https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943
alig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||info at gha3mi dot com
--- Comment #8 from alig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96348
--- Comment #4 from Brian Oh ---
On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 6:03 AM pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96348
>
> --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
> So one thing is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101481
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is an older regression but I only marked it as 11/12 as
-ftree-loop-distribute-patterns is now enabled at -O2 rather than just -O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101481
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101482
Bug ID: 101482
Summary: The resolution of #32907 is too restricted
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101481
Bug ID: 101481
Summary: -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns can slow down and
increases size of code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96237
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 96542, which changed state.
Bug 96542 Summary: Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing
part of the operation in a variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Range-ops uses wi_fold (implemented by each opcode) to individually
fold subranges one at a time and then combines them. This patch first
calls wi_fold_in_parts which checks if one of the subranges is small,
and if so, further splits that subrange into constants.
Currently, if a subrange is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:704e8a825c78b9a8424c291509413bbb48e602c7
commit r12-2381-g704e8a825c78b9a8424c291509413bbb48e602c7
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101317
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-July/056249.html
This patch is for PR101317, one of the bugs uncovered by the TS29113
testsuite. Here I'd observed that CFI_establish, etc was not diagnosing
some invalid-argument situations documented in the standard, although it
was properly catching others. After fixing those I discovered a couple
small
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101479
--- Comment #4 from Simon Thornington ---
I'll add that changing close_to_zero from
fabs(x) < 0.5
to
x == 0.0 || fabs(x) < 0.5
everything starts to work as I'd expect again...
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 7:15 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 6:24 AM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > "H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches" writes:
> > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 4:38 AM Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches" writes:
> > >> > 1. Rewrite
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
>> +is fully operational with the GCC 10 and GCC 11 (on
>
> Here I'd omit "the", though I cannot (linguistically) explain why
> and have to refer to established practice.
thanks for catching the unnecessary "the" - all committed and pushed
now,
regards,
Gaius
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96227
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96227
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101205
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98956
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101480
Bug ID: 101480
Summary: Miscompiled code involving operator new
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101233
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100138
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101226
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101233
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9107b139f4492d504df37e943882405e6aefdb7e
commit r11-8762-g9107b139f4492d504df37e943882405e6aefdb7e
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100138
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e63d08cb9bc001232734eed32e4bc3814a279a9
commit r11-8761-g2e63d08cb9bc001232734eed32e4bc3814a279a9
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101393
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #4)
> How about something along this patch? It's not fully done (no good idea
> about SPEC stuff like "mcpu=7400: -mppc %{!mvsx:%{!maltivec:-maltivec}};"
> yet),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101393
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #3)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> > The -many is problematic, that is the whole point of this. As in this
> > example: on different
Snapshot gcc-10-20210716 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20210716/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 05:36:13PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> When implementing DR 1512 in r11-467 I neglected to reject ordered
> comparison of two null pointers, like nullptr < nullptr. This patch
> fixes that omission.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66968
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
To reproduce the std::tuple error above, use this code at r12-2379
#include
std::tuple t;
auto a = std::get<1>(t);
The recent fix for std::get uses a deleted overload to give better
diagnostics for out-of-range indices. This does something similar for
std::get.
Tested powerpc64le-linux. Committed to trunk.
This adds a deleted overload of std::get(const tuple&).
Invalid calls with an out of range index will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66968
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3dbc7b809a62167b36f217ab5f43207be19e5908
commit r12-2379-g3dbc7b809a62167b36f217ab5f43207be19e5908
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96348
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So one thing is Windows is LLP64IL32 target while x86_64 Linux is LP64 target.
So if you are comparing windows to Linux and use long type, you might be
getting the major difference there.
There might be
Ping re:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/574057.html
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 11:03 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Successfully tested via:
pytest contrib/gcc-changelog/
contrib/ChangeLog:
* gcc-changelog/git_commit.py (ChangeLogEntry.__init__):
Convert
When implementing DR 1512 in r11-467 I neglected to reject ordered
comparison of two null pointers, like nullptr < nullptr. This patch
fixes that omission.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
DR 1512
PR c++/99701
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101362
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 21:04 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
>
>
> > On 15-Jul-2021, at 4:53 AM, David Malcolm
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 22:41 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
> >
> >
[...snip...]
