https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67825
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55a7380213a5c16120d5c674fb42b38a3d796b57
commit r10-7530-g55a7380213a5c16120d5c674fb42b38a3d796b57
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94460
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4441ecedc3d74114683761901075085651928c52
commit r10-7531-g4441ecedc3d74114683761901075085651928c52
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Fri Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94344
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> The offending commit eventually changed when/how many times
> disable_insertion_hook () is called. So that maybe points to the real cause.
Eventually that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94392
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2b1e849b35bfe694b09f090397944e11c9f1dc04
commit r10-7532-g2b1e849b35bfe694b09f090397944e11c9f1dc04
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89713
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2b1e849b35bfe694b09f090397944e11c9f1dc04
commit r10-7532-g2b1e849b35bfe694b09f090397944e11c9f1dc04
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94463
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
And for the moment we could declare !HAS_LONG_UNCOND_BRANCH as unsupported for
partitioning. The list of unconditionally supported targets then is
just cr16, ft32, i386, m32c, moxie and pru. aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94462
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94462
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Note that before the revision we accepted the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
The offending commit eventually changed when/how many times
disable_insertion_hook () is called. So that maybe points to the real cause.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE: in|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Roman Zhuykov from comment #6)
> First, I want here to mention that Richard have recently discussed
> partitioning in mailing list with Segher, starting from
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94460
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48178
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48178=edit
gcc10-pr94460-2.patch
Although, the patterns look unnecessarily large and complicated to me, so for
GCC11? I think we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And I agree having such a named patterns (but also with standardized RTL in it,
so that jump.c can recognize those and redirect) looks like a good idea, we
could then enable partitioning if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> It looks to me that the fix for PR90497 is not entirely correct, because it
> allows to bypass builtins that have additional SSE* restrictions.
>
> The following test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
The following ones:
BDESC (OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2 | OPTION_MASK_ISA_MMX, 0, CODE_FOR_sse2_cvtpd2pi,
"__builtin_ia32_cvtpd2pi", IX86_BUILTIN_CVTPD2PI, UNKNOWN, (int)
V2SI_FTYPE_V2DF)
BDESC (OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
Actually, we should be able to simply skip applying adjustments, if
e->caller->former_thunk_p(). I'm playing with a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As I said in PR90497, the PR79565/PR82483 changes made SSE{,2,3} | MMX in
i386-builtins.def mean that both the SSE* and MMX must be enabled, rather than
either one or the other. Now, with MMX_WITH_SSE, if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94467
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Note using __builtin_ia32_* directly is discouraged. A testcase using
> official intrinsics would be better.
Thanks; I just took the list from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94468
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93597
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Yes, will do it today, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I bet even i386 shouldn't claim to support it if ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE ||
ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE_PIC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> The DW_TAG_imported_unit are now gone for GCC 10. So can we consider this
> fixed?
I'd like a PR to refer to at the to-be-added xfail in the gdb test-case (and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90497
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Why do we have
define_expand "sse2_umulv1siv1di3"
[(set (match_operand:V1DI 0 "register_operand")
(mult:V1DI
(zero_extend:V1DI
(vec_select:V1SI
(match_operand:V2SI 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Why do we have
define_expand "sse2_umulv1siv1di3"
[(set (match_operand:V1DI 0 "register_operand")
(mult:V1DI
(zero_extend:V1DI
(vec_select:V1SI
(match_operand:V2SI 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90497
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg00576.html and
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg00522.html for details.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94467
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Note using __builtin_ia32_* directly is discouraged. A testcase using official
intrinsics would be better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Having said that, I am not sure where to best fix this so late in the
> GCC 10 development cycle.
So the problem is that thunk is expanded on the adjusted decl but we
still keep the adjustments and later
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94466
Bug ID: 94466
Summary: libgo reflect test compilation very slow on 64-bit
SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94460
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48177
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48177=edit
gcc10-pr94460.patch
And that is because the two RTL patterns (6 insns in total) don't properly
describe what the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94467
Bug ID: 94467
Summary: [10 Regression] wrong code with -mavx and ssse3
builtins
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94459
--- Comment #3 from Domani Hannes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Looking through DW_TAG_const_type seems insufficient to me, can't there be
> other qualifications (at least DW_TAG_volatile_type, perhaps in various
> orders)?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94467
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91858
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
> >
> > --- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48182
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48182=edit
gcc10-pr94461-wip.patch
What I'm proposing is essentially this patch (+ the testcase of course).
