[PATCH] Simplify ((A & N) ==/!= CST1) &/| ((A & M) ==/!= CST2)

Hi, This adds the following two simplifcations to match.pd: ((A & N) == CST1) & ((A & M) == CST2) if (N) == (N), then (A&(N|M)) == (CST1|CST2) else false And ((A & N) != CST1) | ((A & M) != CST2) if (N) == (N), then (A&(N|M)) != (CST1|CST2) else true NOTE it adds a check to make

[PATCH 3/3] Check array contiguity for OpenACC/Fortran

Hi, This patch tightens up error checking for array references used in OpenACC clauses such that they must now be contiguous. I believe this matches up to the spec (as of 2.6). I've tried to make it so an error only triggers if the compiler is sure that a given array expression must be

[PATCH 1/3] Add OpenACC test for sub-references being pointer or allocatable variables

Hi, This test (by Tobias Burnus, mildly edited) adds a test to check whether the final component of a derived-type access has pointer or allocatable type for manual deep copy attach/detach operations. This is just checking existing behaviour. This arose from discussion of the manual deep copy

[PATCH 2/3] Don't allow mixed component and non-component accesses for OpenACC/Fortran

Hi, This patch arose from discussion of the manual deep copy patch here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01439.html In C/C++, it's not permitted to mix full struct-type accesses and "attach/detach" accesses to the same struct's members within a single directive. This patch adds

Re: Could I obtain the forms needed to make a contribution?

Hi Guys, Sorry I switched off the email for the holidays. I guess the problem with the linker error is, we have a distributed build system with the linking occurring at the very end of the build (we have a slow build, that's a different problem though). So it's compile time that this would be

Re: [EXT] Re: Mechanism to get at function information seems not to work

Thanks David, I'll give it a try. By the way, I'm trying to force one partition with "-flto-partition=one" I'm not sure if that makes a difference. Gary From: David Malcolm Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:52 PM To: Gary Oblock ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [EXT]

Re: Mechanism to get at function information seems not to work

On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 23:02 +, Gary Oblock wrote: > I'm having some grief attempting to get at the local definitions > in LTO (more about the options used later.) > > Here's the sequence of code in my optimization (part of attempt > at structure reorganization optimizations.) > >

[PATCH] Improve __builtin_add_overflow on x86 for double-word types (PR target/93141)

Hi! As the following testcase shows, we generate quite bad code for double-word __builtin_add_overflow on x86, we have add[dt]i3_doubleword pattern and emit add[ql]; adc[ql];, but then we could just use setc/seto or adc etc., but we instead perform a double-word comparison to set compute the

[C++ PATCH] Fix up cp-gimplify.c ICE (PR c++/93046)

Hi! On the following testcase since the split_nonconstant_init move on the COND_EXPR with omitted middle-end operand we end up with the operator bool called on a TARGET_EXPR in the first operand and the same TARGET_EXPR appearing in INIT_EXPR in the second operand. cp_gimplify_init_expr ICEs,

[C++ PATCH] Avoid bogus errors due to -Wredundant-tags (PR c++/93138)

Hi! For -Wredundant-tags or -Wmismatched-tags, cp_parser_maybe_warn_enum_key and cp_parser_check_class_key perform an extra name lookup to check if the enum/struct/class/union keyword is redundant, but as the testcase shows, if it is not redundant, but there is e.g. a hidden member with the same

Mechanism to get at function information seems not to work

I'm having some grief attempting to get at the local definitions in LTO (more about the options used later.) Here's the sequence of code in my optimization (part of attempt at structure reorganization optimizations.) cgraph_node* node; FOR_EACH_FUNCTION_WITH_GIMPLE_BODY ( node) { tree

[Bug tree-optimization/93131] ((a&8) == 8) && ((a&2) == 2) is not optimized to (a&(8|2)) == (8|2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93131 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12) > Otherwise it LGTM, so please post it this week, I'd really like to see it in > GCC 10. I writing the testcases right now. There will be at least 25 of them.

gcc-8-20200103 is now available

Snapshot gcc-8-20200103 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20200103/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-8

[Bug c++/93033] [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033 --- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jan 3 22:10:56 2020 New Revision: 279871 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279871=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/93033 - incorrect tree node sharing with array init. The

[C++ PATCH] PR c++/93033 - incorrect tree node sharing with array init.