> >
> > >
> > > 2. ( pr100546.c <
> > >
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 3:37 PM Matthias Kretz wrote:
> On Friday, 16 July 2021 19:20:29 CEST Noah Goldstein wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:12 AM Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > > I don't understand how this feature would lead to false sharing. But
> maybe
> > > I
> > > misunderstand the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101470
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
On 7/16/21 11:42 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi Martin!
On 2021-07-09T17:11:25-0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
The attached tweak avoids the new -Warray-bounds instances when
building libatomic for arm. Christophe confirms it resolves
the problem (thank you!)
As Abid has just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101479
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
If you want -ffast-math and fetestexcept still, add -ftrapping-math to the end
of the command line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101479
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101479
--- Comment #1 from Simon Thornington ---
x_not_zero -> could_be_zero sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101479
Bug ID: 101479
Summary: vectorized impossible conditional floating point
operations still cause traps (-ffast-math, -O3)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210716 (experimental) [master revision
:2c298de71:d97d71a1989e9ee8e1b8563b351c42b7732da108] (GCC)
$ cat mutant.c
struct obj {
int n;
list l;
} main() {
obj o = (struct obj *)((char *)({ 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101477
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-16
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101477
Bug ID: 101477
Summary: Wrong location for unexpanded parameter pack in
function template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66968
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-08-21 00:00:00 |2021-7-16
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99664
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
On 15/07/2021 13:09, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 12:35 PM Hafiz Abid Qadeer
> wrote:
>>
>> On 15/07/2021 11:33, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>>>
Note that the "parent" should be abstract but I don't think dwarf has a
way to express a fully abstract parent of a concrete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101233
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8b3861496bffae8b813ea196c1c5b27f79fbe69
commit r12-2378-ga8b3861496bffae8b813ea196c1c5b27f79fbe69
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99664
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d04b0c75794545f1f7a942764285e21eaf2915a1
commit r12-2377-gd04b0c75794545f1f7a942764285e21eaf2915a1
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the cleanups, LGTM! Recommend maintainers approve.
Bill
On 7/15/21 6:29 PM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
Copy the test for _mm_minpos_epu16 from
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse4_1-phminposuw.c, with
a few adjustments:
- Adjust the dejagnu directives for powerpc platform.
-
Hi Paul,
LGTM. Recommend maintainers approve.
Thanks for the cleanups,
Bill
On 7/15/21 6:29 PM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
Add a naive implementation of the subject x86 intrinsic to
ease porting.
2021-07-15 Paul A. Clarke
gcc
* config/rs6000/smmintrin.h (_mm_minpos_epu16): New.
---
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:26, Matthias Kretz wrote:
>
> On Friday, 16 July 2021 18:54:30 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 16:33, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > Adjusting them based on tuning would certainly simplify a significant use
> > > case, perhaps the only reasonable use.
I've been experimenting with various new diagnostics that
require a common place for the analyzer to check the validity
of reads or writes to memory (e.g. buffer overflow).
As preliminary work, this patch adds new
region_model::check_region_for_{read|write} functions
which are called anywhere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100949
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Pushed to trunk as 9ea10c480565fa42b1804fb436f7e26ca77b71a3.
gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog:
* engine.cc (exploded_node::on_stmt_pre): Handle
__analyzer_dump_state.
* program-state.cc
Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Pushed to trunk as 5932dd35eaa816e8d9b6406c6c433395ff5b6162.
gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog:
* program-state.cc (program_state::detect_leaks): Simplify using
svalue::maybe_get_region.
