https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95456
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
On 6/3/20 5:58 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Please let me know if you'd prefer me to take this PR over.
Yes, please take a look.
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95490
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48664=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95490
Bug ID: 95490
Summary: [10/11 Regression] writing 1 byte into a region of
size 0 [-Wstringop-overflow=] since
r10-5451-gef29b12cfbb4979a89b3cbadbf485a77c8fd8fce
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
--- Comment #2 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
That commit added the feature I'm trying to use. I'd hope it's valid, or at
least with this other constructor added: `constexpr X(U) {}`.
Frederik Harwath writes:
ping :-)
> Frederik Harwath writes:
>
> Hi Rainer, hi Mike,
> ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/545803.html
>
> Best regards,
> Frederik
>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> Thomas Schwinge writes:
>>
>>> I can't formally approve testsuite patches, but did a
Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
Hi,
I would like to reping this, hope to get approval for this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00927.html
BR,
Jiufu Guo
> Jiufu Guo writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to ping this patch for trunk on stage 1.
>
> This patch could fix the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: verify_gimple failed |[10/11 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95483
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95489
Bug ID: 95489
Summary: Failure to optimize x && (x & y) to x & y
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Hello, Martin,
On Jun 2, 2020, Martin Liška wrote:
> The problem happens when we generate temp file
> for .res file. Tested locally with the problematic
> options.
Thanks for looking into this.
> Ready for master?
Erhm, no, I don't think that's correct.
With local analysis, the length
Hi Richi,
on 2020/6/2 下午7:38, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2020, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is one repost and you can refer to the original series
>> via https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-January/538360.html.
>>
>> As we discussed in the thread
>>
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 05:45:34PM -0500, will schmidt wrote:
> Similar/same comment as was made in Apr.I recommend something like
>
> "Test whether pc-relative prefixed instructions
> are generated for the _Decimal64 type."
Ok, I missed that comment in April.
--
Michael Meissner, IBM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95252
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Kito Cheng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95488
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
I think it's this TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (REG_EXPR (op1))).
Hi Richard,
on 2020/6/2 下午3:14, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Kewen.Lin" writes:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments!
>>
>> on 2020/6/2 上午1:59, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Could you go into more detail about this choice of cost calculation?
>>> It looks like we first calculate per-group
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53979
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95488
Bug ID: 95488
Summary: Suboptimal multiplication codegen for v16qi
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95058
--- Comment #10 from Bill Seurer ---
There is still one that is failing:
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=vect.exp=gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr68892.c
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr68892.c scan-tree-dump slp2 "not profitable"
XPASS:
Hi:
When dest is memory, zero-masking is not valid, only merging-masking
is available,
Bootstrap is ok, regression test on i386/x86-64 backend is ok.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* gcc/config/i386/sse.md (*vcvtps2ph_store):
Refine from *vcvtps2ph_store.
(vcvtps2ph256): Refine
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 4:10 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>
>> Jiufu Guo writes:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I updated the patch just a little accordinlgy. Thanks!
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt
>> index 4464049fc1f..570e2aa53c8 100644
>> --- a/gcc/common.opt
>> +++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95468
--- Comment #1 from kab at acm dot org ---
This was labeled as "ice-on-invalid-code". Am I missing something? I don't
see anything invalid here.
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Martin Liška wrote:
> Ready for master?
Before that, my nightly tester on i386-unknown-freebsd11 just ran into
the following:
/scratch/tmp/gerald/GCC-HEAD/gcc/../libgcc/libgcov.h:396:51: error:
cannot initialize a parameter of type 'gcov_type' (aka 'long long')
with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
Bug ID: 95487
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: invalid vector types
in nop conversion) with -O3 -march=skylake-avx512
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
--- Comment #16 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
For -O3 it is okay, but for -O2 this is questionable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Dávid Bolvanský from comment #14)
> Since 10.1, gcc does crazy things with bloaty codegen for this case
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/Qb3yHZ
It is called recursive inlining. Not really bloated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor
The compute_objsize() function started out as a thin wrapper around
compute_builtin_object_size(), but over time developed its own
features to compensate for the other function's limitations (such
as its inability to work with ranges). The interaction of these
features and the limitations has
Hi Arseny,
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 10:38:16AM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote:
> > PRs from the second group were filed by me, so if there's consensus to
> > close all
> > of them, the ones from this second group I can close myself. I don't
> > have the
> > right permissions to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86133
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
Dávid Bolvanský changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71012
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57872
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51905
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49854
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The powerpcspe backend has been deprecated in GCC 8 and removed during GCC 9
development. See corresponding mailing list threads[1,2,3] for details.
[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47977
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47856
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37760
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37759
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The powerpcspe backend has been deprecated in GCC 8 and removed during GCC 9
development. See corresponding mailing list threads[1,2,3] for details.