The split_nonconstant_init piece is the only one necessary to fix the testcase, but it occurred to me that we might as well not split when -fno-exceptions. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. * typeck2.c (split_nonconstant_init): Unshare non-decl. * cp-gimplify.c

[C++ PATCH] Reject class template placeholder as non-type template parm type in C++17.

Jakub noticed that we were improperly allowing this in C++17 mode. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. * pt.c (invalid_nontype_parm_type_p): Reject class placeholder in C++17. --- gcc/cp/pt.c| 11 ++-

[PATCH] analyzer: fix global-sm-state issue affecting sm-signal

sm-signal.cc was failing to warn about the use of an fprintf call in a signal handler when the signal handler function was non-static. The root cause was a failure to copy global sm-state within sm_state_map::clone_with_remapping as called by program_state::can_merge_with_p, which led to the

[Bug libstdc++/93147] std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147 --- Comment #9 from Alexander Kondratskiy --- Ah, that explains everything. Thank you for clarifying.

[Bug libstdc++/93147] std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > (In reply to Alexander Kondratskiy from comment #6) > > What's strange here is that if one > > of the structs isn't empty, the problem goes away - it's more

[Bug libstdc++/93147] std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Alexander Kondratskiy from comment #6) > What's strange here is that if one > of the structs isn't empty, the problem goes away - it's more subtle than > "the compiler sees the equality

[Bug libstdc++/93147] std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Kondratskiy --- Interesting. Some thoughts I had - - If this is the correct behavior given the C++ standard, then that means the tuple implementation in the library has to be fixed. - If this is incorrect

[testsuite, X86, committed] Require effective target masm_intel for two tests.

Hi and Happy New Year, The vx512??-pr92686-vpcmp-intelasm-1.c tests currently fail on targets that do not support intel asm syntax. Fixed by adding the effective target requires. tested on x86_64-darwin16, applied to mainline as obvious, thanks Iain gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2020-01-03 Iain

[PATCH] libstdc++/92124 for associative containers

This is the patch to extend PR 92124 to the associative containers. As it is pretty simple I thought it could maybe go in now. I also think that the existing 92124 tests are not really testing what they should with the move assignment operators noexcept qualified, no ?     PR libstdc++/92124

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR91640 – Fix call to contiguous dummy

Hi Tobias, As a variant, I now use the latter (via the else branch). Either variant produces the same original tree. One can argue which variant is clearer; I think both are fine – pick one. I think the second one (the one you just attached) looks better. So, OK for trunk. Thanks for the

[Bug c++/93149] -fno-concepts silently ignored in c++2a mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93149 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug libstdc++/93147] std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Further reduced: struct A { bool operator == (A) const { return true; } }; struct B { bool operator == (B) const { return true; } }; struct Tuple : private A, private B { }; bool operator==(Tuple,

[Bug libstdc++/93147] std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug target/93141] Missed optimization : Use of adc when checking overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93141 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Just for reference here is aarch64 assembly for the loop: .L4: ldr x4, [x9, x5] ldr x3, [x8, x5] add x5, x5, 8 mul x6, x4, x3 umulh x3, x4, x3

[Bug target/93141] Missed optimization : Use of adc when checking overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93141 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/93149] New: -fno-concepts silently ignored in c++2a mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93149 Bug ID: 93149 Summary: -fno-concepts silently ignored in c++2a mode Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/93119] [ICE] The traditional TLS support of aarch64-ilp32 target may be not perfect while enable fPIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93119 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #3) > I don't think that's right either. These are supposed to be machine > addresses, not C pointers. HMm, you might be right. I will take a look over the