* region-model-impl-calls.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100949
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1847a11f4ad8960a57384ed1ef2d0292c65166ed
commit r9-9627-g1847a11f4ad8960a57384ed1ef2d0292c65166ed
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
Bug ID: 101476
Summary: AddressSanitizer check failed, points out a
(potentially) non-existing stack error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On Friday, 16 July 2021 19:20:29 CEST Noah Goldstein wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:12 AM Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > I don't understand how this feature would lead to false sharing. But maybe
> > I
> > misunderstand the spatial prefetcher. The first access to one of the two
> > cache
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100949
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4669f3830fc80921b0e8a0a8d45451820283cc46
commit r10-9985-g4669f3830fc80921b0e8a0a8d45451820283cc46
Author: Harald Anlauf
On Friday, 16 July 2021 18:54:30 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 16:33, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Adjusting them based on tuning would certainly simplify a significant use
> > case, perhaps the only reasonable use. Cases more concerned with ABI
> > stability probably shouldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101453
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101453
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e06b1c5ac00b1bd0339739d3d9377c90852a83c9
commit r12-2373-ge06b1c5ac00b1bd0339739d3d9377c90852a83c9
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
On July 16, 2021 8:35:25 PM GMT+02:00, apinski--- via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>From: Andrew Pinski
>
>The problem is the buffer is too small to hold "-O" and
>the interger. This fixes the problem by use the correct size
>instead.
>
>Changes since v1:
>* v2: Use HOST_BITS_PER_LONG and just divide by
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 12:54 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 16:33, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Adjusting them based on tuning would certainly simplify a significant use
> > case, perhaps the only reasonable use. Cases more concerned with ABI
> > stability probably shouldn't use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101453
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
From: Andrew Pinski
The problem is the buffer is too small to hold "-O" and
the interger. This fixes the problem by use the correct size
instead.
Changes since v1:
* v2: Use HOST_BITS_PER_LONG and just divide by 3 instead of
3.32.
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux with no
Hi Paul,
LGTM! Recommend maintainers approve.
Bill
On 7/16/21 8:50 AM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
Add the tests for _mm_floor_pd, _mm_floor_ps, _mm_floor_sd, _mm_floor_ss.
These are modelled after (and depend upon parts of) the tests for
_mm_ceil intrinsics, recently posted.
Copy a test for
Hi Paul,
LGTM! Recommend maintainers approve.
Bill
On 7/16/21 8:50 AM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
2021-07-16 Paul A. Clarke
gcc
* config/rs6000/smmintrin.h (_mm_floor_pd, _mm_floor_ps,
_mm_floor_sd, _mm_floor_ss): New.
---
v2: Improve formatting per review from Bill.
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the cleanup, LGTM! Recommend maintainers approve.
Bill
On 7/16/21 8:50 AM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
Add the tests for _mm_ceil_pd, _mm_ceil_ps, _mm_ceil_sd, _mm_ceil_ss.
Copy a test for _mm_ceil_pd and _mm_ceil_ps from
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386.
Define __VSX_SSE2__ to
On 7/16/21 9:32 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
[much snipped]
Of course, we shall assume a certain level of quality in the XFAILed test
cases: I'm certainly not suggesting we put any random junk into the
testsuite, coarsely XFAILed. (I have not reviewed Sandra's test cases to
that effect, but
On 7/16/21 9:32 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
[much snipped]
Of course, we shall assume a certain level of quality in the XFAILed test
cases: I'm certainly not suggesting we put any random junk into the
testsuite, coarsely XFAILed. (I have not reviewed Sandra's test cases to
that effect, but
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the cleanup, LGTM! Recommend maintainers approve.
Bill
On 7/16/21 8:50 AM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
2021-07-16 Paul A. Clarke
gcc
* config/rs6000/smmintrin.h (_mm_ceil_pd, _mm_ceil_ps,
_mm_ceil_sd, _mm_ceil_ss): New.
---
v2: Improve formatting per review
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the cleanup, LGTM! Recommend maintainers approve.
Bill
On 7/16/21 8:50 AM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
Copy the tests for _mm_blend_pd, _mm_blendv_pd, _mm_blend_ps,
_mm_blendv_ps from gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386.
2021-07-16 Paul A. Clarke
gcc/testsuite
*
Hi Paul,
Thanks! LGTM. Recommend that maintainers approve.
Bill
On 7/16/21 8:50 AM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
_mm_blend_epi16 and _mm_blendv_epi8 were added earlier.
