https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103968
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102123
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102045
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102654
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104832
--- Comment #7 from Toolybird ---
I just stumbled across this openSUSE bug report which may or may not be
related:
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1188621
Interesting that it mentions filesystem readdir which I hadn't considered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103943
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
On 3/17/22 07:37, Benno Evers via Gcc-patches wrote:
The coroutine transformation moves the original function body into a
newly created actor function, but the block of the
`current_binding_level` still points into the original function,
causing the block to be shared between the two functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102045
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100282
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103428
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104847
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 104719 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104719
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84508
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104987
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Highly confident this is a simulator bug for the v850. I hiaven't looked at
iq2000-elf yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if that turns out to be something
similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102538
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103299
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101767
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102740
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] Bogus |[9/10 Regression] Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99754
--- Comment #6 from Peter Cordes ---
Looks good to me, thanks for taking care of this quickly, hopefully we can get
this backported to the GCC11 series to limit the damage for people using these
newish intrinsics. I'd love to recommend them for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #10)
> That'd work for finish_call_expr and build_new_method call since they're
> given the original arguments, but other callers e.g. build_new_op never see
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105066
Bug ID: 105066
Summary: GCC thinks pinsrw xmm, mem, 0 requires SSE4.1, not
SSE2? _mm_loadu_si16 bounces through integer reg
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102869
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
Snapshot gcc-11-20220326 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20220326/
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=103770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||niget.tom at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105065
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105065
Bug ID: 105065
Summary: Internal compiler error (segfault) when calling a
function with a sized array parameter returning a type
bigger than 16 bytes
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59769
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
... by LEWG and LWG. It still has to pass at plenary to get into the draft.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59769
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Approved for C++23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89883
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
Hi!
On 2022-01-15T17:00:11-0700, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> On 1/11/22 15:40, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 11/30/21 17:32, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> [default setting of the option]
>> Let's put =2 in -Wall for now.
> I've adjusted [...] and pushed r12-6605 [...]
Pushed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105052
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105055
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105058
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105052
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40e7524ada2f09ec80d8083b9608a10ed516d8fe
commit r10-10514-g40e7524ada2f09ec80d8083b9608a10ed516d8fe
Author: H.J. Lu
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105055
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:856efb41a873adf2b3e9332cc296c64f6adff240
commit r11-9696-g856efb41a873adf2b3e9332cc296c64f6adff240
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105058
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0ed5f0763933de8287b3e01aa7fd3efdd77d485
commit r11-9695-gf0ed5f0763933de8287b3e01aa7fd3efdd77d485
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105052
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee25401b10a1ca6157c0a02f49f47e7b253af123
commit r11-9694-gee25401b10a1ca6157c0a02f49f47e7b253af123
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu
Hi Aldy,
The proposed frange implementation looks cool. The one technical tweak is
that if x is not NaN and not +Inf/-Inf, then x*0.0 is [-0.0,0.0]. It's because
this
result is a range and not a constant that it can’t normally be constant folded,
unless it appears in a context where the sign of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104885
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41d1f11f5f693a2a06c65c9467a28dfeb02aed85
commit r12-7833-g41d1f11f5f693a2a06c65c9467a28dfeb02aed85
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84964
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41d1f11f5f693a2a06c65c9467a28dfeb02aed85
commit r12-7833-g41d1f11f5f693a2a06c65c9467a28dfeb02aed85
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104987
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
For the v850 at least, I'm starting to think this is a simulator bug. In
particular the simulator code doesn't look safe on a 64bit host for a signed
input to the MUL instruction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103775
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105064
Bug ID: 105064
Summary: requires crashes gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
> Am 26.03.2022 um 12:28 schrieb Thomas Koenig :
>
> On 25.03.22 12:34, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote:
>> What is the behavior with a RANGE_EXPR when one has { [0..10] = ++i;
>> }, is that applying the side-effects 11 times or once ?
