https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89784
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 46007
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46007=edit
add cover tests for intrinsics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19852
--- Comment #8 from yjf.victor at foxmail dot com ---
It seems that the stack size is unlimited.
```
% limit
cputime unlimited
filesize unlimited
datasize unlimited
stacksizeunlimited
coredumpsize unlimited
vmemoryuse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19852
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to yjf.victor from comment #6)
> According to my debugging on gdb, it failed to allocate the memory via the
> `alloca()` function, and therefore resulted in Segmentation fault.
If the problem is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19852
--- Comment #6 from yjf.victor at foxmail dot com ---
According to my debugging on gdb, it failed to allocate the memory via the
`alloca()` function, and therefore resulted in Segmentation fault.
```
% gdb build/genmodes
GNU gdb 2002-11-11-cvs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19852
--- Comment #5 from yjf.victor at foxmail dot com ---
I ran the command directly, and here it show:
% build/genmodes -h > tmp-modes.h
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19852
yjf.victor at foxmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yjf.victor at foxmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89793
Bug ID: 89793
Summary: Implicit conversion to std::string is ambiguous on GCC
8.2 but not GCC 7.3
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Mar 22 02:58:27 2019
New Revision: 269867
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269867=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89350 - Wrong -Wstringop-overflow= warning since r261518
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 89350, which changed state.
Bug 89350 Summary: [9 Regression] Wrong -Wstringop-overflow= warning since
r261518
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89792
--- Comment #1 from Qirun Zhang ---
This might be a latent issue.
Attaching my gcc version:
$ gcc-trunk -v
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190321 (experimental) [trunk revision 269832] (GCC)
$ gcc-7 -v
Thread model: posix
gcc version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89792
Bug ID: 89792
Summary: gcc generates wrong debug information at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Ping.
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:11:44 -0700
Kevin Buettner wrote:
> For debugging purposes, I need to be able to find the master thread
> in the thread pool.
>
> Without this patch, I see over 20 failures in the tests that I've
> written for GDB.
>
> I've also tested this in the gcc tree - no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85412
--- Comment #13 from Arseny Solokha ---
The patch in comment 8 fixes testcases from both comment 9 and comment 12 for
me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89784
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 46004 [details]
> gcc9-pr89784.patch
>
> Untested patch, so far without testsuite coverage.
I'll do the test.
On 3/21/19 5:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 3/21/19 4:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:19:37PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
Say that the argument is either a type or an expression that is
either an identifier (for C++ id-expression) to cover 1) and
a postfix expression with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
--- Comment #11 from Mateusz Zych ---
Oh, I forgot to mention that I've also tested this configuration:
HOST=x86_64-abc-linux-gnu
TARGET=x86_64-xyz-linux-gnu
and it worked without any issues.
I don't understand why would these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
--- Comment #10 from Mateusz Zych ---
Created attachment 46005
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46005=edit
Build log of first GCC, ending on compilation failure of libstdc++-v3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
--- Comment #9 from Mateusz Zych ---
Hi ;)
I've analysed this issue further and
tested all combinations of different vendors in host and target triplets.
Here are the results:
+---+
|
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:15:09PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> It was recently pointed out that there's a pasto in mmintrin.h for the
> _mm_sub_pi32 function, so that it performs an addition rather than a
> subtraction. This won't do.
>
> This patch corrects the problem, and adds a test case to
On 21/03/19 23:56 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/03/19 22:32 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/03/19 15:19 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
Fixed up change log.
Thanks, this version seems to have addressed everything.
As this was one of our big ticket features for stage 1 (but was
On 21/03/19 22:32 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/03/19 15:19 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
Fixed up change log.
Thanks, this version seems to have addressed everything.
