https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96478
Bug ID: 96478
Summary: GCC accepts enum definition in alignas()
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96477
Bug ID: 96477
Summary: GCC accepts attribute 'const' as an attribute pack
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Hi Joshua, Jim:
> > +/* Implement TARGET_ASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET. */
> > +
> > +static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT
> > +riscv_asan_shadow_offset (void)
> > +{
> > + return HOST_WIDE_INT_UC (0x1000);
> > +}
>
> Is there a reason why you used 0x1000?
>
> Looking at other targets, it appears the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96307
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96451
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> possibly a latent issue since the patch is supposed to be cost-only
Yes, this case will hit ICE too with -fno-vect-cost-model even without the
culprit commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96476
Bug ID: 96476
Summary: [Request] expose preferred vector width to
preprocessor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96342
yangyang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yangyang305 at huawei dot com
--- Comment #1
Power10: Add BRH, BRW, BRD support.
The power10 processor adds 3 new instructions (BRH, BRW, BRD) that byte swaps
half-words, words, and double-words within a GPR register. This patch adds
support for these instructions. I have applied the suggestions from the
previous times I have submitted
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 6:28 PM Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>
> On 04 авг 13:26, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> > Could you please clarify, how your patch relared to [1]?
> > I see from the bug that it describes perf issue w.r.t. scalar
> > operations.
>
Sorry for Typo, it's pr96243.
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 03:53:50PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2020, at 3:16 PM, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > The benefit of dg-accepts-invalid was that you would
> > get an XPASS even for a test that should not be accepted, but you didn't
> > know
> > what line to
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 03:33:23PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> I think the read of the room is that people think it would be generally
> useful, so let approve the general plan.
Cool.
> So, now we are down to the fine details. Please do see just how far you can
> stretch the existing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71309
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 5:31 AM Joshua via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> +/* Implement TARGET_ASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET. */
> +
> +static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT
> +riscv_asan_shadow_offset (void)
> +{
> + return HOST_WIDE_INT_UC (0x1000);
> +}
Is there a reason why you used 0x1000?
Looking at other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95483
--- Comment #2 from Thiago Macieira ---
Hello Evan
I was about to report that _mm_loadu_epi16 is missing, but I'm glad you've got
a more complete listing. FYI, here's a Godbolt link showing ICC and Clang with
this intrinsic:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
Bug ID: 96475
Summary: direct threaded interpreter with computed gotos
generates suboptimal dispatch loop
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On 8/4/20 3:23 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 8/4/20 9:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/4/20 5:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
This patch adapts the strlen pass to use the irange API.
I wasn't able to remove the one annoying use of VR_ANTI_RANGE, because
I'm not sure what to do.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:28 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> What's the reason for sending the same patch multiple times
> from a different sender?
I see 3 in the gcc.gnu.org email archive, and I saw 3 on the NNTP feed
from gmane, but it seems only one of them ended up in my gmail inbox.
The other two
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> In the testcase below, we never substitute function-template arguments
> into f15's placeholder-return-type constraint, which leads to us
> incorrectly rejecting this instantiation in do_auto_deduction due to
> satisfaction failure (of the constraint
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96474
Bug ID: 96474
Summary: Internal compiler error with template struct inside
template struct
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Aug 4, 2020, at 3:16 PM, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> The benefit of dg-accepts-invalid was that you would
> get an XPASS even for a test that should not be accepted, but you didn't know
> what line to expect an error on, so you put a dg-error at the end of the test.
I think for
On 8/4/20 2:20 PM, Roger Sayle wrote:
>
> This patch adds support for signed and unsigned, HImode, SImode and
> DImode highpart multiplications to the nvptx backend. Without the
> middle-end patch that I've just posted, the middle-end is able to
> (easily) make use of the narrow four of the six
On Aug 4, 2020, at 3:08 PM, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> That works well if you know where to expect an error. But if you don't, it's
> worse. E.g.,
>
> // { dg-xfail-if "" { *-*-* } }
> int i = nothere; // demonstrates something that errors out
> // { dg-error "" } didn't know
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:54:23AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:44:47PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > We will still have a surfeit of bugs that we've given short shrift to, but
> > let's at least automate what we can. The initial
I think the read of the room is that people think it would be generally useful,
so let approve the general plan.