[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30370
Bug 30370 depends on bug 30259, which changed state.
Bug 30259 Summary: ICE on valid code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30259
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30259
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19490
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:56:49PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > + if (TREE_CODE (type) == RECORD_TYPE
> > > + && rs6000_discover_homogeneous_aggregate (TYPE_MODE (type), type,
> > > NULL,
> > > + NULL))
> > > +{
> > > + tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
Bug ID: 95486
Summary: ICE for alias CTAD with non-dependent argument and
constrained constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95426
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
PR jit/95426 reports a crash deep inside "expand" when using
__builtin_unreachable via gcc_jit_context_get_builtin_function,
due to BLOCK_FOR_INSN being erroneously used on a barrier within
rtl_verify_bb_pointers.
The root cause turns out to be that I didn't implement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95426
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44564c4c811f4751daf363ca019a9f9bed702f4f
commit r11-839-g44564c4c811f4751daf363ca019a9f9bed702f4f
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches wrote:
* match.pd ((PTR + A) - (PTR + B)) -> (ptrdiff_t)(A - B): New
simplification.
Not new, modified.
* ((PTR_A + O) - (PTR_B + O)) -> (PTR_A - PTR_B): New simplification.
O might not be the best choice because of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95236
--- Comment #1 from julian at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 20 May 2020 10:42:23 +
"tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95236
>
> Bug ID: 95236
>Summary: OMP
On 6/2/20 2:43 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 21:26, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/1/20 1:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely via Overseers wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 19:11, Frank Ch. Eigler via Gcc wrote:
Hi -
git pull from the GCC and Glibc repos is failing for me with the error
When checking that a constrained partial specialization is more
constrained than the primary template, we pass only the innermost level
of generic template arguments to strictly_subsumes. This leads to us
doing a nonsensical substitution from normalize_concept_check if the
full set of template
The same problem also arises for plfs where prefixed_load_p()
doesn't recognize it so we get just lfs in the asm output
with a @pcrel address.
OK for trunk if regstrap on ppc64le passes?
Thanks,
Aaron
PR target/95347
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (is_stfs_insn): Rename to
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 4:32 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi Xiong Hu,
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:41:50AM -0500, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> > Double array in structure as function arguments or return value is accessed
> > by BLKmode, they are stored to stack and load from stack with redundant
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #29 from Andrew Downing ---
So I think this sort of equivalent example in C shows what's going wrong in the
C++ example. https://godbolt.org/z/ZMz4Cp
gcc knows that if the object mem points to is modified inside pun() its
effective
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 21:26, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 6/1/20 1:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely via Overseers wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 19:11, Frank Ch. Eigler via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi -
> >>
> >>> git pull from the GCC and Glibc repos is failing for me with the error
> >>> below. It
Hi Xiong Hu,
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:41:50AM -0500, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> Double array in structure as function arguments or return value is accessed
> by BLKmode, they are stored to stack and load from stack with redundant
> conversion from DF->DI->DF. This patch checks the homogeneous type
On 6/1/20 1:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely via Overseers wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 19:11, Frank Ch. Eigler via Gcc wrote:
Hi -
git pull from the GCC and Glibc repos is failing for me with the error
below. It worked fine last week and I haven't made any changes to my
ssh keys.
And are you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84553
--- Comment #7 from Jim Wilson ---
I was ia64 maintainer when I wrote the patch, but couldn't test it. I'm not
the ia64 maintainer anymore. I suggest asking the current ia64 maintainer.
Though, oops, I see we don't have one listed in the
On 24/05/20 15:43 +0200, François Dumont via Libstdc++ wrote:
Now tested in C++98 mode, there was indeed a small problem.
I even wonder if I shouldn't have extend the std::copy overload to any
call with deque iterator as the output so that it is transform into an
output to pointer.
Ok to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
Bug ID: 95485
Summary: missing warning writing into function text
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 3:33 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
> So it sounds like you wouldn't expect the "agent refused operation"
> error either, and it's not just a poor error message that I should
> learn to live with. That makes me think I should try to figure out
> what's wrong. I think the
When determining the most specialized partial specialization of a
primary template that is nested inside a class template, we first
tsubst the outer template arguments into the TEMPLATE_DECL of each
partial specialization, and then check for satisfaction of the new
TEMPLATE_DECL's constraints.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95193
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b68cb38ddca37a14a6f2f43de3a6d396ee1bc79
commit r11-838-g4b68cb38ddca37a14a6f2f43de3a6d396ee1bc79
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
Here, the capture proxy for *this is const, but its DECL_VALUE_EXPR is not.
