https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90786
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90785
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
ia64 no longer has a maintainer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90784
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90829
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
While the OpenACC standard has the specification far more vague than OpenMP,
where the standard specifies only a subset of C/C++ for loops to be valid in
OpenMP constructs, quick search of OpenACC 2.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90829
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. if you enable warnings (just -Wall is enough) then you do get a diagnostic
without -fopenacc:
acc.cc:2: warning: ignoring #pragma acc kernels [-Wunknown-pragmas]
#pragma acc kernels loop create(f)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90829
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90830
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to zhonghao from comment #0)
> However, I tried clang and icc, and both compilers accept the code. Is the
> bug fully fixed?
They only accept it because your code doesn't instantiate the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019, helijia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
>
> --- Comment #23 from Li Jia He ---
> Created attachment 46477
> -->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90819
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 11 08:20:02 2019
New Revision: 272145
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272145=gcc=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/90819
* trans-mem.c (tm_memopt_compute_available): Add
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:07:39AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > 2019-06-07 Martin Liska
> >
> > * ansidecl.h:
> > (ATTRIBUTE_RESULT_SIZE_1): Define new macro.
> > (ATTRIBUTE_RESULT_SIZE_2): Likewise.
> >
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > The following was inspired by Marins work on escapes of locals
> > and the discussion there. It teaches points-to analysis that
> > the point of function return is special and thus escapes through
> > that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90828
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90816
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90781
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90829
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90832
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90831
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, the CFG looks like unroll-and-jam attempts to do versioning/peeling
but forgets the tail loop is executed at least once?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90820
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 6/10/19 2:55 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Ready to be installed?
Jakub approved me this on IRC. Installed as r272144.
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jun 11 07:55:19 2019
New Revision: 272144
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272144=gcc=rev
Log:
Disable htable sanitization in pt.c (PR c++/87847).
2019-06-11 Martin Liska
On 6/11/19 9:49 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> gdb/regcache.c: alloca (0);
> gdb/top.c: alloca (0);
There's a PR for these:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24653
Martin
On 6/10/19 1:54 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 6/10/19 8:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>> I've just noticed that we have couple of alloca (0) in libiberty:
>>
>> #ifndef REGEX_MALLOC
>> # ifdef C_ALLOCA
>> alloca (0);
>> # endif
>> #endif
>>
>> If I'm correct the value 0 has a special meaning
On 6/10/19 8:21 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:08 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 6/7/19 11:43 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:14 AM Martin Liška wrote:
On 6/7/19 2:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:03 PM Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90830
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
ICE is short for "internal compiler error", it means that the compiler crashes.
Please don't use that expression for anything else, in particular not for the
compiler reporting an error in your code (whether
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |mfortune at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90832
Bug ID: 90832
Summary: An ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90827
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41647
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41881
Bug 41881 depends on bug 41647, which changed state.
Bug 41647 Summary: Early Loop Unrolling control
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41647
What|Removed |Added
On 6/10/19 11:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 08:02:26PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> This change broke build without target libc.
>>
>> ../../../../libgcc/libgcov-merge.c:37:6: error: conflicting types for
>> ‘__gcov_merge_single’
>>37 | void __gcov_merge_single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90819
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90579
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
A workaround on your side would be to stick -mprefer-vector-size=128 on the
function.
Note the actual code seems to have another loop touching r inbetween:
for (i=0;i<6;i++)
{ r[i] =
Hi!
On the following testcase, we handle the case where both attributes
are on the same decl (as varpool_node::alias isn't set yet), by setting the
section even on the alias and then diagnosing if it is different from the
target's section (would succeed with bar having baz section attribute).
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90830
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90831
Bug ID: 90831
Summary: libgcc/libgcov-merge.c: conflicting
__gcov_merge_single prototype
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90830
Bug ID: 90830
Summary: A not fully fixed ICE?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62147
--- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 46478
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46478=edit
one simple patch
It can generate expected codes with the patch draft:
>---subf 9,10,9
>---addi 9,9,-4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62147
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
Hi Expert,
I encounter a build error for llvm on ppc after upgrade gcc to 9.1.0
| collect2: fatal error: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault]
The linker used here is powerpc-poky-linux-g++.
# powerpc-poky-linux-g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=powerpc-poky-linux-g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90829
Bug ID: 90829
Summary: -fopenacc expects iteration declaration or
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #23 from Li Jia He ---
Created attachment 46477
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46477=edit
try to fix this issue in ifcombine(and_comparisons_1 and or_comparisons_1)
I am trying to solve this issue directly in
www.fortran.org made a number of changes to their site which now
defaults to https, does not carry the FORTRAN 77 Standard any more
(that I could find it), and removed some other material.
This updates readings.html accordingly, and also streamlines the
Fortran section there a bit to reduce
201 - 246 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