As this was one of our big ticket features for stage 1 (but was
delayed due to the necessary legal steps that Intel
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 07:27:03PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/15/19 4:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > +/* Number of cxx_eval_constant_expression calls (except skipped ones,
> > + on simple constants or location wrappers) encountered during current
> > + cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr
On 3/21/19 4:55 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:13:29PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/16/19 4:53 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Here we have code like
struct X { operator const int(); };
int&& rri = X();
which I think is invalid, because [dcl.init.ref] says that if
On 3/21/19 6:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 05:03:11PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
--- gcc/cp/semantics.c.jj 2019-03-14 09:14:16.718012031 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/semantics.c 2019-03-15 16:53:14.270384477 +0100
@@ -2135,6 +2135,17 @@ finish_qualified_id_expr (tree qualifyin
On 3/15/19 4:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+/* Number of cxx_eval_constant_expression calls (except skipped ones,
+ on simple constants or location wrappers) encountered during current
+ cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr call. */
+static HOST_WIDE_INT constexpr_ops_count;
Hmm, a global
On 3/21/19 4:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:19:37PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
Say that the argument is either a type or an expression that is
either an identifier (for C++ id-expression) to cover 1) and
a postfix expression with . or -> operator (to cover
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 05:03:11PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > --- gcc/cp/semantics.c.jj 2019-03-14 09:14:16.718012031 +0100
> > +++ gcc/cp/semantics.c 2019-03-15 16:53:14.270384477 +0100
> > @@ -2135,6 +2135,17 @@ finish_qualified_id_expr (tree qualifyin
> > expr =
Snapshot gcc-7-20190321 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7-20190321/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89692
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 21/03/19 15:19 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
Fixed up change log.
Thanks, this version seems to have addressed everything.
As this was one of our big ticket features for stage 1 (but was
delayed due to the necessary legal steps that Intel took to kindly
transfer this to the LLVM project)
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:19:54PM +0100, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> Hmm, I am curious. How strongly would gcc assume x is 0?
If x is not 0, then it is undefined behavior and anything can happen,
so yes, it can assume x is 0, sometimes gcc does that, sometimes not,
it is not required to do
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:19:37PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > Say that the argument is either a type or an expression that is
> > either an identifier (for C++ id-expression) to cover 1) and
> > a postfix expression with . or -> operator (to cover COMPONENT_REF)?
>
> That doesn't look easy to
On Montag, 11. März 2019 10:14:49 CET Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:49:30AM +, Moritz Strübe wrote:
> > Considering that C11 6.5.7#3 ("If the value of the right operand
> > is negative or is greater than or equal to the width of the promoted
> > left operand, the
Fixed up change log.
20190321-1-pstl-integration.patch.bz2
Description: pstl integration patch
Thomas Rodgers writes:
> Jonathan Wakely writes:
>
>> On 20/03/19 14:05 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Fixed a failing test.
>>
>> Thanks. A
On 3/21/19 4:13 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:59:55PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
1) either an identifier naming a function or variable, or
2) some other expression like a member reference via . or ->,
an array subscript, or the indirection expression *.
But GCC
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:59:55PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> 1) either an identifier naming a function or variable, or
> 2) some other expression like a member reference via . or ->,
>an array subscript, or the indirection expression *.
>
> But GCC distinguishes three kinds of arguments:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89692
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 21 22:04:29 2019
New Revision: 269862
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269862=gcc=rev
Log:
PR lto/89692
* tree.c (fld_type_variant, fld_incomplete_type_of,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 21 22:03:07 2019
New Revision: 269861
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269861=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/71446
* call.c (filed_in_pset): Change pset from hash_set *
20190321-pstl-integration.patch.bz2
Description: pstl integration patch
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> On 20/03/19 14:05 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
>
>>
>>Fixed a failing test.
>
> Thanks. Apart from the changelog issue I mentioned on IRC, the only
> other required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89767
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 21 22:01:02 2019
New Revision: 269860
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269860=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89767
* parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_introducer): Add ids and
On 3/19/19 9:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 3/19/19 8:22 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Jeff Law wrote:
I'll note that our documentation clearly states that attributes can be
applied to functions, variables, labels, enums, statements and types.
A key thing here is that they can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
--- Comment #6 from Qirun Zhang ---
As mentioned in my earlier comment, the revision should be between gcc-5 and
gcc-6.
Bisect points to r239357.
commit ec969ce4161538b561592a032eca6dcfaf513596
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 11 09:02:04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
--- Comment #5 from Qirun Zhang ---
(In reply to Qirun Zhang from comment #4)
> Bisect points to r151362.
>
> commit ff79704e04af919c4fe501c7dceca8b21cced614
> Author: aoliva
> Date: Thu Sep 3 05:24:57 2009 +
>
> * toplev.c
Hi,
It was recently pointed out that there's a pasto in mmintrin.h for the
_mm_sub_pi32 function, so that it performs an addition rather than a
subtraction. This won't do.
This patch corrects the problem, and adds a test case to verify it.
Installed and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54262
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Regtested cleanly with the patch in comment 4.
