https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to dominik.strasser from comment #7)
> I canse it plays a role:
> I am running on a CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804
> which has kernel version 3.10.0-862.11.6.el7.x86_64
> and glibc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88844
Bug ID: 88844
Summary: poor range info for number of loop iterations with a
known upper bound
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
--- Comment #1 from Wei Xiao ---
My change (r265827) is based on the latest SDM (Intel® 64 and IA-32
Architectures Software Developer Manuals) which is incorrect for the fixupimm
intrinsics. I'm preparing a patch to fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> It's quite strange that following is fine:
>
> $ cat pr88587-2.c
> __attribute__((target("default"))) void a() {
> __attribute__((__vector_size__(4 * sizeof(float int b = {};
> }
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #7 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
I canse it plays a role:
I am running on a CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804
which has kernel version 3.10.0-862.11.6.el7.x86_64
and glibc glibc-2.17-222.el7.i686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88822
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
If an rvalue's type (or, for that matter, an lvalue's type) is observed
with _Generic, the qualifiers should be consistently dropped.
If a type is observed with typeof, qualifiers need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #5 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
ASAN from git crashes like this. Looks like a double fault.
SignalHandler_Unix.h is in my application's code.
I've attached ASAN's debug output where I removed all messages talking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
> I think the canonical way of re-computing DECL_MODE would be to re-layout
> decls since that also updates RTL if that was already set. There's
> relayout_decl for this which is for example called from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88843
Bug ID: 88843
Summary: [9 Regression] make: Circular s-attr-common <-
insn-conditions.md dependency dropped.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz ---
Experience from testing my simd implementation:
I had failures (2 ULP deviation from long double result) when using
auto __xx = abs(__x);
auto __yy = abs(__y);
auto __zz =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #6 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Created attachment 45426
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45426=edit
ASAN debug output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88842
--- Comment #1 from ptdrnvqd at 10mail dot org ---
from retweet danluu
↓
https://twitter.com/johnregehr/status/923682400676093952
not every day you run across a … easy optimization missing from all of LLVM,
GCC, and Intel CC…
↓
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to dominik.strasser from comment #5)
> ASAN from git crashes like this. Looks like a double fault.
Yes, SEGFAULT happens right in the sanitizer code that's responsible
for creation of a thread.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > I think the canonical way of re-computing DECL_MODE would be to re-layout
> > decls since that also updates RTL if that was already set. There's
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88841
Bug ID: 88841
Summary: Missed optimization transforming cascading ||s into a
bit select
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #10 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Looking at the backtrace, the effects are very different between gcc 7.4 and
9.0. Making it work on a different glibc wouldn't help for me. CentOs 7.5 ==
RHEL 7.5 which is the latest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849
--- Comment #7 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com ---
(In reply to Zhihao Yuan from comment #6)
> Here is a possibly related case:
>
> [...]
I think this is a different bug. GCC thinks the implicitly-deleted move
assignment operator `pair&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88842
Bug ID: 88842
Summary: missing optimization CSE, reassociation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
MCCCS changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2 from MCCCS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
(insn 9 2 7 2 (set (reg:DF 125)
(mem/u/c:DF (reg/f:SI 124) [0 S8 A64])) "pr69776-2.c":11:7 503
{*movdf_hardfloat32}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:SI 124)
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem:DF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88263
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jan 14 18:40:34 2019
New Revision: 267921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267921=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix location of tls_wrapper_fn (PR gcov-profile/88263).
2019-01-14 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
After IRA, we have the following RTL with pseudo 124 being assigned to r9,
which does not meet the "f" constraint required by the inline asm:
(insn 6 5 7 2 (set (reg:SI 124)
(const_int 0 [0]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to dominik.strasser from comment #10)
> Looking at the backtrace, the effects are very different between gcc 7.4 and
> 9.0. Making it work on a different glibc wouldn't help for me. CentOs 7.5 ==
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45427=edit
tree-ssa-sccvn.ii.xz
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45428
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45428=edit
tree-ssa-sccvn.s.xz
And resulting (bad) assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88830
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845
Bug ID: 88845
Summary: ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:1010
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If I add __attribute__((optimize (0))) to:
static unsigned
do_rpo_vn (function *fn, edge entry, bitmap exit_bbs,
bool iterate, bool eliminate)
and recompile stage2 tree-ssa-sccvn.o + relink
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
Bug ID: 88846
Summary: [9 Regression] pr69776-2.c failure on 32 bit AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #31 from Gary Mills ---
When I built gcc-7 with even more configuration options, including
--enable-initfini-array, I got this segmentation fault on SPARC hardware:
configure:3662: checking for suffix of object files
configure:3684:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That said, if I compile this with r267800 (cross-compiler, but identical output
to the attached one) and then on the problematic do_rpo_vn function return in
gdb at the start of make_more_copies so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88638
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Jan 14 18:44:00 2019
New Revision: 267922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267922=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/88638 - FAIL: fsf-nsstring-format-1.s on darwin
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88638
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88263
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #31 from Gary Mills ---
> When I built gcc-7 with even more configuration options, including
> --enable-initfini-array, I got this segmentation fault on SPARC hardware:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88510
--- Comment #4 from Devin Hussey ---
I am deciding to refer to goodmul as ssemul from now on. I think it is a better
name.
