https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, except that isn't all that r265398 did. It has both the make_more_copies
part and
|| (HARD_REGISTER_P (dest)
- && ! TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (fixed_reg_set, REGNO (dest))
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88079
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39795
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
GCC 5 doesn't see the CSE opportunity because it doesn't process the unused
load and the translation code is not up-to-speed. Then DOM figures out the
redundant store it sees them adjacent.
So I wouldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Bug ID: 88857
Summary: ICE in build_value_init
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Causes
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-30.c scan-tree-dump-times pre "Replaced MEM" 2
the extra entry somehow confuses PRE (AVAIL compute I guess).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz ---
Another test case, which the patch doesn't optimize:
short f(int *a, short *b) {
short y = *b; // 1
int x = *a; // 2
*b = 1;
*a = x;
return y;
}
The loads in 1+2 are either UB or a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
My reading of the N3644 changes is that only equality comparisons are
supported, not relational ones.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958
--- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> If you find anything still missing in the library, please let me know.
> I thought I had converted everything to the macros, which are fairly
> easy to change, but I may be mistaken.
Is there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #13 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
The crash is not 100% reproducible. Looks like it is a race.
I'll check whether I can give you access to a system on our side.
I also encountered a differnt crash:
[Switching to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65847
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
I've just found the same issue. The code is a bit different (here, AFAIK, this
is AVX), but I assume that the cause is the same.
With -O2:
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
vaddsd %xmm3, %xmm1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, I can no longer reproduce -g0 vs -g on x86_64-linux. Ians testresults now
list
FAIL: g++.dg/asan/pr62017.C -O2 -flto (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/asan/pr62017.C -O2 -flto (test for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71499
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88801
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37826
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
Bug ID: 88854
Summary: redundant store after load that would makes aliasing
UB
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #16)
>
> Plugin interface should be good enough to allow LTO optimizing one
> binary with multiple compilers (multiple versions of GCC or GCC+LLVM
> combination)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #12 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Created attachment 45434
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45434=edit
Debug output in gdb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 88801, which changed state.
Bug 88801 Summary: [9 Regression] Performance regression on 473.astar on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88801
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88855
Bug ID: 88855
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error:
SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI should be set)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37835
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Updated patch
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/resolve.c 2019-01-13 08:36:53.0 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c 2019-01-15 11:06:51.0 +0100
@@ -16649,7 +16649,7 @@ resolve_types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88855
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78421
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
Bug ID: 88859
Summary: FAIL: experimental/string_view/operators/wchar_t/2.cc
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #14 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
With the 9.0 version of libasan I also experience an additional crash which is
100% reproducible:
buffer points to non-accessible memory:
(gdb) p buffer
$1 = (__sanitizer::u64 *)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, kretz at kde dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
>
> --- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz ---
> Another test case, which the patch doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
Bug ID: 88856
Summary: [8/9 Regression] gfortran producing wrong code with
-funroll-loops
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88858
Bug ID: 88858
Summary: ICE in rtl_verify_fallthru, at cfgrtl.c:2930 in
Firefox build with LTO and PGO
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964
Johan.karlsson at enea dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Johan.karlsson at enea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88046
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
This particular ICE can be fixed with avoiding generating inheritance DIEs
late.
Index: gcc/dwarf2out.c
===
--- gcc/dwarf2out.c (revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Kretz ---
Regarding gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-30.c
I'd argue that for `bar`, GCC may assume b == 0, because otherwise f would be
read both via int and float pointer, which is UB. So bar can be optimized to
`foo`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
btw looks likes ICC vectorises this as well as unrolling:
..B1.14:
movl (%rcx,%rbx,4), %r15d
vmovsd(%rdi,%r15,8), %xmm2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
>
> --- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> btw looks likes ICC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or is the implication of equality being valid that a+n is valid for n==0, and
therefore b-a is valid, and therefore relational ops are valid?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
--- Comment #3 from Will Benfold ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Started with r202612.
Is that just because before r202612, there was no support for 'auto' in a
function declaration?
