Hi!
The following testcase ICEs. The generated split_insns starts
with recog_data.insn = NULL and then tries to put various operands into
recog_data.operand array and checks various splitter conditions.
The problem is that some atom related tuning splitters indirectly call
extract_insn_cached on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93618
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93616
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #2 from
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 10:49:36AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> > emit_call_insn (gen_call (operands[0], const0_rtx, const0_rtx));
>> >
>> > for (i = 0; i < XVECLEN (operands[2], 0); i++)
>> > {
>> > rtx set = XVECEXP (operands[2], 0, i);
>> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #213 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #212)
> (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #211)
> > If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it
> > please be moved from SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
Bug ID: 93621
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in redirect_call_stmt_to_callee,
at cgraph.c:1443
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:59 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:19 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:59 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:38 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:43 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92875
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #212 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #211)
> If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it
> please be moved from SUSPENDED status to REOPENED? The situation is far
> worse than
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 09:51:14PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:59 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > MS_ABI requires passing aggregates with only float/double in integer
> > registers. Checked gcc outputs against Clang and fixed:
> >
> > FAIL: libffi.bhaible/test-callback.c -W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93195
Bug 93195 depends on bug 93536, which changed state.
Bug 93536 Summary: -fpatchable-function-entries -ffunction-sections doesn't
work with --gc-sections
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93536
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93195
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 93536 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93536
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
This commit in GNU binutils 2.35:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=b7d072167715829eed0622616f6ae0182900de3e
added the section flag 'o' to .section directive:
.section __patchable_function_entries,"awo",@progbits,foo
which specifies the symbol name which the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #211 from Rich Felker ---
If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it please
be moved from SUSPENDED status to REOPENED? The situation is far worse than
what seems to have been realized last this was worked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #210 from Rich Felker ---
If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it please
be moved from SUSPENDED status to REOPENED? The situation is far worse than
what seems to have been realized last this was worked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #209
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93620
Bug ID: 93620
Summary: Floating point is broken in C++ on targets with excess
precision
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82318
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #5
> I did a quick bootstrap, this shows several failures like:
>
> gcc/builtins.c:9427:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
> 9427 | }
> | ^
> (insn 212 211 213 24 (set (reg:SI 207)
> (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 206)
> (const_int 26 [0x1a])
> (const_int 6 [0x6])))
On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 16:30 +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 1/15/20 11:45 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Therefore, first and foremost, I would like to ask all (moderately)
> > seasoned GCC contributors to consider mentoring a student this year
> > and
> > ideally also come up with a project that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #137 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-05 10:18 p.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> I just had a chance to do some testing tonight. So attempting to bootstrap
> 8.3.0 in stock configuration gives PCREL21B
On 2/6/20 3:18 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+ If tentative definitions of particular variable or variables need to be
I believe that would be "a particular variable", but best to simplify
to "of particular variables".
+ placed in a common block,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93561
--- Comment #3 from vfdff ---
thanks very much!
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 03/02/20 21:07 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > +#ifndef _RANGES_ALGO_H
> > +#define _RANGES_ALGO_H 1
> > +
> > +#if __cplusplus > 201703L
> > +
> > +#include
> > +#include
> > +#include
> > +// #include
>
> This line could be removed, or leave
This patch adds ranges::basic_istream_view and ranges::istream_view. This seems
to be the last missing part of the ranges header.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/std/ranges (ranges::__detail::__stream_extractable,
ranges::basic_istream_view, ranges::istream_view): Define.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Does the patch in comment #6 fix the remaining test failures for everyone?
Reproducing the ICE in PR analyzer/93375 required some kind of
analyzer diagnostic occurring after a call with fewer arguments
than required by the callee.
The testcase used __builtin_memcpy with a NULL argument for this.