Or, instead of isa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94464
Bug ID: 94464
Summary: [F08] coarrays shoud be enabled by default.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93960
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24fe8c8e338e1c820d942b9c7b997a37705eb29e
commit r10-7533-g24fe8c8e338e1c820d942b9c7b997a37705eb29e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94467
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Either one has to replace the builtins manually afterwards back with
corresponding intrinsics (something I've done e.g. in the PR94460 patch), or
one could e.g. creduce on mostly preprocessed source where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 94443, which changed state.
Bug 94443 Summary: [10 Regression] 510.parest_r and 526.blender_r ICE:
verify_ssa failed since r10-7491-gbd0f22a8d5caea8905f38ff1fafce31c1b7d33ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #12)
> > Having said that, I am not sure where to best fix this so late in the
> > GCC 10 development cycle.
>
> So the problem is that thunk is expanded on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33c5b217cbc7562238f96a29393f6ca8fb97482a
commit r8-10161-g33c5b217cbc7562238f96a29393f6ca8fb97482a
Author: Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:69df6742cb4e15fba5ee074629a78811e61f044d
commit r9-8447-g69df6742cb4e15fba5ee074629a78811e61f044d
Author: Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94465
Bug ID: 94465
Summary: [10 Regression] fnsplit dump file ICEs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90497
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That changed in PR79565 / PR82483, but I'm afraid I don't remember that change
much. Guess it has something to do with the patterns using V2SImode which
wasn't enabled when MMX was disabled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94468
Bug ID: 94468
Summary: ice in remove_useless_values, at cselib.c:735
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94451
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin ---
*** Bug 94451 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93597
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94468
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94468
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Minimal command line options:
$ g++ pr94468.cc -O2 -c -fPIC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
>
> --- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Can we close it as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I believe the r10-400-gecfdb16c54ad06ac23193e5de292fc71e5958526 change has
been incorrect.
We should revert those i386-builtin.def changes, and instead treat builtins
with sole OPTION_MASK_ISA_MMX (and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> So, I believe the r10-400-gecfdb16c54ad06ac23193e5de292fc71e5958526 change
> has been incorrect.
> We should revert those i386-builtin.def changes, and instead treat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 48183
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48183=edit
executable asm from objdump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 48186
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48186=edit
An incomplete patch
Jakub, this is an incomplete patch with 2 testcases. Can you take it over?
I will fix PR 94467.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94470
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94471
Bug ID: 94471
Summary: Calling a function pointer member of a polymorphic
derived type returning a pointer produces an ICE
(internal compiler error).
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94473
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94470
Bug ID: 94470
Summary: Constexpr variable initialization with self-modifying
constructor incorrectly rejected since r7-6728
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94471
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
Bug ID: 94472
Summary: 400.perlbench is slower when compiled at -O2 with both
PGO and LTO on AMD Zen CPUs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
SRINATH PARVATHANENI changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 94317, which changed state.
Bug 94317 Summary: gcc/config/arm/arm_mve.h:13907: strange assignment ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94468
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93211
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93211
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51ecad3c0327418c6e20ef47c6c5a8015bb99b2c
commit r10-7540-g51ecad3c0327418c6e20ef47c6c5a8015bb99b2c
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51ecad3c0327418c6e20ef47c6c5a8015bb99b2c
commit r10-7540-g51ecad3c0327418c6e20ef47c6c5a8015bb99b2c
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94465
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef6631051d4bb9519f3f0dd5f3b3eadbd67bc10a
commit r10-7536-gef6631051d4bb9519f3f0dd5f3b3eadbd67bc10a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #10)
> I'll file the actual ada example.
PR94469 - "lto abstract variable emitted as concrete decl (ada test-case)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94396
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53161358180fdc2c2c21c8f46bbdd339a1fbb8ae
commit r10-7537-g53161358180fdc2c2c21c8f46bbdd339a1fbb8ae
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94473
Bug ID: 94473
Summary: internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94465
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
Thanks Richard!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93960
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:afae9879c28a2797c49bf2da51415da70cdd2b83
commit r8-10162-gafae9879c28a2797c49bf2da51415da70cdd2b83
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
> Do we have compile farm machine where this can be reproduced?
I guess we don't have any.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
>
> --- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It doesn't work as is though, looking at it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
It turns out that no, recursive inlining will happily put an adjusted and not
yet adjusted call into the same function which was formerly a thunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94469
Bug ID: 94469
Summary: lto abstract variable emitted as concrete decl (ada
test-case)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 48184
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48184=edit
GCC passes dumps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322
--- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 48185
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48185=edit
qemu execution trace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48187
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48187=edit
gcc10-pr94461-wip2.patch
Here is what I have right now and it passes make check-{gcc,c++-all}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94470
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|8.5
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