If I remove the lines
se->expr = convert (pvoid_type_node, se->expr);
se->expr = gfc_evaluate_now (se->expr, >pre);
in
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:04:21PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:07:31 +0100, I wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:16:43 -0700, Cesar Philippidis
> > wrote:
> > > While working on [...], I noticed
> >
> > If only all such issues would end up in their own PRs,
On 3/15/19 4:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
As the testcase shows, we replace TLS vars that need initialization
in finish_id_expression_1 and in tsubst_copy_and_build of a VAR_DECL
with a _ZTW* call, but miss it in other cases where finish_id_expression
is not actually called. In particular
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89214
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #10 from Marek
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:13:29PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/16/19 4:53 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Here we have code like
> >
> >struct X { operator const int(); };
> >int&& rri = X();
> >
> > which I think is invalid, because [dcl.init.ref] says that if types T1 and
> > T2
>
This is a crash in digest_init_r -- we encounter
/* "If T is a class type and the initializer list has a single
element of type cv U, where U is T or a class derived from T,
the object is initialized from that element." */
if (flag_checking
&& cxx_dialect >= cxx11
&&
Hi Thomas,
Are there any further questions, or am I good to commit my patch as
posted?
Problem is, I have never looked into module writing / reading in any
detail, so it will take a few days for me to get up to speed so I can
really review your patch.
If, in the meantime, maybe somebody else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89454
--- Comment #2 from Qirun Zhang ---
(In reply to Qirun Zhang from comment #1)
> Bisect points to r151362.
>
> commit ff79704e04af919c4fe501c7dceca8b21cced614
> Author: aoliva
> Date: Thu Sep 3 05:24:57 2009 +
>
> * toplev.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89454
--- Comment #1 from Qirun Zhang ---
Bisect points to r151362.
commit ff79704e04af919c4fe501c7dceca8b21cced614
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Sep 3 05:24:57 2009 +
* toplev.c (process_options): Enable var-tracking-assignments
by
Hi!
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:16:43 -0700, Cesar Philippidis
wrote:
> This patch
(..., variants of which got re-submitted a few times, later on...)
> teaches the fortran FE how to verify that there is sufficient
> parallelism when calling acc routines inside acc loop. E.g. the fortran
> FE will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 20:13:44 2019
New Revision: 269858
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269858=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR72741] Properly handle clauses specifying the level of parallelism for
On 3/16/19 4:53 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Here we have code like
struct X { operator const int(); };
int&& rri = X();
which I think is invalid, because [dcl.init.ref] says that if types T1 and T2
are reference-related, no qualifiers can be dropped, and if the reference is an
rvalue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89790
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78377
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Hi!
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:07:31 +0100, I wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:16:43 -0700, Cesar Philippidis
> wrote:
> > While working on [...], I noticed
>
> If only all such issues would end up in their own PRs, instead of mixing
> them with other changes...
>
> > that the fortran FE wasn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89787
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89773
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 20:02:42 2019
New Revision: 269857
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269857=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR89773] Fortran OpenACC 'routine' directive refuses procedures with
On 3/19/19 11:45 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/7/19 4:52 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
This was one of those PRs where the more you poke, the more ICEs turn up.
This patch fixes the ones I could find. The original problem was that
Hi!
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 21:37:21 +0100, I wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:54:49 -0700, Cesar Philippidis
> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Note that besides for checking for multiple acc routine directives, this
> > patch also handles the case where the optional name argument in 'acc
> > routine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 19:54:51 2019
New Revision: 269856
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269856=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR72741] The name in a Fortran OpenACC 'routine' directive refers to the
Hi!
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 18:50:38 +0100, I wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 22:17:01 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:12:00PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:12:15 -0700, Cesar Philippidis
> > > wrote:
> > > The code changes now are actually very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 19:44:45 2019
New Revision: 269855
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269855=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR72741] Encode OpenACC 'routine' directive's level of parallelism inside
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89214
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
And a fix:
--- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
@@ -5978,6 +5978,18 @@ reshape_init_class (tree type, reshape_iter *d, bool
first_initializer_p,
field = next_initializable_field (DECL_CHAIN
Hi!
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:13:47 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp.jj 2014-07-04 10:20:35.0
> +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp 2014-09-15 17:05:04.038126245 +0200
> +proc dg-compile-aux-modules { args } {
> +global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 19:31:30 2019
New Revision: 269853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269853=gcc=rev
Log:
[testsuite] Fix 'dg-compile-aux-modules' diagnostic
gcc/testsuite/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 19:31:09 2019
New Revision: 269852
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269852=gcc=rev
Log:
[testsuite] Fix 'dg-compile-aux-modules' diagnostic
gcc/testsuite/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 19:29:57 2019
New Revision: 269851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269851=gcc=rev
Log:
[testsuite] Fix 'dg-compile-aux-modules' diagnostic
gcc/testsuite/
Hi!