On x86_64-pc-linux-gnu this happened to be already optimized into:
_4 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:13f5b93e6453d121abc15c718dfcc588aca976c3
commit r10-6496-g13f5b93e6453d121abc15c718dfcc588aca976c3
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91465
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek
In ed4f2c001a883b2456fc607a33f1c59f9c4ee65d I changed the call to
fold_non_dependent_expr in check_narrowing to maybe_constant_value.
That was the wrong thing to do as these tests show: check_narrowing
bails out for dependent expressions but we can still have template
codes like CAST_EXPR that
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 03/02/20 21:07 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > This patch implements [range.adaptors]. It also includes the changes from
> > P3280
> > and P3278 and P3323, without which many standard examples won't work.
> >
> > The implementation is mostly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What makes that move redundant? I don't see it.
Hi again,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 08:51:06PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 01:15:25PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 05:14:08PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > Here is what I meant as the alternative, i.e. don't check any predicates,
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93569
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93569
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a66219dce7fcba068a0998dd926e2ffc6857f149
commit r10-6494-ga66219dce7fcba068a0998dd926e2ffc6857f149
Author: Michael Meissner
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 01:57:49PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:25 AM Segher Boessenkool <
> seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > We also need a way to fix changelog entries for the errors that do seep
> > through (and that are bad enough that they do need
On 2/6/20 6:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:00 PM Jeff Law wrote:
On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 09:19 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:02 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/4/20 2:31 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 13:08 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 01:40:03PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> This patch addresses the concern the Segher raised in the original submission
> of the patch to fix PR target/93569. In addition to checking for D*-form
> addresses in the traditional Altivec registers, this patch also checks for
Hi Will,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 11:41:47AM -0600, will schmidt wrote:
> The existing testcase pr92923-1.c uses vector long long, and thus
> requires vsx.
> OK for master?
Sure! Thanks for the patch.
> * testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92923-1.c: Add -mvsx.
The changelog is
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 03:01:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > If you rebase changelog files, then yes, it's a bloody pain ;-)
>
> So do you have a script that takes a commit with a ChangeLog at its end
> and populates the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #6 from
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> + If tentative definitions of particular variable or variables need to be
I believe that would be "a particular variable", but best to simplify
to "of particular variables".
> + placed in a common block, __attribute__((__common__)) can be
> + used to
The following patch fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93561
The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64.
commit d26f37a16e3ed3d75a93ffb1da10c44c36a8a36d (HEAD -> master)
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 1754aa76399..aec58a06529 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93561
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d26f37a16e3ed3d75a93ffb1da10c44c36a8a36d
commit r10-6493-gd26f37a16e3ed3d75a93ffb1da10c44c36a8a36d
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
IOW, we need hard numbers, not guesstimates :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why would that be unlikely? It lengthens the lifetime of that pseudo,
potentially significantly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93616
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93616
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93512
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I said (or I meant, at least) that as far as I see and know, all rotate
instructions on all machines do this truncation. It is of course possible
for targets to write it in RTL that only works for a
On 2/6/20 7:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The inliner folds stmts delayed, the following arranges things so
to not fold stmts that are obviously not reachable to avoid warnings
from those code regions.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
It fixes the reported problem so it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87612
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93619
Bug ID: 93619
Summary: aarch64 target testsuite is so broken with -mcpu=*
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92517
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #10 from kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
On Thu, 2020-02-06 at 13:49 +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Feb 05 2020, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Answering my own question, calling ultimate_alias_target on the
> > __ct_comp cgraph_node seems to find the "right" cgraph_node.
> >
> > Is that the right general-purpose answer here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm
PR analyzer/93288 reports an ICE in a C++ testcase when calling a
constructor.
The issue is that when building the supergraph, we encounter the
cgraph edge to "__ct_comp ", the DECL_COMPLETE_CONSTRUCTOR_P, and
this node's DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION has a NULL CFG, which the analyzer
reads through,
PR analyzer/93288 reports a C++-specific ICE with -fanalyzer.
This patch creates the beginnings of a C++ test suite for the analyzer,
so that there's a place to put test coverage for the fix.
