https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58122
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Known to work|
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for your suggestion, Those macros can be removed, we will send
the v4 version soon.
Are there any problems in this series of patches?
In other words, What conditions are required for LoongArch back-end merged?
By the way, We are preparing the LoongArch machine to send to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98507
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #139 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does anyone have recent #s on this testcase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #8 from Andrew
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 03:46:47PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> glibc strptime passes around some state, what fields in struct tm have been
> set and what needs to be finalized through possibly recursive calls, and
> at the end performs various finalizations, like applying %p so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93447
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81834
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0, 9.1.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60320
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103750
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> > Failed here
> >
> > /* Allow propagations into a loop only for reg-to-reg copies, since
> > replacing one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71271
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.1.0, 9.1.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103750
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> Failed here
>
> /* Allow propagations into a loop only for reg-to-reg copies, since
> replacing one register by another shouldn't increase the cost. */
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
On December 16, 2021 9:43:56 PM GMT+01:00, Gaius Mulley
wrote:
>
>
>I've been testing the gm2 development branch (based on gcc-12)
>against lto and non lto builds.
>
> git clone git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git gcc-git
> cd gcc-git
> git checkout devel/modula-2
>
>I'm using the configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100738
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:456b53654a3e3cc550c24f2cb0e37e7fdfadf68e
commit r12-6032-g456b53654a3e3cc550c24f2cb0e37e7fdfadf68e
Author: Haochen Jiang
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to vvinayag from comment #20)
> The patch did not fix the issue for me, unfortunately, because CXX_FOR_BUILD
> is still set to 'g++'.
> But to make it work, I added the line: CXX="$CXX
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 9:26 AM Haochen Jiang via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This patch fix the regression previously reported on the combine splitter
> under '-m32 -march=cascadelake' options.
>
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Ok.
>
> BRs,
> Haochen
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95723
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95383
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94742
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at sjor dot sg
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103750
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Failed here
/* Allow propagations into a loop only for reg-to-reg copies, since
replacing one register by another shouldn't increase the cost. */
struct loop *def_loop = def_insn->bb ()->cfg_bb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84250
--- Comment #10 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Marek, sorry, I'm not really tracking this anymore :(.
I don't remember exactly why option 1) from
https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/912#issuecomment-363525012 doesn't
work for GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87543
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
As I mentioned in PR 87987:
So I think LLVM's unrolling notices the load will become constant and the whole
induction variable basically goes away for sum.
I also said something similar in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103744
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
The apparently related case:
short int *s;
int
foo (int r, int z)
{
int *a;
while (z < 1)
{
int i;
i = *s;
s += 2;
r += a[i];
r += a[i];
z += 1;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87987
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87987
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I think LLVM's unrolling notices the load will become constant and the whole
induction variable basically goes away for sum.
Even for this C code LLVM does the optimization:
static const int table[] = {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87987
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86018
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92367
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84488
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85444
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-04-18 00:00:00 |2021-12-16
--- Comment #11 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82611
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103755
Bug ID: 103755
Summary: {has,use}_facet() and iostream constructor performance
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84621
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
We get the warning during the definition of ff and not after instantiating the
function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84573
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84573
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90556
Bug 90556 depends on bug 90647, which changed state.
Bug 90647 Summary: Warn on returning a lambda with captured local variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90647
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 90647, which changed state.
Bug 90647 Summary: Warn on returning a lambda with captured local variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90647
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90647
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103681
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a37e8ce3b66325f0c6de55c80d50ac1664c3d0eb
commit r12-6028-ga37e8ce3b66325f0c6de55c80d50ac1664c3d0eb
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
C++14 changed the definition of 'aggregate' to allow default member
initializers, but such classes still need to be considered "non-POD for the
purpose of layout" for ABI compatibility with C++11 code. It seems rare to
derive from such a class, as evidenced by how long this bug has
survived
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103750
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
kmovw here is zero_extend, and at gimple level it's not redundant in loop.
_31 = MEM[(const __m256i_u * {ref-all})n_5];
_30 = MEM[(const __m256i_u * {ref-all})n_5 + 32B];
_28 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84414
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84414
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.6.4, 4.8.5, 6.1.0
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82526
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note clang is the only one compiler (I Have access to quickly) which references
the field mTopLeft.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82526
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103754
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Egor Pugin from comment #1)
> on g++-12 from master it gives
> /usr/include/c++/11/x86_64-redhat-linux/bits/stdc++.h: internal compiler
> error: tree check: expected var_decl or function_decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103754
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Blocks|
Hi,
This patch defines a pattern for mffscrni. If the RN is a constant, it can
call
gen_rs6000_mffscrni directly. The "rs6000-builtin-new.def" defines prototype
for builtin arguments.
The pattern "rs6000_set_fpscr_rn" is then broken as the mode of its argument is
DI while its
corresponding
Jiufu Guo writes:
> Jiufu Guo writes:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>>
With reference the discussions in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574334.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572006.html
Hi,
This patch defines a new split pattern for TI to V1TI move. The pattern
concatenates two subreg:DI of
a TI to a V2DI. With the pattern, the subreg pass can do register split for TI
when there is a TI to V1TI
move. The patch optimizes one unnecessary "mr" out on P9. The new test case
On 2021/12/16 19:20, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> OK. Comments like?