Add these four to complete the set.
2021-07-16 Paul A. Clarke
gcc
* config/rs6000/smmintrin.h (_mm_blend_pd,
Hi,
After some more study on __builtin_clear_padding and the corresponding testing
cases.
And also considered both Richard Biener and Richard Sandiford’s previous
suggestion to use
__builtin_clear_padding. I have the following thought on the paddings
initialization:
** We can insert a
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:53:05PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/15/21 5:14 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > The combination of DR 2481 and DR 2126 should allow us to do
> >
> >void f()
> >{
> > constexpr const int = 42;
> > static_assert(r == 42);
> >}
> >
> > because
Hi Martin!
On 2021-07-09T17:11:25-0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> The attached tweak avoids the new -Warray-bounds instances when
> building libatomic for arm. Christophe confirms it resolves
> the problem (thank you!)
As Abid has just reported in
A number of newly added tests were reported failing on a few
targets in PR testsuite/101468. I have committed r12-2372 with
fixes for those tests:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:94ba897be8b59ef5926eed4c77fd53812fb20add
Martin
On 7/16/21 9:32 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
[Also including for guidance.]
Hi!
(I'm not involved in or familiar with Sandra's Fortran TS29113 work, just
commenting generally here.)
On 2021-07-16T09:52:28+0200, Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches
wrote:
It is my understanding that it is not gcc
On 7/16/21 9:32 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
[Also including for guidance.]
Hi!
(I'm not involved in or familiar with Sandra's Fortran TS29113 work, just
commenting generally here.)
On 2021-07-16T09:52:28+0200, Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches
wrote:
It is my understanding that it is not gcc
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:12 AM Matthias Kretz wrote:
> On Friday, 16 July 2021 04:41:17 CEST Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > Currently the patch does not adjust the values based on -march, as in
> JF's
> > > proposal. I'll need more guidance from the ARM/AArch64 maintainers
> about
On 7/15/21 12:37 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This is the alias CTAD version of the CTAD bug PR93248, and the fix is
the same: clear cp_unevaluated_operand so that the entire chain of
DECL_ARGUMENTS gets substituted.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
trunk/11?
On 7/15/21 12:37 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This implements the wording changes of DR 960 which clarifies that two
reference types are covariant only if they're both lvalue references
or both rvalue references.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look
OK for trunk?
OK.
On 7/15/21 12:56 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 8:42 AM Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/7/21 12:33 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This PR is about CTAD but the underlying problems are more general;
CTAD is a good trigger for them because of the necessary substitution
into constraints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101468
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101468
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:94ba897be8b59ef5926eed4c77fd53812fb20add
commit r12-2372-g94ba897be8b59ef5926eed4c77fd53812fb20add
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101257
--- Comment #5 from Gregory Tucker ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Gregory Tucker from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 51165 [details]
>
> I think:
> uint32_t *w = (uint32_t *) data;
>
> Should need the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101475
Bug ID: 101475
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow storing a compound literal
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 16:33, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Adjusting them based on tuning would certainly simplify a significant use
> case, perhaps the only reasonable use. Cases more concerned with ABI
> stability probably shouldn't use them at all. And that would mean not
> needing to worry about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101470
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> After realizing that clangs -gline-tables-only is an alias for -g1, I looked
> at gcc's -g1 and found it does have line table info (since gcc 4.9), but
> emits a
On 7/15/21 5:14 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
The combination of DR 2481 and DR 2126 should allow us to do
void f()
{
constexpr const int = 42;
static_assert(r == 42);
}
because [expr.const]/4.7 now says that "a temporary object of
non-volatile const-qualified literal type whose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-fipa-icf generates worse |SRA sometimes produces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101474
Bug ID: 101474
Summary: -fipa-icf generates worse code for identical function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
Hafiz Abid qadeer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abidh at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100795
--- Comment #7 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #6)
> (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #2)
> > ranges::inplace_merge has the same issue:
> >
> >
> > #include
> > #include
> > #include
> >
> > int main() {
> > std::array
1 - 100 of 227 matches
Mail list logo