So, now we are down to the fine details. Please do see just how far you can
stretch the existing mechanisms to cover what you need to do. I think the
existing mechanisms should be
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:08:03AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I support the initiative!
> What would be nice to add leading 'PR component/12345'
> to a git commit so that these test additions are linked to bugzilla issues.
Thanks! Yes, it should be clear which test tests a PR that
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 04:00:27PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I've created a much more rudimentary setup for myself to deal
> with the same problem. I copy tests from Bugzilla, sometimes
> with tweaks, and compile them from time to time as I revisit
> unresolved bugs. I've also thought about
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 04:37:03PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:45 PM Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches <
> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > In Bugzilla, for the c++ component, we currently have over 3200 open
> > bugs. In
> > my experience, a good amount of them have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96473
Bug ID: 96473
Summary: Very weird error message for invalid `wchar_t`
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 09:40:35AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Thanks for doing this. +1 for the best fix being to add XFAILing tests
> to the main testsute, enabled by default. I don't see any other realistic
> way of ensuring that fixes are matched with PRs at the time that the fix
> is
On 8/4/20 11:23 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 8/4/20 9:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/4/20 5:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
This patch adapts the strlen pass to use the irange API.
I wasn't able to remove the one annoying use of VR_ANTI_RANGE, because
I'm not sure what to
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 09:02:17PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 17:44 -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > In Bugzilla, for the c++ component, we currently have over 3200 open bugs.
> > In
> > my experience, a good amount of them have already been fixed; my
Hi Mike,
thanks for your comments.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 06:37:26PM -0700, Mike Stump via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I'll punt to the the C++ front-end folks to chime in. Usually we only check
> in bugs that are fixed, as they are fixed, this is what makes it a regression
> suite. Doing this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
Tavian Barnes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tavianator at gmail dot com
--- Comment
On 8/4/20 9:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/4/20 5:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
This patch adapts the strlen pass to use the irange API.
I wasn't able to remove the one annoying use of VR_ANTI_RANGE, because
I'm not sure what to do. Perhaps Martin can shed some light. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96472
Bug ID: 96472
Summary: ICE: c++: dwarf2out_abstract_function, at dwarf2out.c:
-g -fdebug-types-section
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96471
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Created attachment 48997
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48997=edit
.tar.xz reproducer for: gnat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96471
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96471
Bug ID: 96471
Summary: ICE: fortran+gnat: build_abbrev_table, at dwarf2out.c:
-g -fdebug-types-section
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96470
Bug ID: 96470
Summary: [10 regression] gnat.dg/opt39.adb fails since r10-917
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On 8/4/20 5:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
This patch adapts the strlen pass to use the irange API.
I wasn't able to remove the one annoying use of VR_ANTI_RANGE, because
I'm not sure what to do. Perhaps Martin can shed some light. The
current code has:
else if (rng ==
In the testcase below, we never substitute function-template arguments
into f15's placeholder-return-type constraint, which leads to us
incorrectly rejecting this instantiation in do_auto_deduction due to
satisfaction failure (of the constraint SameAs).
The fact that we incorrectly reject this
Hello world,
the attached patch issues an error for something that I am sure most
people did at least once (I know I did), something like
do i=1,10
call foo
end do
...
contains
subroutine foo
do i=1,5
...
end do
which is, of course, illegal, but the programmer's fault. We
On Dienstag, 4. August 2020 19:44:57 CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
> > On Montag, 27. Juli 2020 10:54:02 CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
> >> > On Montag, 27. Juli 2020 10:33:35 CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> >> * Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
> >> >> > A
On 8/4/20 1:30 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 8/4/20 10:05 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
In r9-4235 I tried to make sure that the template keyword follows
a nested-name-specifier. :: is a valid nested-name-specifier, so
I also have to check 'globalscope' before giving the error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96469
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96469
Bug ID: 96469
Summary: Compile-time check for change in DO variable in
contained procedures
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/4/20 9:45 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 8/3/20 2:45 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > >
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:35 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> > Hi, Uros,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your review on X86 parts.
