, I only found it in libc++abi.1.dylib.
I see
% nm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87868
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
You attached the patch to bad PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87875
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Created attachment 44956 [details]
> Patch candidate
>
> @Jakub: What do you think about the suggested patch? May I attempt to
> mainline it?
No, see above,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87875
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > Created attachment 44956 [details]
> > Patch candidate
> >
> > @Jakub: What do you think about the suggested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87875
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not also sure what happens if the executable and libraries don't need
executable stack and you later dlopen some shared library that needs it (e.g.
uses nested functions). Don't remember if ld.so mprotects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
--- Comment #16 from MCCCS ---
Hi, could you please change the component from "bootstrap"
to "d" ? The same error occurs during non-bootstrap
compiling too. Otherwise this is in the wrong category,
people might not see this and send duplicates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87875
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44956|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87875
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Not also sure what happens if the executable and libraries don't need
> executable stack and you later dlopen some shared library that needs it
> (e.g. uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #69 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #64)
> so all languages, m32/m64, --enable-checking=all,rtl,tree trunk bootstrap
> completed without error (with the patch above + one to enable Ada to work on
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87873
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So the vectorizer issue is highlighted by the following assert. It triggers
because scalar and if-converted loop do not have a 1:1 match in the number of
loop-closed PHIs. And that happens because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87706
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
cow is already dead at profile time (if it would not, we would end up using the
counter). It seems to me that one remove unreachable code pass is missing.
We used to remove unreachable code after early
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87837
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 10:27:13 2018
New Revision: 265793
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265793=gcc=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/87837
* match.pd (X + Y < X): Don't optimize if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87875
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
So I can confirm it's caused by nested functions, more precisely by nested
function trampolines as documented here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Trampolines.html
```
GCC has traditionally supported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
Navya changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||navyadeepika.garakapati@gma
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82857
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 44957
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44957=edit
WIP patch, follows .gnu_debugaltlink
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87868
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am attaching testcase and patch I am lto-botstrapping now. It copies
canonical from original type which is important for us to not lose TBAA
during ealry opts as well.
typedef struct rtx_def *rtx;
typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> Weird: can you check where the definition of
>> ___cxa_rethrow_primary_exception is coming from in your case? On my
>> 10.14.2 Beta1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 10:28:19 2018
New Revision: 265794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265794=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/87859
* gimple-ssa-store-merging.c (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79191
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> Where exactly in the compiler is this optimization supposed to be done and
Eric, that's part of the problem. The optimization already exists in VRP, but
it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> Now that I think about it, I think I could fix this differently by adding a
> flag to the store structures that it has been merged already, but I'll
> postpone that to next week, need to work on stage1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87860
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Nov 5 13:34:36 2018
New Revision: 265796
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265796=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix build on sparc64-linux-gnu.
2018-11-05 Martin Liska
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87649
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:07:47 2018
New Revision: 265801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265801=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-10-19 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85488
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:07:47 2018
New Revision: 265801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265801=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-10-19 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87688
--- Comment #5 from simon at pushface dot org ---
Bug no longer present in gcc version 9.0.0 20181103 (experimental) (GCC).
r265766.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87882
Bug ID: 87882
Summary: -Wredundant-move false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #71 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #70)
>
> powerpc64 darwin is *much* less tested than the 32b variant.