>>
>> /* Don't move insn of cold BB out of loop to preheader to reduce calculations
>>and register live range in hot loop with cold BB. */
>
> Looks good.
>>
>>
>> And maybe some dump log will help tracking in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102944
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> I don't see any of the FAILs or XFAILs listed in comment #0 with cross
> compilers for any of the Targets. Can this report be resolved?
I thinks so, now we only
On 12/16/21 17:36, Marek Polacek wrote:
For code like
template
struct bar;
struct bar {
int baz;
};
bar var;
we emit a fairly misleading and unwieldy diagnostic:
~
$ g++ -c u.cc
u.cc:6:8: error: template argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103754
--- Comment #2 from Egor Pugin ---
Created attachment 52020
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52020=edit
more ice on g++-12 master
Adding more ICE logs without filing new tickets in case if need to check more
error places.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103754
Egor Pugin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11][ice][modules] import |[11,12][ice][modules]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103754
Bug ID: 103754
Summary: [11][ice][modules] import bits/stdc++.h and map
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On Linux/x86_64,
bb2a7f80a98de3febefbb32b1e4898062bdb6af8 is the first bad commit
commit bb2a7f80a98de3febefbb32b1e4898062bdb6af8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Thu Dec 16 13:40:42 2021 -0500
c++: two-stage name lookup for overloaded operators [PR51577]
caused
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96988
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-06-25 00:00:00 |2021-12-16
Assignee|timshen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oleg.pekar.2017 at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98901
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
I've checked in the attached patch to fix a testcase that's been failing
on nios2 for a while.
-Sandra
commit 840a22e0fee9e7369a2eb1c9e3c70dcae24a20e4
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Date: Thu Dec 16 15:17:14 2021 -0800
Testsuite: Tweak gcc.dg/20021029-1.c for nios2.
This test needs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103104
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-16
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98076
--- Comment #6 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Integrating this quick patch into libgfortran, here are the timings to make a
formatted write of 10 million integers into a string.
- very small value (1), negligible speedup (2.273s to 2.248s)
-
Hi,
This patch extends AC_PROG_GDC so that as well as checking for the
existence of a GDC compiler, also validate that it has also been built
with libphobos, otherwise warn or fail with the message that GDC is
required to build d.
Tested on a system running powerpcle-linux both without a D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79466
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43113
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
For the original case in comment #0 we get in GCC 5+:
: In instantiation of 'struct A::S>::S>::S>::S>':
:5:11: recursively required from 'struct A::S>'
:5:11: required from 'struct A'
:8:12: required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101751
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |middle-end
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77573
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC 11+ gives now:
:1:23: error: conversion from pointer type 'const wchar_t*' to
arithmetic type 'wchar_t' in a constant expression
I think this is fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101751
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Sebor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5635c975576604afda35543f672c2cad79cb0046
commit r11-9397-g5635c975576604afda35543f672c2cad79cb0046
Author: Martin Sebor
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:35:55PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
> My patch to implement -Wno-attribute=A::b caused a bogus error when
> parsing
>
> [[foo::bar(1, 2)]];
>
> when -Wno-attributes=foo::bar was specified on the command line, because
> when we create a fake foo::bar attribute and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77297
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-08-19 00:00:00 |2021-12-16
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101604
Bug 101604 depends on bug 101289, which changed state.
Bug 101289 Summary: [11 Regression] bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using
const for vla param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Sebor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d3f53c595e1766ca0494e5f56f33b0ce49b3bb4
commit r11-9396-g7d3f53c595e1766ca0494e5f56f33b0ce49b3bb4
Author: Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Sebor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d3f53c595e1766ca0494e5f56f33b0ce49b3bb4
commit r11-9396-g7d3f53c595e1766ca0494e5f56f33b0ce49b3bb4
Author: Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99980
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99980
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06041b2c67a5d4d0941c53990f0438a309703ed0
commit r12-6025-g06041b2c67a5d4d0941c53990f0438a309703ed0
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103606
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20906
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|excessive diagnostic|[C++98/C++11/c++14 only]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103606
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12d811d06f2ea178ac9b40c5399ba41eb5f374df
commit r9-9873-g12d811d06f2ea178ac9b40c5399ba41eb5f374df
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103703
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103703
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103703
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Sebor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f556312da96bf2db67b014612de86594d4ad003
commit r11-9395-g4f556312da96bf2db67b014612de86594d4ad003
Author: Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20906
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|REOPENED
For code like
template
struct bar;
struct bar {
int baz;
};
bar var;
we emit a fairly misleading and unwieldy diagnostic:
~
$ g++ -c u.cc
u.cc:6:8: error: template argument required for 'struct bar'
6 | struct bar {
|
1 - 100 of 284 matches
Mail list logo