Don't ICE on this; it's a reasonable difference, since in C++ an rvalue of
scalar type does not have cv-qualifiers.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/95193
* pt.c
[I'll start by repeating what I wrote about a similar libgcc change to
provide background and context.]
When AIX added 64 bit support, it implemented what Apple MacOS Darwin
calls "FAT" libraries for its equivalent functionality -- both 32 bit
and 64 bit objects (or shared objects) are co-located
The ISA manual specifies that divide by zero always returns -1 as the result.
We were failing to do that when the dividend was negative.
Tested with cross toolchain builds for riscv32-elf and riscv64-linux. There
were no regressions.
Committed.
Jim
libgcc/
* config/riscv/div.S
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:53 AM MOSER Virginie via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> The assembly code in libgcc/config/riscv/div.S does not handle the division
> by zero as specified in the riscv-spec v2.2 chapter 6.2 in case of signed
> division:
This looks OK. There are some administrative comments to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #28 from Andrew Downing ---
Hey that's cheating, but yea the second part did it.
Remove occurrences of auxbase that remained in comments.
Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. Pre-approved by Arno.
for gcc/ada/ChangeLog
* lib.ads (Compilation_Switches): Remove -auxbase from
comments.
* switch.ads (Is_Internal_GCC_Switch): Likewise.
---
ada/lib.ads
On Sat, 2020-05-30 at 18:51 +, Pip Cet wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 5:06 PM David Malcolm
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-05-30 at 13:40 +, Pip Cet via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > I think we should just omit the triangle inequality test from the
> > > self-test, as in the attached patch.
> >
On Mon, 2020-06-01 at 14:11 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > Did the full DejaGnu testsuite get run? There are a lot of tests
> > in it
> > that make use of this code.
>
> I did "make check" and only saw some XFAILs.
>
> Here's v2 of the patch, which I think addresses your comments. I did
> not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95484
Bug ID: 95484
Summary: Friend declaration of member function template has no
effect
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95050
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:324276ff9b1aa5128e5cb9f5d43182d1ebab0752
commit r11-835-g324276ff9b1aa5128e5cb9f5d43182d1ebab0752
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On June 2, 2020 6:34:12 PM GMT+02:00, andrew2085 at gmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
>
>--- Comment #25 from Andrew Downing ---
>Do you know how to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On June 2, 2020 6:55:21 PM GMT+02:00, skpgkp2 at gmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
>
>--- Comment #14 from Sunil Pandey ---
>Created attachment 48662
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95471
--- Comment #2 from Evan Nemerson ---
In that case shouldn't the header be adjusted to not define the vrndvq_f32
function unless it is enabled?
It is already guarded by a check for __ARM_ARCH >= 8 (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #24 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
with the patch added to gcc11, I tested it with the small testing case, and got
the following data:
**without the patch:
qinzhao@gcc14:~/Bugs/profile/small_gcc/gcc_prof_dir/13248$ ls -l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95483
Bug ID: 95483
Summary: [i386] Missing SIMD functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95459
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90102
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
"Yangfei (Felix)" writes:
> Hi,
>
> Please review this trivial patch fixing an ICE in aarch64_short_vector_p.
> Bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95459
>
> In aarch64_short_vector_p, we are simply checking whether a type (and a
> mode)
> is a 64/128-bit short
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95459
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2672dd630c81513e08829adc63294ffeedf5693
commit r11-833-gb2672dd630c81513e08829adc63294ffeedf5693
Author: Fei Yang
Date: Tue
When given a type which can convert to any container-like type, the
C(const C&) copy constructor and C(const C::_Base&) converting
constructor are ambiguous. This change replaces the converting
constructor's parameter with a reference_wrapper-like type so that
calling that constructor requires an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90102
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eca833b81289438ec5ae3ed4c77ffb49cfb65f34
commit r11-832-geca833b81289438ec5ae3ed4c77ffb49cfb65f34
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
[Starting with tne VN issue]
> For the VN case the issue is interpreting a read via memcpy (non
> reverse-storage) as a reverse-storage one when matching up with a hashtable
> entry from a regular reverse-storage order store, correct?
It's a read from a scalar (hence native order) combined with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95347
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-02
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49854
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please *NEVER* close bugs for things you are not the maintainer for.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95481
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
That the issue goes away when templates are not involved seems an useful hint:
are we trying to optimize too early?
Sorry, for the time being I don't feel like assigning the bug to me, I'm in the
middle of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95482
Bug ID: 95482
Summary: Feature request: add -gsplit-dwarf=single
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 12:50:25PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This might not be the best time to bring this up :-) but it seems
> odd to be asking the target for the induction variable type here.
> I got the impression that the hook was returning DImode, whereas
> the PowerPC instructions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95481
Bug ID: 95481
Summary: Failure to optimize infinite recursion for struct
types
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 302 matches
Mail list logo