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:02:32 +0100, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 12:28:10 +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > I additionally propagated the dg-compile-aux-modules support to caf.dg
>
> That got committed in r219143:
>
> > ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 19:17:12 2019
New Revision: 269850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269850=gcc=rev
Log:
[testsuite, Fortran] Apply DejaGnu 1.4.4 work-around also to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 19:16:29 2019
New Revision: 269848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269848=gcc=rev
Log:
[testsuite, Fortran] Apply DejaGnu 1.4.4 work-around also to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 19:16:54 2019
New Revision: 269849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269849=gcc=rev
Log:
[testsuite, Fortran] Apply DejaGnu 1.4.4 work-around also to
Hi!
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 20:22:08 +0100, I wrote:
> While looking for something else -- isn't that always how it happens ;-)
> -- I noticed one thing here:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:41:02 +0200, FX wrote:
> > I’ll wait a few more days to commit, so others can comment/review and I am
> > sure
On 3/20/19 6:06 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:58:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 05:55:04PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:56:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 20, 2019, Marek Polacek wrote:
This test fails with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29383
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 18:57:39 2019
New Revision: 269846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269846=gcc=rev
Log:
[testsuite, Fortran] Consistently set 'DEFAULT_FFLAGS'
In the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29383
--- Comment #19 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 18:57:56 2019
New Revision: 269847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269847=gcc=rev
Log:
[testsuite, Fortran] Consistently set 'DEFAULT_FFLAGS'
In the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29383
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 21 18:54:50 2019
New Revision: 269845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269845=gcc=rev
Log:
[testsuite, Fortran] Consistently set 'DEFAULT_FFLAGS'
In the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89214
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Another version, without a converting ctor:
struct B {
int c;
};
struct D : B { };
void
fn ()
{
D b{{D{42}}};
}
or_var_def): Handle degenerate PHI nodes.
(insert_debug_temps_for_defs): Handle PHI nodes.
* tree-ssa-dom.c (degenerate_phi_result): Don't crash on released
SSA names.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@154402
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 9.0.1 20190321 (ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89214
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
On 3/21/19 9:43 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
This also avoids the ICE in PR89779 but IMHO is not a real fix.
Still it restores a previously active check against released SSA names
which now have error_mark_node type rather than NULL. The new way
opens
On 3/21/19 1:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:25:25AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Attached (so far without changelog, selftest additions and only tested with
make -j32 -k check-c++-all RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp='pr89767.C *lambda* *desig*'"
) is
1) hash_{table,set}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89463
--- Comment #4 from Qirun Zhang ---
Bisect points to r151362.
commit ff79704e04af919c4fe501c7dceca8b21cced614
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Sep 3 05:24:57 2009 +
* toplev.c (process_options): Enable var-tracking-assignments
by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89790
Bug ID: 89790
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE segfault in operand_equal_p() at
fold-const.c:3000 with -Wduplicated-cond since r269838
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:25:25AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Attached (so far without changelog, selftest additions and only tested with
> > make -j32 -k check-c++-all RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp='pr89767.C *lambda*
> > *desig*'"
> > ) is
> > 1) hash_{table,set} implementation for lazy allocation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89789
Bug ID: 89789
Summary: [9 Regression] Compile time hog during RPO VN
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89788
Bug ID: 89788
Summary: trunk/liboffloadmic/runtime/emulator/coi_host.cpp:175]
: (error) Null pointer dereference
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #29 from Andrey Drobyshev ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #28)
> Patches should go to gcc-patches@. That is where reviews happen, too.
That's still a patch candidate. I want to hear other folks' opinion before it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89787
Bug ID: 89787
Summary: Fortran OpenACC 'routine' directive: parent
namespace(s)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89786
Bug ID: 89786
Summary: ice in add_expr, at tree.c:7767
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89784
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46004
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46004=edit
gcc9-pr89784.patch
Untested patch, so far without testsuite coverage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80559
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
---
This Go frontend patch by Cherry Zhang fixes the type debug dump code
to add a newline after the function receiver type. Bootstrapped and
ran Go tests on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline.
Ian
Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352
--- Comment #8 from Jeremy Sanders ---
Created attachment 46003
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46003=edit
Much smaller testcase. Switch 73/74 to see the difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #28 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Patches should go to gcc-patches@. That is where reviews happen, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy Sanders ---
Created attachment 46002
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46002=edit
Tiny patch to fix testcase
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