I see the ICE with every release down to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
Jonny Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88863
Bug ID: 88863
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2305
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
--- Comment #5 from Casey Carter ---
IIRC my reasoning was that [random.access.iterators] specifies the operational
semantics of `a < b` to be `b - a > 0`, which suggests but doesn't quite
require that `a < b` is valid whenever `b - a` is valid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> Yeah, we do not perform this kind of "flow-sensitive" TBAA. So
> when trying to DSE *a = x; we only look at
>
> int x = *a;
> *b = 1;
> *a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:39:13PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
>
> Thomas Koenig changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > > Hmm, I can no longer reproduce -g0 vs -g on x86_64-linux. Ians
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
Bug ID: 88861
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in calc_dfs_tree, at
dominance.c:458
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> > > = pr78651 is:
> > >
> > > $ /XC/9.4/usr/bin/lldb --
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88862
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Casey at Carter dot net
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
dunno if this is helpful...
frame #4: 0x0001007b4288 lto1`::add_pubtype(decl=0x000144625f18,
die=0x000144627f50) at dwarf2out.c:11333
11330 scope = TYPE_P (decl) ? TYPE_CONTEXT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
Many thanks Martin. Your change is a big improvement.
I ran on Godbolt.org
g++ (GCC-Explorer-Build) 9.0.0 20190114 (experimental)
The carat is now at the end of the attributes - is there a way to get the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
That means we have unreachable blocks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86549
Bug 86549 depends on bug 88046, which changed state.
Bug 88046 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in add_data_member_location_attribute at
gcc/dwarf2out.c:19237 since r261885
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88046
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some more progress.
I've used
--- gcc/combine.c.jj2019-01-10 11:43:17.050333949 +0100
+++ gcc/combine.c 2019-01-15 14:47:28.009094300 +0100
@@ -2319,6 +2319,9 @@ contains_muldiv (rtx x)
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
so, no... it doesn't have a name.
(lldb) p ((tree)0x1446212f8)->decl_minimal.name
(tree) $5 = 0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88865
Bug ID: 88865
Summary: [[no_unique_address]] leads to sizeof(T) == 0, which
cannot be
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52813
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Jan 15 16:46:54 2019
New Revision: 267941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267941=gcc=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/52813 revisited
The original patch for this PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88866
Bug ID: 88866
Summary: g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic126.C fails with -std=c++2a
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88866
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
62017 would seem to suggest that we've generated bad code for the stage#3
tree_fits_shwi_p function (which would be a separate issue) but maybe the tree
shouldn't be null anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
With the modified testcase the ICE started with r173679:
$ ./cc1plus.173678 -quiet ~/k.C -std=c++0x
k.C: In function ‘void g()’:
k.C:11:7: error: invalid initialization of reference of type ‘const Foo&’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Is r267938 a bisection result?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88862
Bug ID: 88862
Summary: ICE in extract_affine, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:313
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88862
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88864
Bug ID: 88864
Summary: default template arguments not merged across all
declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37835
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88868
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88726
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:32:00 2019
New Revision: 267949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267949=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix diagnostics for never-defined inline and nested functions (PR c/88720, PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88720
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:32:00 2019
New Revision: 267949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267949=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix diagnostics for never-defined inline and nested functions (PR c/88720, PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88867
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to John Levon from comment #2)
> There is no Address Sanitizer in our kernel, bootloaders etc.
There is support for asan in the Linux kernel and maybe others. Again security
is about auditing and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Steve and Thomas,
I plead guilty to creating confusing code... It developed step by step
and I didn't go back and consolidate it.
If you can simplify it and still obtain the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88613
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81849
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43210
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88867
Bug ID: 88867
Summary: -Waggressive-loop-optimizations doesn't warn when
-faggressive-loop-optimizations is in play
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88866
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88803
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Jan 15 18:26:07 2019
New Revision: 267943
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267943=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/88803
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
There are two kinds of warnings for printf-type functions: -Wformat implemented
in the front-ends, and -Wformat-overflow/truncation implemented in the
middle-end. The former detects mostly just type-based
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88866
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jan 15 18:35:01 2019
New Revision: 267944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267944=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88866
* g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic126.C: Tweak dg-error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg00865.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88867
--- Comment #2 from John Levon ---
There is no Address Sanitizer in our kernel, bootloaders etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 07:21:16PM +, paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
> Hi Steve and Thomas,
>
> I plead guilty to creating confusing code... It developed step
> by step and I didn't go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88863
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88055
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
*** Bug 88863 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81849
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:17:35 2019
New Revision: 267948
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267948=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/81849
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88720
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.3 |7.5
Summary|[7/8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Unfortunately, not easily. By the time attribute arguments are being validated
their location information has been stripped. Keeping it around is possible
but will likely involve some intrusive changes that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88868
Bug ID: 88868
Summary: [SSE] pshufb can be omitted for a specific pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88312
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88867
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88866
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's not obvious to me what machine code is wrong here. Maybe it is obvious
to someone who is better at Arm code than I am?
Does it all work if you use -fno-if-conversion2 though? Or, what other
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
