> > So in neither of those scenarios testing maxsize=minsize alone makes too
> > much sense to me... What was the original motivation for differentiating
> > between precisely known size?
There is a case that could meet small maxsize. https://godbolt.org/z/489Tf7ssj
typedef unsigned char e_u8;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7cef070bf43bfb3f3d77bac42eadea06c4b0281
commit r11-7943-gd7cef070bf43bfb3f3d77bac42eadea06c4b0281
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:52:20AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 1/8/21 2:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 02:22:59PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > I like the idea to use *walk_subtrees to distinguish between walking
> > > syntactic subtrees and walking type-identity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99737
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
Today's sequence is:
/usr/local/bin/g++ -std=c++20 -fmodules-ts -x c++-system-header tuple
/usr/local/bin/g++ -std=c++20 -fmodules-ts -x c++-system-header set
/usr/local/bin/g++ -std=c++20
On 1/8/21 2:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 02:22:59PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
I like the idea to use *walk_subtrees to distinguish between walking
syntactic subtrees and walking type-identity subtrees. But it should be
more general; how does this look to you?
LGTM,
ropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
g++ (GCC) 11.0.1 20210331 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warr
On 3/31/21 8:45 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This patch is causing new crashes in the testsuite.
>
> ICE in release_body, at graph.c:1863
> ranges offset out of range
Hello.
Should be fixed with 23ce9945d5efa77c96161443f68e03664705ada3.
Martin
>
> Thanks, David
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99857
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99856
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-01
Component|c
On 2021-03-31 17:04, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Hi Jeff,
thanks for fixing your affiliation, but let me note that it doesn't
change a dime for the geopolitical-diversity issue that affects GCC
since before RMS joined the Steering Committee.
Not to argue counter to the observation that there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78391
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
Severity|enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78391
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 7.3.0, 8.3.0,
Yes OK for trunk and affected branches.
Thanks,
Jerry
On 3/31/21 2:08 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the simplification of the TRANSPOSE of a zero-sized array would lead to
an ICE if the result was used in a subsequent simplification of a MATMUL.
The reason was the lack of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 78370, which changed state.
Bug 78370 Summary: taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78370
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scott.d.phillips at intel dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78370
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 6.3.0, 7.0.1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78081
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
But... the reduced test case started triggering -Wmaybe-uninitialized in
r11-3685 while the original test case always has, so maybe I went too far with
the reduction and there are actually two bugs going on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78081
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
Hi Jeff,
thanks for fixing your affiliation, but let me note that it doesn't
change a dime for the geopolitical-diversity issue that affects GCC
since before RMS joined the Steering Committee.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:35:36 -0600 Jeff Law wrote:
> > To me, and to billions of people, this shows a
On 3/31/2021 5:11 PM, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
10 out of 13 members of the GCC steering committee work either for
American corporations (8), their subsidiaries (1) or an American
University (1) recently covered by the press in India [3].
Also, 4 of these work for the same corporation (IBM / Red
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
The above patch fixes some of the occurrences of the bug (due to (b)), but not
those due to (a), so keeping this bug open.
We don't want to print '' in our diagnostics, but
PR analyzer/99771 lists various cases where -fanalyzer does, due to
using the SSA_NAME for a temporary when determining the best tree to
use.
This can happen in two ways:
(a) ...when a better expression than the SSA_NAME could be built, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4bb1bd60a9fd1bed36092a990aa5fed5d45bfa6
commit r11-7941-ge4bb1bd60a9fd1bed36092a990aa5fed5d45bfa6
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #1 from Luke Dalessandro ---
It was pointed out that it _also_ works if I change
> static_assert(foo());
to
> constexpr bool b = foo();
> static_assert(b);
static_assert(foo());
Hi David, thanks for sharing!
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:27:29 -0400 David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
> based on his role in the GNU Project [...]
> we are removing him from the page.
I have to admit that I had never carefully observed the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99860
Bug ID: 99860
Summary: RFE: analyzer does not respect "restrict"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Hello,
This patch fixes PR tree-optimization/95176. A new pattern in match.pd was
added to transform "a * (b / a)" --> "b - (b % a)". A new test case was also
added to cover this scenario.