> >
> > Hi, Richard,
> >
> > Could you please take a look at the middle-end part to see whether the
> > rewritten addressed your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96082
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Summary|[9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96082
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1c4d223d37d067f5d372688c0c0cc5a05d977df7
commit r10-8576-g1c4d223d37d067f5d372688c0c0cc5a05d977df7
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96316
--- Comment #2 from skdkksfadkadkk at gmail dot com ---
Got it, thanks. I was confused by clang's behavior because it doesn't require
implicit argument, pointing on lambda instance.
One more question: how this implicit argument should be declared
* Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
> On Montag, 27. Juli 2020 10:54:02 CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
>> > On Montag, 27. Juli 2020 10:33:35 CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
>> >> * Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
>> >> > A problem that I keep running into is functions defined headers, but
>> >> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96082
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97def1f34c134d78d4423e9ac3e9b262417ea390
commit r11-2560-g97def1f34c134d78d4423e9ac3e9b262417ea390
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 01:46:49AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> The following 6 patches backport the tests on the master branch that were
> added
> to test the new prefixed instructions being added to the Power10 processor.
> These patches include changes made by David Edelsohn to make the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96447
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Scharrer ---
For warnings enabled by something like -fanalyzer this might be reasonable but
for a warning I enabled by default (not even requiring -Wall) the bar should
ideally be a bit higher.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96088
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96052
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Version|10.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95976
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96052
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|10.2.1
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96468
Bug ID: 96468
Summary: Warn when an empty while loop could have been a
do-while
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
On 8/4/20 10:05 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
In r9-4235 I tried to make sure that the template keyword follows
a nested-name-specifier. :: is a valid nested-name-specifier, so
I also have to check 'globalscope' before giving the error.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for
On 8/4/20 9:45 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/3/20 2:45 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/3/20 8:53 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96450
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 1:00 PM Rainer Orth
wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> > This libgo patch updates the sources to the go1.15rc1 release
> > candidate. As usual, the changes for this update are too large to
> > include in an e-mail message. I've just included the highlights and
> > changes to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96452
--- Comment #7 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Your understanding of what a compiler needs to do for ill-formed programs is
> wrong.
You're right, thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96450
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:acf83db025cfd4a67724838e9dbd19813f4f5960
commit r11-2559-gacf83db025cfd4a67724838e9dbd19813f4f5960
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #6 from pipcet at gmail dot com ---
I've just pushed here
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/compare/master...pipcet:avr-ccmode-20200804?expand=1
the current state of my work as a series of git commits, sorted roughly from
large
This is just an obvious code cleanup; the relocation defines have been
unused since the move to HSACOv3. They were just left in by mistake.
Andrew
amdgcn: Remove dead defines from gcn-run
Nothing uses these since the switch to HSACOv3.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/gcn/gcn-run.c (R_AMDGPU_NONE):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95825
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-04
CC|
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
This adds a ! marker to result expressions that should simplify
(and if not fail the simplification). This can for example be
used like
(simplify
(plus (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) @3)
(vec_cond @0 (plus! @1 @3) (plus! @2 @3)))
to make the simplification
Hi Omar,
Ok, thanks.
I've pushed this to master.
Kyrill
From: Omar Tahir
Sent: 04 August 2020 17:10
To: Kyrylo Tkachov ; ni...@redhat.com; Ramana
Radhakrishnan ; Richard Earnshaw
; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/5][Arm] Modify default tuning of armv8.1-m.main to use
Cortex-M55
Hu Jiangping writes:
> Hi,
>
> This patch deletes 2 unnecessary codes in function
> aarch64_if_then_else_costs, which were duplicated
> where the function starts.
Thanks, pushed to trunk.
Richard
>
> Tested on aarch64. OK for trunk?
>
> Regards!
> Hujp
>
> ---
> gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96467
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96465
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Last reconfirmed|
I noticed that we could leak parser->num_template_parameter_lists with
erroneous specializations. We'd increment, notice a problem and then
bail out. This refactors cp_parser_explicit_specialization to avoid
that code path. A couple of tests get different diagnostics because of
the fix.
-df-extra-aarch64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20200804 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96467
Bug ID: 96467
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] in finish_member_declaration,
at cp/semantics.c:3240
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
xiezhiheng writes:
>> > Sorry, I should have used it. And I prepare a patch to use FLOAT_MODE_P
>> > macro and add a flag FLAG_SUPPRESS_FP_EXCEPTIONS to suppress
>> > FLAG_RAISE_FP_EXCEPTIONS for certain intrinsics in future.