>
> I don't have any access to my ppc64 machine for the next week but... it
> looks like our gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
> > --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> >> Weird: can you check where the definition of
> >> ___cxa_rethrow_primary_exception is coming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87873
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:55:53 2018
New Revision: 265812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265812=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-11-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87873
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87860
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Fixed in libsanitizer mainline in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rCRT346129
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669
--- Comment #70 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #69)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #64)
> > so all languages, m32/m64, --enable-checking=all,rtl,tree trunk bootstrap
> > completed without error (with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87647
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:08:30 2018
New Revision: 265802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265802=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-10-20 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86288
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:09:10 2018
New Revision: 265803
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265803=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-10-24 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87725
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:10:16 2018
New Revision: 265805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265805=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-10-25 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It got reported in http://bugzilla.redhat.com/1645400
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> It got reported in http://bugzilla.redhat.com/1645400
Good, thus you nicely reduced the original source files!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I didn't have access to the preprocessed source and was lazy to prepare it
myself, so I just copied the corresponding structure definition without C++
ctors/dtors, figured out what I thought would be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18041
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
We're still "stuck" on GIMPLE, on x86_64 we manage to elide the redundant load
now and get
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
movl%eax, %edx
shrb%dl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:12:15 2018
New Revision: 265807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265807=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/87859
* gimple-ssa-store-merging.c (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87837
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:11:32 2018
New Revision: 265806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265806=gcc=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/87837
* match.pd (X + Y < X): Don't optimize if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87883
Bug ID: 87883
Summary: [ARM] ICE: Segmentation fault in arm_regno_class
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87813
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Aldy -- fixing that is a TODO for stage3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87884
Bug ID: 87884
Summary: ubsan causes wrong -Wformat-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
--- Comment #6 from Thiago Macieira ---
Clang is not affected:
$ clang -dM -E -xc /dev/null -march=sandybridge -march=native | grep AVX
#define __AVX2__ 1
#define __AVX__ 1
$ clang -dM -E -xc /dev/null -march=native -march=sandybridge | grep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87469
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56496
--- Comment #4 from G. Steinmetz ---
Slightly modified :
$ cat z1.f90
program p
class(*), allocatable :: a[:]
allocate (integer :: a[*])
select type (a)
type is (integer)
a = a(1)
end select
end
$ gfortran-9-20181104 -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87886
Bug ID: 87886
Summary: ICE in format_helper, at real.h:227
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87869
--- Comment #4 from Nick Bowler ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I think a better target for optimizing would be the RTL side,
[...]
> I'm sure arc can store to a register address as well.
Yes, if the shortest possible store
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87814
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87887
Bug ID: 87887
Summary: ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.c:269
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
Thiago Macieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago at kde dot org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87879
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
You'd need dataflow information that's not available at that point in the
front end to know that the initializer is indeed the value of fmt at that
point in the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87813
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 11/5/18 11:06 AM, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87813
>
> --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6)
>
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86574
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87813
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6)
I agree, but it's just a small subset of such cases. There are many optimizing
transformations that GCC does at -O0 that affect the IL later on: calls to
library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86572
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
This breaks aarch64 -mabi=ilp32.
/opt/gcc/gcc-20181105/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/warn-strlen-no-nul.c:56:1: error:
type mismatch in binary expression
int
int
sizetype
_1 = i1 + 1;
/opt/gcc/gcc-20181105/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87885
Bug ID: 87885
Summary: ICE in release_ssa_name_fn with -fprofile-report
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87886
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87888
Bug ID: 87888
Summary: Behaviour of __builtin_arc_sr differs from its
description in the manual.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86850
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Original problem still exists a couple of months later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87886
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.4 |---
Summary|[7/8/9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 5 21:18:22 2018
New Revision: 265821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265821=gcc=rev
Log:
combine: Don't make an intermediate reg for assigning to sfp (PR87871)
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
Romain Naour changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.naour at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87583
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's the same problem as many other PRs. You are using -mcpu=power8 (it is
the default for powerpc64le), but disabling some 2.04 insns (power5+).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87886
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87688
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43064
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg00304.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18041
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
If combine tries to split RTL into two instructions, it tries to do that
one way (and one way only). It picked the AND here. It did not work.
You can add some define_split to your target to help
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68686
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87882
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87891
Bug ID: 87891
Summary: _build/./gcc/as: line 106: exec: ppc64: not found
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87881
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi Dominique,
When you have a moment, could you do a bit of diagnosis for me please? I
presume that the ICE is caused by the neglect of a pointer that is sometimes
null but which FC28 passes over. A debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87889
Bug ID: 87889
Summary: [9 Regression] CPU2000 177.mesa failed to build
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68686
--- Comment #5 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Mon Nov 5 23:03:55 2018
New Revision: 265822
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265822=gcc=rev
Log:
Update most of libquadmath/math/ from glibc, automate update (PR
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