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR91640 – Fix call to contiguous dummy

Hi Thomas, On 1/3/20 7:18 PM, Thomas König wrote: Build on x86-64-gnu-linux. OK for the trunk – and for GCC 9? [It's a 9/10 regression] Is is now okay? If you add this, it would be good to add a test (for example counting while statements in the *.original dump) that the copyback does not

[Bug libstdc++/93147] std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Alexander Kondratskiy from comment #0) > My suspicion is that tuple indirectly inherits the types `A` and `B`, and > even though it may be private inheritance, the compiler still finds both >

[Bug fortran/93148] New: Pointer-function-result as LVALUE variable – function called multiple times with copy-in/out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93148 Bug ID: 93148 Summary: Pointer-function-result as LVALUE variable – function called multiple times with copy-in/out Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libgcc/93145] strerror_r() and INT_MIN returns "Unknown error -18446744071562067968" (for x86_64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93145 --- Comment #2 from Chris Hall --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > You want to file it against glibc; https://sourceware.org/bugzilla . > glibc has the implementation of strerror_r/_itoa_word . Ooops. I thought this would be the

[PATCH 2/2] analyzer: cleanups to checker_path

This patch adds DISABLE_COPY_AND_ASSIGN to checker_path, and makes its fields private. Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Pushed to dmalcolm/analyzer on the GCC git mirror. gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog: * checker-path.h (checker_path::get_checker_event): New

[PATCH 1/2] analyzer: delete checker_event::clone

checker_event has a clone vfunc implemented by all the concrete subclasses, but this is never used (a holdover from a very early implementation). This patch deletes it. Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Pushed to dmalcolm/analyzer on the GCC git mirror.

[Bug libgcc/93145] strerror_r() and INT_MIN returns "Unknown error -18446744071562067968" (for x86_64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93145 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/93147] std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kondratskiy --- Hi, it compiles fine with both. See godbolt link for Clang using GCC's libstdc++ : https://godbolt.org/z/iFHemn

[Bug libstdc++/93147] std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |libstdc++ --- Comment #1 from Andrew

[Bug target/93136] [10 regression] gcc.dg/vmx/ops.c and several other test break after r279772

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93136 --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner --- So the vsx-vector-6.p*.c FAILs are due to sloppy insn counting in the test cases. I have a patch.

[Bug target/93005] Redundant NEON loads/stores from stack are not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93005 --- Comment #3 from Joel Holdsworth --- Interesting. Comparing the implementation of _mm_store_si128 to vst1q_s32: emminitrin.h extern __inline void __attribute__((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__, __artificial__)) _mm_store_si128 (__m128i

[Bug c++/93147] New: std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93147 Bug ID: 93147 Summary: std::tuple of empty structs with member equality operators has ambiguous equality operator Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

Fortran patches to be reviewed (was: [Patch, Fortran] PR91640 – Fix call to contiguous dummy)

Hi Tobias, PS: I lost a bit the overview. Is there any patch pending review or otherwise pending? From my side, there is the patch for PR 65428, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00040.html Apart from that, I don't see any outstanding patches. Regards Thomas

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR91640 – Fix call to contiguous dummy

Hi Tobias, If one passes something which is not a variable as an argument, there is no point to do the copy-out – the copy-in is sufficient. Note that a the result of a pointer-returning function is regarded as variable. As cleanup, I also fixed the indentation (twice) and the pointless

[Bug fortran/91648] [9/10 Regression] ICE in generate_finalization_wrapper, at fortran/class.c:2009

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91648 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

Connect and Network with Regulators and Canna Operators

CannaWest    http://links.infocastevents.mkt8115.com/ctt?kn=13=NDE0MTM4MzgS1=NjkyMTk1NzM3MTk0S0=2=MTY4MDI1MTIxMQS2=1=0 The