The new pattern interfered with the existing pattern of "X - (X / Y) * Y". In
some cases (such as in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Bug ID: 99859
Summary: constexpr evaluation with member function is incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73550
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72826
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99851
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And just to be clear, this should apply to operator new and operator new[]. The
examples above both use the array form, but there's no reason this shouldn't
apply to the single object form too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99851
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> Confirmed, thanks! Just to make sure I understand: we want a warning for
> the operator new declaration (irrespective of its definition) because the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97009
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed the patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567553.html
Hi,
SRA represents parts of aggregates which are arrays accessed with
unknown index as "unscalarizable regions." When there are two such
regions one within another and the outer is only read whereas the
inner is written to, SRA fails to propagate that write information
across assignments. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83336
Bug 83336 depends on bug 71701, which changed state.
Bug 71701 Summary: bogus token in -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 71701, which changed state.
Bug 71701 Summary: bogus token in -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.3.0
Version|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99858
Bug ID: 99858
Summary: Wrong throw-expression behaviour with reference to
pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-March/055897.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99847
--- Comment #4 from ⎓ ---
Hmm... I was hoping to get away with the readily available compiler, and I
thought that it's actually used for CPU32. Ok, I'll try then with a specific
one tomorrow.
But still, ABI can't request that all bytes in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 71699, which changed state.
Bug 71699 Summary: bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning: gcc misses that
non-NULL pointer + offset can never be NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf ---
> The simple patch in comment #2 also works.
I know. But it only covers the issue in gfc_simplify_transpose.
Dear all,
the simplification of the TRANSPOSE of a zero-sized array would lead to
an ICE if the result was used in a subsequent simplification of a MATMUL.
The reason was the lack of the proper initialization of the shape, which
is mpz_t. Use mpz_init_set instead of mpz_set.
Regtested on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 08:51:57PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
>
> --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> OK, now I see it.
The following patch fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99781
The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86-64, ppc64le,
and aarch64.
commit 1458059fc1faf6170f2fe45159065f91876307ac
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
Date: Wed Mar 31 13:26:30 2021 -0400
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:21 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > On Linux/x86_64,
> >
> > d7145b4bb6c8729a1e782373cb6256c06ed60465 is the first bad commit
> > commit d7145b4bb6c8729a1e782373cb6256c06ed60465
> > Author: Jan Hubicka
> > Date: Wed Mar 31 11:35:29 2021 +0200
> >
> > Small refactoring
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99857
Bug ID: 99857
Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.c/declare-variant-1.c
(test for excess errors) by r11-7926
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71011
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 71011, which changed state.
Bug 71011 Summary: Wrong decl in a "may be uninitialized" warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71011
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, now I see it. gfc_get_shape does not init the resulting shape.
The following simpler patch does the job:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.c b/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
index
Hi,
This fixes a stage 1 bootstrap fail on some Darwin versions when the
bootstrap compiler is clang / libc++ from Xcode.
bootstrapped on x86_64-darwin16, x86_64-linux-gnu
OK for master?
thanks
Iain
It appears that many targets include the map header transitively in
other std headers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98265
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:42c22a4d724b4a4b0183f4412c3d42c9cca29d30
commit r10-9646-g42c22a4d724b4a4b0183f4412c3d42c9cca29d30
Author: Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98265
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7fd3b783238d034018443e43a58ff87908b4db6
commit r11-7940-ge7fd3b783238d034018443e43a58ff87908b4db6
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98119
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] SVE: |[10 Regression] SVE: Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For reasons I do not understand,
Breakpoint 1, gfc_simplify_matmul (matrix_a=0x292bbf0, matrix_b=0x292c550)
at ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/simplify.c:4777
4777 result_columns =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97141
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 98726 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98726
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97141
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] aarch64, |[10 Regression] aarch64,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99726
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98268
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE: |[10 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63943
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97009
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
I am about to test this patch. I think this should be P1 and I would really
like to get this fix to GCC 10.3. Sorry for getting to this so late.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97009
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 50492
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50492=edit
C testcase
C testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99856
Bug ID: 99856
Summary: Alpha Compositing auto vectorization regression: 8.3
-> 9.1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99133
pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99850
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67196
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-08-12 00:00:00 |2021-3-31
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99850
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Are you sure it is incorrectly rejected?