>>
>> The same thing is true for reading FPCR as well, so I think the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96465
Bug ID: 96465
Summary: ICE in tsubst_function_decl, at cp/pt.c:13669
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
This patch adds a new pattern, *cmovsi_insn, for generating CSEL, CSET and
CSETM instructions. It also generates CSINV and CSINC instructions in specific
cases where one of the operands is constant.
To facilitate this, one new predicate and two new constraints are added, and
*compare_scc is
This patch adds a new pattern, *thumb2_csneg, for generating CSNEG
instructions. It also restricts *if_neg_move and *thumb2_negscc to only match
if !TARGET_COND_ARITH which prevents undesirable matches during ifcvt.
Regression tested on arm-none-eabi.
2020-07-30: Sudakshina Das
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:54:18PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> I am not sure whether the following code is supposed
> to work but the "x = 5" is never converted into
> tree-code in gfc_trans_omp_do – hence, it makes sense
> to error out. (I have the feeling that this needs to
> be revisited for
This patch adds a new pattern, *thumb2_csinc, for generating CSINC
instructions. It also modifies an existing pattern, *thumb2_cond_arith, to
output CINC when the operation is an addition and TARGET_COND_ARITH is true.
Regression tested on arm-none-eabi.
2020-07-30: Sudakshina Das
This patch adds a new pattern, *thumb2_csinv, for generating CSINV nstructions.
This pattern relies on a few general changes that will be used throughout
the following patches:
- A new macro, TARGET_COND_ARITH, which is only true on 8.1-M
Mainline
and represents
Previously, compiling with -march=armv8.1-m.main would tune for Cortex-M7.
However, the Cortex-M7 only supports up to Armv7e-M. The Cortex-M55 is the
earliest CPU that supports Armv8.1-M Mainline so is more appropriate. This
also has the effect of changing the branch cost function used, which will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96462
--- Comment #2 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Confirmed.
Hi, Marek. Thanks for your quick response!
Best,
Haoxin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96464
Bug ID: 96464
Summary: GCC allows 'auto' in template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Hi all,
This patch series provides support for the following instructions that were
added in Armv8.1-M Mainline [1]:
- CSEL
- CSET
- CSETM
- CSNEG
- CSINV
- CSINC
- CINC
The patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96463
Bug ID: 96463
Summary: [SVE] Optimise svld1rq from vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96462
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93102
--- Comment #4 from zhongyunde at tom dot com ---
case from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96427 generates *.LC0,
but don't emit an aggregate copy a_1 = *.LC0, i.e. it is legal even for
non-const local array.
typedef int v4si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96462
Bug ID: 96462
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected
identifier_node, have bit_not_expr in
find_namespace_slot, at cp/name-lookup.c:97
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60473
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76eafcc395d2bcd4147cb1ba1a8aff321571402f
commit r11-2551-g76eafcc395d2bcd4147cb1ba1a8aff321571402f
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Tue
I am not sure whether the following code is supposed
to work but the "x = 5" is never converted into
tree-code in gfc_trans_omp_do – hence, it makes sense
to error out. (I have the feeling that this needs to
be revisited for OpenMP 5.x.)
(The equivalent C/C++ code is rejected, see PR.)
!$omp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
> Just note that _all_ floating point operations, not just divisions, can trap
> (without fast-math). You never know if the user enabled stops for any of
> the FP exceptions (overflow, underflow, inexact,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96461
Bug ID: 96461
Summary: [SVE] Use the HISTCNT instruction for simple histogram
loops
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Kirill Yukhin 于2020年8月4日周二 下午10:47写道：
>
> Hello,
>
> On 06 июл 09:58, Hongyu Wang via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > This patch is about to support Intel Advanced Matrix Extensions (AMX)
> > which will be enabled in GLC.
> >
> > AMX is a new 64-bit programming paradigm consisting of two
> >
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:29 AM Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this transformation is quite straightforward, without overflow, 3*X==15 is
the same as X==5 and 3*X==5 cannot happen. Adding a single_use restriction
for the first case didn't seem necessary,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95599
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 253 matches
Mail list logo
