I've checked in these tweaks for various testcases that fail on
nios2-elf without an explicit -fdelete-null-pointer-checks option. This
target is configured to build with that optimization off by default.
-Sandra
commit 04c69d0e61c0f98a010d77a79ab749d5f0aa6b67
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60301
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10778
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68183
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59263
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56626
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2015-10-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56626
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55902
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47029
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44968
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
This patch fixes the ICE I reported in PR103163. We were initializing
stack_limit_rtx before the register properties it depends on were
getting set. I moved it to the same function where stack_pointer_rtx,
frame_pointer_rtx, etc are being initialized.
Besides nios2 where I observed it, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96032
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101630
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85527
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57503
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66195
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67062
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51837
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66047
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57466
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57868
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56540
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.2|---
Last reconfirmed|2020-10-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87256
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101478
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 89028, which changed state.
Bug 89028 Summary: 8-byte loop isn't vectorized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89028
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89028
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95270
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|10.0
Snapshot gcc-11-20220108 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20220108/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94061
--- Comment #3 from Frank Heckenbach ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #2)
> How do you define it? It works if we define it as
>
> auto operator <=> (const B& b) const {
> return A::operator<=>(b);
> }
>
> but not if it's
Am Samstag, den 08.01.2022, 10:35 -0800 schrieb Andrew Pinski:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:33 AM Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
> > accesses and trapping operations. My initial
> > assumption (and hope) was that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103769
--- Comment #8 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Slightly simpler executable example without recursion:
template using t = T;
template struct s {};
template s...> f() { return {};}
int main() { f(); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83079
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 02:15:14PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 1:59 PM Michael Meissner
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 03:18:07PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 03:13:10PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 08.01.22
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 1:59 PM Michael Meissner wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 03:18:07PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 03:13:10PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > On 08.01.22 15:02, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote:
> > > > Note, as for byteswapping,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
--- Comment #8 from Jörn Heusipp ---
> Note in newer versions of glibc, libpthread is all intergrated into libc and
> there is no issues again.
>
> For Mac OS X/darwin you don't need -lm -pthread because libc has it.
Two examples where it
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 03:18:07PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 03:13:10PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >
> > On 08.01.22 15:02, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote:
> > > Note, as for byteswapping, apparently it wasn't ever working right fox
> > > the IBM extended
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
This is only a matter of QoI and/or documentation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
If you want __STDC_NO_THREADS defined file a bug about that but gcc will need
to record which versions of glibc has C11 thread defined or not.
You could use __has_include extension which will handle that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
>You did not address any of the standard violating behavior concerning
>advertising thread support at all.
There is no standard violating behavior with respect to thread support. Again
the C/C++ standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note in newer versions of glibc, libpthread is all intergrated into libc and
there is no issues again.
For Mac OS X/darwin you don't need -lm -pthread because libc has it.
>gcc libstdc++ implements
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:33 AM Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
> accesses and trapping operations. My initial
> assumption (and hope) was that compilers take
> care to avoid creating traps that are incorrectly
> ordered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
Jörn Heusipp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103950
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
>That happens even if -funsigned-char is used.
Yes because in this case, GCC is using char internally and forgetting it is
signed by default when calling a function as shown by my patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Summary|printf("\xff")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39439
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
To clearify here, -shared and shared libraries in general accept undefined
referneces while linking. You can change the behavior of that, if using GNU
binutils, the option would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also gcc implements the compiler, it is up to the other vendor to implement the
rest of the c library. Gcc does not implement printf either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80528
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
> Most C programmers would assume that volatile accesses already
> provides this guarantee, so actually doing so would be good.
I'm a little skeptical of this statement: if it was true, how come the most
recent version of the standard does not provide it 30 years after the language
was first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103950
--- Comment #1 from Thorsten Otto ---
In gimple_fold_builtin_printf(), a call to printf() with a
single-character-string is optimized to putchar(). However that is also done
with non-ascii-characters, which in the case of printf("\ff") will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103950
Bug ID: 103950
Summary: printf("\xff") incorrectly optimized to putchar(-1)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103943
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
Am Samstag, den 08.01.2022, 16:03 +0100 schrieb David Brown:
> On 08/01/2022 09:32, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
> > accesses and trapping operations. My initial
> > assumption (and hope) was that compilers take
> > care
On 1/7/2022 2:55 PM, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
On Jan 7, 2022, at 4:06 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi Folks,
In the aarch64 Darwin ABI we have an unusual (OK, several unusual) feature of
the calling convention.
