https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92719
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
Bug 90835 depends on bug 92719, which changed state.
Bug 92719 Summary: MacOS 10.15 Catalina build fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92719
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92698
--- Comment #2 from mjr19 at cam dot ac.uk ---
Thomas is quite correct that I had failed to mark the array as contiguous, at
which point the double copy is more reasonable (although memcpy will also
expect its arguments to be contiguous).
He
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #12 from Toni Neubert ---
Hello, I got another error using virtual classes:
```
struct A {
virtual constexpr ~A() = default;
};
struct B : A {};
constexpr bool test() {
B b;
return true;
}
static_assert(test());
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92720
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
For the documentation of implementation-defined preprocessor behavior (as
required to be documented by a C implementation for anything the C
standard says is implementation-defined; in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92738
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=10.542.4_run=7354
shows shorter range
+2019-05-24 Jakub Jelinek
+
+ * tree-core.h (enum omp_clause_code): Add OMP_CLAUSE__CONDTEMP_.
+ *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92720
--- Comment #8 from Dennis Clarke ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #6)
.
.
.
> In turn, that section "Include Operation" has more details. It doesn't
> mention includes with an absolute path, but I think that's because the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65656
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9)
> See also bug 54021 for a similar problem report. That bug has been resolved
> and the test case submitted here also compiles and runs to completion with
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92737
Bug ID: 92737
Summary: cgraph_node and varpool_node needs explicit
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64329
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||54367
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92738
Bug ID: 92738
Summary: [10 regression] Large code size growth for -O2
binaries between 2019-05-19...2019-05-29
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92738
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is seen on
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?highlight_run=7361=31.574.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92736
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90647
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65656
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
Comment #6 looks like it was probably fixed with bug 85746.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70196
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92723
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly adjusted, so that there are no warnings on it, with -O2 -std=c++17
-Wall -W when it compiles successfully, and with s/O2/O3/ when there is the
ICE:
template struct d;
template struct d { typedef e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92718
--- Comment #3 from Ryan Libby ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Replacing the memset call with the assignment '*p = (struct s){ 0 };' avoids
> the warning and also results in better/optimal code. (As suggested in
> pr36602, that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90647
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
-Wreturn-local-addr looks good to me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91783
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91783
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Nov 30 15:08:32 2019
New Revision: 278874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278874=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk as an insurance policy.
2019-11-30 Thomas Koenig
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #11 from Toni Neubert ---
I tested all patches and it works as expected.
Thank you very much!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92652
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91783
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Nov 30 15:02:50 2019
New Revision: 278873
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278873=gcc=rev
Log:
Do not look at _data component in gfc_dep_resolver.
2019-11-30 Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90647
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92720
--- Comment #5 from Dennis Clarke ---
Glad someone looked at this. I was going to try again with LLVM/Clang
and then a few other places on a few other architectures. Why bother?
However if this is "implementation defined" then we should see a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92720
--- Comment #7 from Dennis Clarke ---
Looking at the document n1256 "ISO/IEC 9899:TC3 WG14/N125" ye C99
specifications we see section 6.10.2 Source file inclusion subsection 1
which almost seems clear :
A #include directive shall identify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92739
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Di Bella ---
Created attachment 47402
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47402=edit
Preprocessed file for working build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92739
Bug ID: 92739
Summary: [Trunk Regression] Requires clause followed by an
attribute no longer compiles
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92740
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
There is also 75% regression on fft2 and 5% on rnflow2.
Induct2 reproduces on kaby lake, fft2 and rnflow seems zen specific.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92720
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dennis Clarke from comment #7)
> Sort of a vague idea there. Whatever "can be" means. However the file
> /dev/stdin really is neither a "header" nor is it a "source" file.
It could be. `echo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92698
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Sunil Pandey from comment #20)
> Created attachment 46851 [details]
> Compile time regression reproducer.
>
> attached reproducer show ~28X compile time regression after the commit. See
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92740
Bug ID: 92740
Summary: induct2 (from polyhedron) regresses 267% with -O2
-ftree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize
-fvect-cost-modes=dynamic compared to -O2
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92741
Bug ID: 92741
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
invalid vector types in nop conversion)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66955
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #4)
> Confirmed on all of Linux/x86_64 and Solaris/x86. Recategorizing: libcc1 has
> nothing to do with libgcc. There's no category for it and the MAINTAINERS
> file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92742
Bug ID: 92742
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in info_for_reduction, at
tree-vect-loop.c:4367
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92736
--- Comment #2 from Chinoune ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> Not sure the code is conforming, and don't have time to
> investigate (unless someone is willing to cough up $$).
>
> Workaround 1. Remove "use m1, only : i" in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92736
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 05:41:21AM +, chinoune.mehdi at hotmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92736
>
> --- Comment #2 from Chinoune ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment
40 matches
Mail list logo