[Bug fortran/91640] [9/10 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (contiguous expr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/93136] [10 regression] gcc.dg/vmx/ops.c and several other test break after r279772

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93136 --- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner --- So the vmx/ops.c test just needs -flax-vector-conversions to quiet the warnings. The vsx-vector-6-p*.c tests actually have some differences in the number of xxand, etc. insn counts. I'll find out why

[Bug target/93146] C++ TLS init function not generated on AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93146 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/93146] New: TLS init function not generated on AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93146 Bug ID: 93146 Summary: TLS init function not generated on AIX Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug fortran/91648] [9/10 Regression] ICE in generate_finalization_wrapper, at fortran/class.c:2009

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91648 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|tkoenig at gcc

[Bug fortran/91648] [9/10 Regression] ICE in generate_finalization_wrapper, at fortran/class.c:2009

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91648 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug target/93141] Missed optimization : Use of adc when checking overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93141 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Untested fix, though this is just about double-word uaddv4, would be good to handle double-word usubv4, addv4 and subv4 similarly. --- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj 2020-01-03 11:10:43.839511446 +0100 +++

[Bug fortran/91640] [9/10 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (contiguous expr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Patch, Fortran] PR91640 – Fix call to contiguous dummy

If one passes something which is not a variable as an argument, there is no point to do the copy-out – the copy-in is sufficient. Note that a the result of a pointer-returning function is regarded as variable. As cleanup, I also fixed the indentation (twice) and the pointless 'fsym ?' check

Re: [PATCH] Mark param_max_combine_insns with Optimization keyword.

Hi! On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 12:07:27PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > The param is changed here: > > /* Restrict the amount of work combine does at -Og while retaining > most of its useful transforms. */ > if (opts->x_optimize_debug) > SET_OPTION_IF_UNSET (opts, opts_set,

Re: Question about sizeof after struct change

On 2019-12-24 2:37 a.m., Richard Biener wrote: > On December 23, 2019 6:30:31 PM GMT+01:00, Erick Ochoa > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am working on an LTO pass which drops unused fields on structs. On my >> tests, I found that the gimple generated for `sizeof` is a constant. >> For >> example, for

[PATCH] Fix a bug that propagation in recursive function uses wrong aggregate lattice (PR ipa/93084)

When checking a self-recursively generated value for aggregate jump function, wrong aggregate lattice was used, which will cause infinite constant propagation. This patch is composed to fix this issue. 2020-01-03 Feng Xue PR ipa/93084 * ipa-cp.c

Re: Define HAVE_ for math long double functions declared in vxworks headers

On 25/12/19 03:40 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: When cross-building for vxworks, test for declarations of long double functions in math.h. We don't normally test for these functions when cross compiling, because link tests don't work, or ever really, but not defining them as available causes

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] ipa: duplicate ipa_size_summary for cloned nodes

Hi, On Thu, Dec 19 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On 2019/12/18 23:48, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> The size_info of ipa_size_summary are created by r277424. It should be >> >> duplicated for cloned nodes, otherwise self_size and >> >> estimated_self_stack_size >> >> would be 0, causing param

[Bug c++/93033] [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[PATCH] Add Optimization for various IPA parameters.

Hi. This is similar transformation for IPA passes. This time, one needs to use opt_for_fn in order to get the right parameter values. @Martin, Honza: There are last few remaining parameters which should use opt_for_fn: param_ipa_max_agg_items param_ipa_cp_unit_growth

[PATCH] Add Optimization keyword for TREE/RTL optimization passes.