>
> For side effects during the evaluation of
Hi Richard,
The patch for PR100786 introduced a testcase that systematically fails on
darwin:
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr100786.c -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr100786.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr100786.c -O2 (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063
Bug ID: 105063
Summary: [GCOV] Ability to map .gcda paths
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103775
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6459e6537632bc06e04e6011ca7fb6488f0e8e7d
commit r12-7832-g6459e6537632bc06e04e6011ca7fb6488f0e8e7d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103455
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff465bd8a0f0f96a00d3067018442917b194b7af
commit r12-7831-gff465bd8a0f0f96a00d3067018442917b194b7af
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103455
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04f19580e8dbdbc7366d0f5fd068aa0cecafdc9d
commit r12-7830-g04f19580e8dbdbc7366d0f5fd068aa0cecafdc9d
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105058
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ede5f5224d55b84b9f186b288164df9c06fd85e7
commit r12-7829-gede5f5224d55b84b9f186b288164df9c06fd85e7
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Mar 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105052
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:99591cf43fc1da0fb72b3da02ba937ba30bd2bf2
commit r12-7828-g99591cf43fc1da0fb72b3da02ba937ba30bd2bf2
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105062
Bug ID: 105062
Summary: Suboptimal vectorization for reduction with several
elements
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105057
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
In r12-7809-g5f6197d7c197f9d2b7fb2e1a19dac39a023755e8 I added an
optimization to avoid tracking the state of certain memory regions
in the store.
Unfortunately, I didn't cover every way in which
store::get_or_create_cluster can be called for a base region, leading
to assertion failure ICEs in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105057
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c8993c75309901e03418eba1d6239b9a39a43b7
commit r12-7827-g8c8993c75309901e03418eba1d6239b9a39a43b7
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
Learn how to send an sms text message anonymously using Termux right now
hit the link to start : https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLuVs9oV/
Thank me later
Kind regards
Dave Hackwell
Prod team leader
On 25.03.22 12:34, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote:
What is the behavior with a RANGE_EXPR when one has { [0..10] = ++i;
}, is that applying the side-effects 11 times or once ?
For side effects during the evaluation of expression, Fortran has a
clear "if you depend on it, it's your fault"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105061
--- Comment #1 from Will Wray ---
Hmm, the accepted simplified version ^^^ with typename parameter removed
is then rejected if 'unsigned' is replaced with 'uint32_t' from
#include
template
struct uint_offset_bitfield { uint32_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105061
Bug ID: 105061
Summary: [9/10 Regression] [c++2a+] anonymous bitfield
templated offset rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55357
JC Liang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jcl at nvidia dot com
--- Comment #4 from JC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105058
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
cat test.c
#include
unsigned int ctrl;
__m128i k1, k2, k3;
void
test_keylocker_11 (void)
{
register __m128i k4 __asm ("xmm16") = k2;
asm volatile ("" : "+v" (k4));
_mm_loadiwkey (ctrl, k1,
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 10:05 AM Hongyu Wang via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> > > Is it possible to create a test case that gas would throw an error for
> > > invalid operands?
> >
> > You can use -ffix-xmmN to disable XMM0-15.
>
> I mean can we create an intrinsic test for this PR that produces
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:27 AM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Since PHADDW/PHADDD/PHADDSW/PHSUBW/PHSUBD/PHSUBSW/PSIGNB/PSIGNW/PSIGND
> have no AVX512 version, replace the "Yv" register constraint with the
> "x" register constraint.
LGTM, please backport to GCC10/GCC11 branch.
>
> PR
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 4:50 AM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Since KL instructions have no AVX512 version, replace the "v" register
> constraint with the "x" register constraint.
>
> PR target/105058
> * config/i386/sse.md (loadiwkey): Replace "v" with "x".
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105060
Bug ID: 105060
Summary: [10/11] ICE with consteval function: internal compiler
error: in cp_gimplify_expr, at cp/cp-gimplify.c:14879
with keep-inline-functions
Product:
72 matches
Mail list logo