I am also wondering if Aarch64 gets a benefit from this vs. scalarizing if the
value is already in a NEON register. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88830
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jan 14 20:09:10 2019
New Revision: 267924
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267924=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88830 - ICE with abstract class.
* decl2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88825
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jan 14 22:01:24 2019
New Revision: 267926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267926=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88825 - ICE with bogus function return type deduction.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #11 from Дилян Палаузов ---
According to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70345#c4 it does not
matter whether liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0 from GCC7 or 8 is installed under
$libdir/bfd-plugins: both work for both compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51788
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
Thinking about this, insn 14 doesn't look legal to me for ppc, since FP values
in our FP regs are actually stored as 64-bit quantities, even for SFmode, so
copying a 32-bit SImode value over to a 64-bit wide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88825
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88848
Bug ID: 88848
Summary: member ambiguous in multiple inheritance lattice
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57297
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88805
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81437
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #2 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85711
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
This has been failing for quite a while now and there is apparently a fix for
it. Can we get it fixed for GCC 9.0 release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51310
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Output from the test in comment 0 is now
NaN 0.NaN
n= 3
a= NaN NaN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33430
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Patch proposed at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-03/msg00014.html.
This has been committed at revision r239489 (2016-08-15).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86552
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 86552, which changed state.
Bug 86552 Summary: missing warning for reading past the end of non-string arrays
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86552
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88848
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Marek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88847
Bug ID: 88847
Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/struct_move_1.c ICE with
-fstack-protector-strong
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88777
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88831
wangchang15 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wangchang15 at huawei dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88778
--- Comment #7 from 刘袋鼠 ---
Simple testcase below related to read_complex_part/write_complex_part
cat complex.c
_Complex float
foo (_Complex float a, _Complex float b)
{
_Complex float c,d;
c = a + b;
return c;
}
cat complex.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88831
--- Comment #4 from wangchang15 ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> This shouldn't happen. Can you please provide a complete testcase?
Hi,Richard, my reply to your comment is comment #3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Yes this does violate aliasing rules. Easy fix is to add may_alias to the
attributes of unaligned_int128_t.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88849
Bug ID: 88849
Summary: std::binomial_distribution generates slightly larger
values than expected
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43136
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88851
Bug ID: 88851
Summary: [9 Regression] SVE Stack clash and r263173 use
conflicting registers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88768
--- Comment #2 from martin ---
If I add the "generic :: write(unformatted) => write_unformatted" part in my
code (but do not use it), I see other failures somehow triggered by openmp
parallelisation (no recursion involved). Using the address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
--- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi Jonathan,
I'm still seeing it on a build started at r267915, perhaps something is still
missing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
Bug ID: 88850
Summary: [9 Regression] Hard register coming out of expand
causing reload to fail.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
>
> --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
> I understand what jump threading does but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
--- Comment #8 from gnzlbg ---
> I think it should be sufficient to either mention which types have padding
> bits,
I am not sure. An intrinsic that tells me that _Bool has 7 padding bits does
not provide me with any new information. The C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
> >
> > --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88832
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88831
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 88832 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes. It is a developer only knob which can go away at any time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #12 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Look e.g. at -O2:
> void bar (int);
>
> void
> foo (int x)
> {
> int i = 0;
> if (x == 8)
> {
> x = 16;
> goto lab;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88510
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|armv7-a |arm, aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88801
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88738
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The standard maybe_unused attribute seems suitable. If an equality or
relational operator function has that attribute, don't warn if its result is
unused.
So weird operators with side effects can use the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But it constrains GCC in future, which leaving it unspecified does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88805
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It works for me (glibc 2.22).
Can you quote the linker command-line (add -v to the compiler command)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88833
Bug ID: 88833
Summary: [SVE] Redundant moves for WHILELO-based loops
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88836
Bug ID: 88836
Summary: [SVE] Redundant PTEST in loop test
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jan 14 11:30:47 2019
New Revision: 267915
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267915=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80762 add missing dg-require-filesystem-ts
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88840
Bug ID: 88840
Summary: [9 Regression] std::allocator::construct signature
might be ill-formed now
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88821
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
Bug ID: 88834
Summary: [SVE] Poor addressing mode choices for LD2 and ST2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88815
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe it is the
@@ -25361,7 +25486,10 @@
return NULL_TREE;
case TEMPLATE_PARM_INDEX:
- return *tp;
+ if (dependent_type_p (TREE_TYPE (*tp)))
+ return *tp;
+ /* We'll
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