Hello. The patch introduces Optimization keyword for various parameters that influence an optimization that operates on function level (TREE/RTL). I manually grepped for each occurrence and verified that it's really used within a function context. Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and

Re: [ PATCH ] [ C++ ] [ libstdc++ ] P0674r1 - Extend support for arrays in make/allocate_shared

On 02/01/20 17:16 -0500, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote: This implementation does not update the internal __allocate_shared and __make_shared functions (I don't know why there seems to be a duplicate front-end for those functions: it seems a little weird to use both? Maybe it's for legacy reasons,

[Bug c++/93106] [c++2a] Deleted move constructor is not selected when returning an automatic variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106 --- Comment #2 from Yunrui Wang --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > What you cite doesn't say anything that would make the testcase invalid. > The standard says that for an implicitly movable entity seen in return > statement shall

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Define std::lexicographical_compare_three_way for C++20

On 03/01/20 14:54 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 29/12/19 12:07 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: FYI, the above fails with -std=c++2a and recent Clang trunk after "Mark the major papers for C++20 consistent

[Bug libgcc/93145] New: strerror_r() and INT_MIN returns "Unknown error -18446744071562067968" (for x86_64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93145 Bug ID: 93145 Summary: strerror_r() and INT_MIN returns "Unknown error -18446744071562067968" (for x86_64) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Define std::lexicographical_compare_three_way for C++20

On 29/12/19 12:07 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 05/12/2019 13:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote: commit 5012548fd62526fdf5e04aeacee2b127efbac0e0 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date: Thu Dec 5 12:23:53 2019 + libstdc++: Define std::lexicographical_compare_three_way for C++20 *

[Bug c++/91369] Implement P0784R7: constexpr new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369 --- Comment #25 from Toni Neubert --- I get: "deallocation of already deallocated storage" for test2() but compiling just test1() or test2() is just fine. struct a { constexpr a(int* i) : i{i} { } constexpr ~a() {

[Bug target/93141] Missed optimization : Use of adc when checking overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93141 Peter Cordes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter at cordes dot ca --- Comment #2

[Bug target/93141] Missed optimization : Use of adc when checking overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93141 --- Comment #1 from Madhur Chauhan --- The source of this bug is the stackoverflow Q: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59575408/fastest-way-to-sum-dot-product-of-vector-of-unsigned-64-bit-integers-using-192-2/59579310#59579310

[Bug ipa/92917] [10 Regression] ICE in print_all_lattices at gcc/ipa-cp.c:547 since r278016.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92917 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/92917] [10 Regression] ICE in print_all_lattices at gcc/ipa-cp.c:547 since r278016.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92917 --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Fri Jan 3 13:52:38 2020 New Revision: 279859 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279859=gcc=rev Log: Avoid segfault when dumping IPA-CP lattices for unoptimized functions (PR 92917)

[Bug c++/93137] [10 regression] ICE in refs_may_alias_p_2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93137 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/93033] [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@li-snyder.org --- Comment #10 from

[Bug ipa/93015] [10 Regression] Segmentation fault (ipcp_store_vr_results(void))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93015 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/93033] [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug fortran/77371] [8/9/10 Regression][OpenACC] ICE in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:671 (... and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77371 --- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus --- [OpenACC] The following patch fixes the "firstprivate(z)" issue – but it also assumes that a pointer variable is not undefined (only null/not associated or associated is fine); interestingly, it also yields

[PATCH] Avoid segfault when dumping IPA-CP lattices for unoptimized functions (PR 92917)

Hi, PR 92917 found yet another place - dumping - where we can no longer rely on the fact that each function with gimple body has its ipa_node_params summary because un-optimized ones don't. Fixed with the following obvious patch that has passed a bootstrap and testing on an x86_64 and which I am

[Bug c++/93137] [10 regression] ICE in refs_may_alias_p_2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93137 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug ipa/93144] [10 Regression] 459.GemsFDTD debug info size increase by 50% since r279563

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93144 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ipa/93144] New: [10 Regression] 459.GemsFDTD debug info size increase by 50% since r279563

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93144 Bug ID: 93144 Summary: [10 Regression] 459.GemsFDTD debug info size increase by 50% since r279563 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/93046] [10 Regression] ICE in cp_gimplify_init_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93046 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