It adds a regression test for PR analyzer/93212, an ICE fixed
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70913
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm
Hi!
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 03:15:05PM +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> --- a/htdocs/gcc-10/porting_to.html
> +++ b/htdocs/gcc-10/porting_to.html
> @@ -29,9 +29,25 @@ and provide solutions. Let us know if you have suggestions
> for improvements!
> Preprocessor issues
> -->
>
> -
> +
> +Default
PR analyzer/93405 reports an ICE when attempting to use -fanalyzer on
certain gfortran code. The second patch in this kit fixes that, but
in the meantime I need somewhere to put regression tests for -fanalyzer
with gfortran.
This patch adds a gfortran.dg/analyzer subdirectory with an
PR analyzer/93405 reports an ICE with -fanalyzer when passing
a constant "by reference" in gfortran.
The issue is that the constant is passed as an ADDR_EXPR
of a CONST_DECL, and region_model::get_lvalue_1 doesn't
know how to handle CONST_DECL.
This patch implements it for CONST_DECL by
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 01:15:25PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 05:14:08PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Here is what I meant as the alternative, i.e. don't check any predicates,
> > just gen_add3_insn, if that fails, force rs into register and retry.
>
> I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93609
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Hello, it's a known and reported issue:
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2020-01/msg00022.html
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> Whoops, that was not supposed to go to bz. Sorry about that.
Hehe. Sure, I'll do it next time.
When investigating how the analyzer handles malloc/free of Cray pointers
in gfortran I noticed that that analyzer was losing information on
pointers that were cast to an integer type, and then back to a pointer
type again.
The root cause is that region_model::maybe_cast_1 was only preserving
the
The dumps from the analyzer sometimes contain garbled output.
The root cause is due to nesting of calls to pp_printf: I'm using
pp_printf with %qT to print types with a PP using default_tree_printer.
default_tree_printer handles 'T' (and various other codes) via
dump_generic_node (pp, t, 0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86269
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 86269, which changed state.
Bug 86269 Summary: [concepts] ICE with intermediate concepts notation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86269
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 87441, which changed state.
Bug 87441 Summary: [concepts] Found compiler internal error: in tsubst at
cp/pt.c:13657
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87441
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87441
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79759
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 79759, which changed state.
Bug 79759 Summary: [concepts] ICE in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:13509
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79759
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80746
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80746
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 80746, which changed state.
Bug 80746 Summary: [concepts] ICE evaluating constraints for concepts with
dependent template parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80746
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80773
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 80773, which changed state.
Bug 80773 Summary: [Concepts] Internal Compiler error on template parameter
pack expansion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80773
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82740
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 82740, which changed state.
Bug 82740 Summary: [concepts] requires clause evaluated early
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82740
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wilson at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
--- Comment #12 from Jim Wilson ---
A bisection on mainline between the gcc-8 and gcc-9 releases shows that this
testcase was fixed by a combine patch for PR87600 that stops combining hard
regs with pseudos to reduce register pressure. The
Hi!
Sorry for dropping this once again.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 05:14:08PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Here is what I meant as the alternative, i.e. don't check any predicates,
> just gen_add3_insn, if that fails, force rs into register and retry.
I don't like gen_add3_insn here *at all*, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93609
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Hello, it's a known and reported issue:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2020-01/msg00022.html
>
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:25 AM Segher Boessenkool <
seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> We also need a way to fix changelog entries for the errors that do seep
> through (and that are bad enough that they do need fixing). It doesn't
> have to be easy or convenient, but we need *some* way to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 47793
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47793=edit
Fix
This patch fixes the pre-P1825 bug, but breaks the PR58051 test which is not
actually allowed by DR 1579 (but is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91638
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That isn't documentation.
This patch addresses the concern the Segher raised in the original submission
of the patch to fix PR target/93569. In addition to checking for D*-form
addresses in the traditional Altivec registers, this patch also checks for
D*-form addresses for vectors in the traditional floating point
1 - 100 of 263 matches
Mail list logo