http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.prim.lambda.general
says:
lambda-declarator:
lambda-specifiers
( parameter-declaration-clause ) lambda-specifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99490
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99133
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pat Haugen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea9a39e63eba1ba72aa3608317d1c40ae6bcef55
commit r11-7939-gea9a39e63eba1ba72aa3608317d1c40ae6bcef55
Author: Pat Haugen
Date: Wed Mar
Hi!
In GCC8/9 we used to optimize this into a bswap, but we no longer do.
Handling byteswapping of pointers is easy, all we need is to allow them,
for the __builtin_bswap* we already use TYPE_PRECISION to determine
the precision and we cast the operand and result to the correct type
if they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99490
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b33c5aaab9e863da162942ab8bcd54070b705af
commit r11-7938-g4b33c5aaab9e863da162942ab8bcd54070b705af
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
Hi!
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 06:49:29PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The mma_assemble_input_operand predicate does not accept reg+reg indexed
> addresses which can lead to ICEs. The problem is that the quad_address_p
> function only accepts reg+offset addresses that are valid for quad word
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99855
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
I have seen all that stuff with compiler at
commit d7145b4bb6c8729a1e782373cb6256c06ed60465
Let's see what will be tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67194
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.8.0
Summary|Missed jump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99855
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
And next time same sequence run without error!
All that with the same compiler, in empty dir.
Per https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235245.html
"In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page based
on his role in the GNU Project, though his role as a member of the
Steering Committee has been ambiguous and he was not a member of
the Steering Committee when EGCS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-02-27 00:00:00 |2021-3-31
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99855
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
malloc(): smallbin double linked list corrupted
In file included from /usr/local/include/c++/11.0.1/filesystem:45:
/usr/local/include/c++/11.0.1/bits/fs_path.h:94:62: internal compiler error:
Aborted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99855
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
Yes, attempting to repeat gives different message, but not same as by you:
malloc(): smallbin double linked list corrupted
In file included from /usr/local/include/c++/11.0.1/bits/fs_path.h:46,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99855
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99309
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99309
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> > As discussed, I can prepare patch to make inliner to redirect
>
.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
g++ (GCC) 11.0.1 20210331 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
This patch is causing new crashes in the testsuite.
ICE in release_body, at graph.c:1863
ranges offset out of range
Thanks, David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99854
jseward at acm dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from
On Mar 27, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> OK, thanks.
Thanks, I'm finally checking this in.
>> for libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
>>
>> * testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc: Use faster
>> after-ready call in the calibration loop.
Thanks for the patch and for having kept me posted on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98268
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c778968339afd140380a46edbade054667c7dce2
commit r11-7936-gc778968339afd140380a46edbade054667c7dce2
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99726
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5c7accfb56a7347008f629be4c7344dd849b1b1
commit r11-7935-gb5c7accfb56a7347008f629be4c7344dd849b1b1
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99851
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97141
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b5f74e8be4dd7abe5624ff60adceff19ca71bda
commit r11-7934-g1b5f74e8be4dd7abe5624ff60adceff19ca71bda
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98726
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b5f74e8be4dd7abe5624ff60adceff19ca71bda
commit r11-7934-g1b5f74e8be4dd7abe5624ff60adceff19ca71bda
Author: Richard Sandiford
Richard Biener via Gcc-patches writes:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:15 PM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> create_intersect_range_checks_index tries to create a runtime
>> alias check based on index comparisons. It looks through the
>> access functions for the two DRs to find a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99309
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> As discussed, I can prepare patch to make inliner to redirect
> __builtin_constant_p to __builtin_true whenever inliner detect that the
> expression is compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jseward at acm dot org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99854
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 323 matches
Mail list logo