Re: Test GCC conversion with reposurgeon available

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Joseph Myers wrote: > Two more. > > git+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/home/gccadmin/gcc-reposurgeon-6a.git > git+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/home/gccadmin/gcc-reposurgeon-6b.git Two more. git+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/home/gccadmin/gcc-reposurgeon-7a.git

[Bug fortran/77371] [8/9/10 Regression][OpenACC] ICE in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:671 (... and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77371 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/93143] New: Multiple calls to static constexpr member function gives wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143 Bug ID: 93143 Summary: Multiple calls to static constexpr member function gives wrong code Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/93142] New: Missed optimization : Use of adc when checking overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93142 Bug ID: 93142 Summary: Missed optimization : Use of adc when checking overflow Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[PATCH] Mark param_max_fields_for_field_sensitive with Optimization keyword.

Hi. One another fix where -Ox sets a parameter that is not marked with Optimize keyword. Fixed by adding the keyword. Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. Ready to be installed? Thanks, Martin gcc/ChangeLog: 2020-01-03 Martin Liska PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/93141] New: Missed optimization : Use of adc when checking overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93141 Bug ID: 93141 Summary: Missed optimization : Use of adc when checking overflow Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH 07/13] OpenACC 2.6 deep copy: libgomp parts

Hi, On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 00:01:10 +0100 Thomas Schwinge wrote: > I had intentionally left out this assignment in my "In > 'libgomp/target.c', 'struct splay_tree_key_s', use 'struct > splay_tree_aux' for infrequently-used or API-specific data" patch, >

[Bug c++/93046] [10 Regression] ICE in cp_gimplify_init_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93046 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/93140] [8/9/10 Regression] Segfault in cc1plus on incorrect decltype among function args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93140 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Seems mutual infinite recursion: ... #101 0x00b83f51 in tsubst_decl (t=, args=, complain=0) at ../../gcc/cp/pt.c:14083 #102 0x00b87bc3 in tsubst (t=, args=, complain=0, in_decl=) at

[Bug c++/93140] [8/9/10 Regression] Segfault in cc1plus on incorrect decltype among function args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93140 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target

Re: [PING^4][PATCH 0/4] Fix library testsuite compilation for build sysroot

Hi Maciej, On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 00:43:54 + (GMT) "Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, Mike Stump wrote: > > > >> This patch series addresses a problem with the testsuite > > >> compiler being set up across libatomic, libffi, libgo, libgomp > > >> with no correlation whatsoever

Re: [Patch, Fortran] OpenMP/OpenACC – fix more issues with OPTIONAL

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:54:19PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote: > 2019-12-10 Tobias Burnus > > gcc/fortran/ > * trans-openmp.c (gfc_omp_check_optional_argument): Always return a > Boolean expression; handle unallocated/disassociated actual arguments > as absent if passed

[Bug c++/92552] [10 Regression] internal compiler error: in lazily_declare_fn, at cp/method.c:3045 with -fconcepts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92552 --- Comment #4 from Tony E Lewis --- Sorry - forgot to include the compiler output... In file included from /opt/compiler-explorer/libs/rangesv3/0.10.0/include/range/v3/iterator/reverse_iterator.hpp:20, from

[PATCH] Do not set -fomit-frame-pointer if TARGET_OMIT_LEAF_FRAME_POINTER_P.

Hi. I'm not fully sure about the change, but -momit-leaf-frame-pointer probably should not globally omit frame pointers? Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. Ready to be installed? Thanks, Martin gcc/ChangeLog: 2020-01-03 Martin Liska PR

[Bug c++/92552] [10 Regression] internal compiler error: in lazily_declare_fn, at cp/method.c:3045 with -fconcepts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92552 Tony E Lewis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||TonyELewis at hotmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/93140] Segfault in cc1plus on incorrect decltype among function args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93140 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

  1   2   >