https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90201
Bug ID: 90201
Summary: -Werror=useless-cast in move constructir
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46205|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89556
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon at pushface dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90034
Akim Demaille changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akim.demaille at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90051
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon at pushface dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90202
Bug ID: 90202
Summary: AVX-512 instructions not used
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90203
Bug ID: 90203
Summary: Can't compare "const std::pair" with
"std::pair"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204
Bug ID: 90204
Summary: [8 Regression] C code is optimized worse than C++
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90202
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
IIRC this is a tuning decision made on purpose. If you use just -mavx512f
instead of the -march, you get the code you expected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89774
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90203
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90202
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
Then I'm fine with the current codegen.
However with -mavx512f it produces a few additional instructions for rbp
register
test(v, v):
push rbp ; not necessary
mov rax, rdi
mov rbp, rsp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90205
Bug ID: 90205
Summary: Wformat-signedness detects %d and suggests %d fixit
hint
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90198
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82542
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Richard, I have no idea. AFAICT all the dump_tu stuff is in the C++ FE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90198
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80467
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g.granda at irya dot unam.mx
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90205
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
%f is correct for double.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88099
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50974
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeffrey.armstrong@approxima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80467
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89804
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89811
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90203
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90203
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Shreyans Doshi from comment #0)
>
> Surprisingly, const pair and pair are not
> comparable, which it should be in such cases. Ideally, if a container is
> const, it should imply that all the u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90203
--- Comment #4 from Shreyans Doshi ---
Yeah, I checked that scenario as well. Logically both are same, but
compiler doesn't agree to that.
But as pointed out by other members, it is not just the compiler,
surprisingly it is not present in the sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90193
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90193
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46222
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46222&action=edit
gcc9-pr90193.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90193
--- Comment #11 from Mathieu Desnoyers
---
The proposed fix "gcc9-pr90193.patch" applied on top of gcc-8.3.0 fixes the
issue for both x86-64 and for x86-32 (-m32) from a 64-bit x86 gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88474
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90206
Bug ID: 90206
Summary: GNAT gcc ada function out argument not support with
-gnat12
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89736
--- Comment #6 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Mon Apr 22 16:09:13 2019
New Revision: 270493
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270493&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-22 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #19 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Mon Apr 22 16:09:13 2019
New Revision: 270493
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270493&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-22 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90206
--- Comment #1 from Leonard Kramer ---
Created attachment 46224
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46224&action=edit
Main package body
Package program that exhibits the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90206
--- Comment #2 from Leonard Kramer ---
Created attachment 46225
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46225&action=edit
.ads specification code.
Spec for generic function that exhibits the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90206
--- Comment #3 from Leonard Kramer ---
Created attachment 46226
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46226&action=edit
.adb body of generic function exhibiting the bug.
Body of generic function that exhibits the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90205
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90206
--- Comment #4 from Leonard Kramer ---
The issue is that Ada2012 supports functions with arguments qualified with an
"out" or "in out" keyword. (Originally, Ada did not support functions that
permitted modifying arguments.) When I attempt to cr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90206
--- Comment #5 from Leonard Kramer ---
Created attachment 46227
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46227&action=edit
Makefile to demonstrate bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90201
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87366
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 22 19:16:46 2019
New Revision: 270494
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87366 - wrong error with alias template.
With this testcas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89910
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88256
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 89910 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90207
Bug ID: 90207
Summary: Debugging generated tree code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90207
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||internal-improvement
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90181
--- Comment #6 from nfxjfg at googlemail dot com ---
Yes, it's clear that that the constraint can't be _just_ the register name,
since they'll clash with builtin constraints now or with future architectures
(which may add arbitrary register names)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89847
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90173
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90205
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> %f is correct for double.
Yes, the float was promoted to double via the ellipsis ... as I understand it
(default type promotion - I am sure you know a lot more ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90205
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Grant ---
A clang++ example, doing it as I expected, showing the type before automatic
promotion. I did with char, as I couldn't find a -Wformat-signedness for the
original example code in clang++
#include
int main()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90166
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Apr 22 21:00:40 2019
New Revision: 270495
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270495&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-04-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/90166
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90166
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90205
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
> The 'argument' is float, within the printf it arrives as a 'parameter' of
> type double after the promotion before the call.
Yes, it seems more correct to say "b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90192
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89774
JunMa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078
--- Comment #9 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Apr 23 04:07:46 2019
New Revision: 270500
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270500&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90078
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (comp_cost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90021
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> From what I can see, a fix for this has been acked 11 days ago:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-04/msg00413.html
> Bin, are you going to commit it?
I just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target M
59 matches
Mail list logo