When an argument is passed *in a register* and it is integral and less than SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94061
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On 1/8/2022 2:04 AM, NightStrike via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, 18:31 cqwrteur via Gcc-patches
wrote:
When building GCC hosted on windows with Canadian/native compilation
(host==target), the build scripts in GCC would override DLLs with each
other. For example, for MinGW-w64,
On 1/6/2022 6:53 AM, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Sun, 2021-12-19 at 22:30 +0100, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
This patch fixes a memory leak in the pass manager. In the existing
code,
the m_name_to_pass_map is allocated in
pass_manager::register_pass_name, but
never deallocated.
Am Samstag, den 08.01.2022, 15:41 +0100 schrieb Eric Botcazou:
> > Yes, although I think potentially trapping ops
> > are not moved before calls (as this would be
> > incorrect). So do you think it would be feasable
> > to prevent this for volatile too?
>
> Feasible probably, but why would this
On 08/01/2022 09:32, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
> accesses and trapping operations. My initial
> assumption (and hope) was that compilers take
> care to avoid creating traps that are incorrectly
> ordered relative to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103949
Bug ID: 103949
Summary: gcc fails to provide a standard conforming C11 or
C++17 environment even when specifying -std=c11 or
-std=c++17
Product: gcc
Version:
> Yes, although I think potentially trapping ops
> are not moved before calls (as this would be
> incorrect). So do you think it would be feasable
> to prevent this for volatile too?
Feasible probably, but why would this be desirable in C? It's not Java!
--
Eric Botcazou
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 03:13:10PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> On 08.01.22 15:02, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote:
> > Note, as for byteswapping, apparently it wasn't ever working right fox
> > the IBM extended real(kind=16) and complex(kind=16).
>
> The lack of bug reports since the
On 08.01.22 15:02, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote:
Note, as for byteswapping, apparently it wasn't ever working right fox
the IBM extended real(kind=16) and complex(kind=16).
The lack of bug reports since the conversion feature was introduced in
2006, more than 15 years ago, tells us
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
Am Samstag, den 08.01.2022, 13:41 +0100 schrieb Richard Biener:
On January 8, 2022 9:32:24 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Uecker
wrote:
Hi Richard,
thank you for your quick response!
I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
accesses and
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 12:10:56PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> One reason for that is that neither conversion is lossless, neither format
> is a subset or superset of the other. Yes, IEEE quad has both much bigger
> exponent range (-16382..16383 vs. -1022..1023) and slightly
Am Samstag, den 08.01.2022, 13:41 +0100 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On January 8, 2022 9:32:24 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Uecker
> wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
thank you for your quick response!
> > I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
> > accesses and trapping operations. My initial
> >
On January 8, 2022 9:32:24 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Uecker
wrote:
>
>Hi Richard,
>
>I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
>accesses and trapping operations. My initial
>assumption (and hope) was that compilers take
>care to avoid creating traps that are incorrectly
>ordered relative to
This patch adds more support for _Float16 (HFmode) to the nvptx backend.
Currently negation, absolute value and floating point comparisons are
implemented by promoting to float (SFmode). This patch adds suitable
define_insns to nvptx.md, most conditional on TARGET_SM53 (-misa=sm_53).
This patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103948
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> diff --git a/gcc/optabs-tree.c b/gcc/optabs-tree.c
> index 78e388d82f6..871366f3b7e 100644
> --- a/gcc/optabs-tree.c
> +++ b/gcc/optabs-tree.c
> @@ -502,6 +502,9 @@
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 12:00:38PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> And IMHO the default like for byte-swapping should be the native
> format, i.e. the one the program actually used.
One reason for that is that neither conversion is lossless, neither format
is a subset or superset of
Hi Pierre-Marie, is this really a good idea? If a directory has millions of
files in it (rare, but I've seen it) this may consume a lot of memory. Also, if
using a slow medium like a network file system, reading the entire directory
contents may take a long time. Finally, you aren't really
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 11:07:24AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> I have tried to unravel the different cases here, I count six
> (lumping together the environment variables, the CONVERT specifier
> and -fconvert, and leaving out the byte swapping)
>
> CompilerConvert Read action Write
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |---
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103948
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
diff --git a/gcc/optabs-tree.c b/gcc/optabs-tree.c
index 78e388d82f6..871366f3b7e 100644
--- a/gcc/optabs-tree.c
+++ b/gcc/optabs-tree.c
@@ -502,6 +502,9 @@ expand_vec_cond_expr_p (tree value_type, tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.3 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96184
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
