https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100111
Bug ID: 100111
Summary: `-fno-elide-constructors` causes ICE in GCC 10.3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100110
Bug ID: 100110
Summary: Parameterized Derived Types, problems with global
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100079
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:89c863488bc8c7315596bcb753173aa2fd8be727
commit r11-8207-g89c863488bc8c7315596bcb753173aa2fd8be727
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
The new testcase was breaking because constexpr evaluation was simplifying
Bar{Baz<42>{}} to Bar{empty}, but then we weren't treating them as
equivalent. Poking at this revealed that the code for eliding trailing
zero-initialization in class non-type template argument mangling was pretty
broken,
Ian Lance Taylor :
> Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American
upper-middle-class manners it's a calamity requiring intervention
and
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 4:19 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> > > are, you can choose to spend your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056
--- Comment #11 from Luc Van Oostenryck ---
Works nicely now.
Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100028
--- Comment #8 from Luc Van Oostenryck ---
Woks nicely now.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100109
Bug ID: 100109
Summary: ICE: unexpected expression 'E' of kind
template_parm_index
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On 4/15/21 10:02 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:31:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 4/14/21 9:21 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Here we ICE when compiling this code in C++20, because we're trying to
slam a 'typename' after the ->. The cp_parser_template_id call just
before
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have
> > to short-stop unwelcome
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 3:47 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> This is about work. There are social aspects to free software, but
> it's not fundamentally a social activity. It's about getting
> something done, and for many people it's their job. For the sake of
> argument, I'm going to
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:29 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> *grumble* Get *over* yourselves. You want to be "welcoming" to
> women? Don't patronize or infantilize them - respect their ability to
> tell off RMS for themselves *and then keep working with him*!
Thank you for sharing your
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:31:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 4/14/21 9:21 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Here we ICE when compiling this code in C++20, because we're trying to
> > slam a 'typename' after the ->. The cp_parser_template_id call just
> > before the spot I'm changing parsed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100108
Bug ID: 100108
Summary: [10 Regression] powerpc: recognize 32-bit CPU as
POWER9 with -misel option
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100104
--- Comment #4 from 康桓瑋 ---
And Build "copy" with -O2 on ARM64 is identical with -O3
(https://godbolt.org/z/5hjKGbrTd):
.LC0:
.string "vector::_M_realloc_insert"
transform(std::vector > const&):
stp x29, x30, [sp, -64]!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100107
Bug ID: 100107
Summary: [10 Regression] powerpc: redundant .machine directive
clobbers CPU flags to assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100104
--- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 ---
Build "copy" with -O2 on x86-64 (https://godbolt.org/z/Gja6xrq9G):
.LC0:
.string "vector::_M_realloc_insert"
copy(std::vector > const&):
pushr15
pxorxmm0, xmm0
pushr14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100104
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
Build "copy" with -O2 on x86-64 (https://godbolt.org/z/Gja6xrq9G):
.LC0:
.string "vector::_M_realloc_insert"
copy(std::vector > const&):
pushr15
pxorxmm0, xmm0
pushr14
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 12:16 PM
> From: "Joseph Myers"
> To: "Frosku"
> Cc: e...@thyrsus.com, "Christopher Dimech" , "GCC
> Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
>
> > Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
> >
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:52 AM
> From: "Eric S. Raymond"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "Frosku" , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Christopher Dimech via Gcc :
> > The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When people
> > at IBM
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 1:16 AM BST, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
>
> > Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
> > FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based
> > on level of membership and time spent fighting for free
I fully agree with your assessment.
Have in the past organised meetings for him and never seen any bs.
Having led the discussions, RMS was always cooperative and at no point
disrupted procedure. This was 2017-2018 when I was in Barcelona coordinating
all this - leading to the CaixaForum
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
> FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based
> on level of membership and time spent fighting for free software.
I think the oversight of glibc by development working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91470
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0
Last
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:52 AM BST, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Christopher Dimech via Gcc :
> > The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When people
> > at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it,
> > and maybe distribute it themselves or
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> There is a colossal difference between commercial use and commercial
> entities buying control of projects currently governed by entities
> which are answerable to the grassroots (GNU) and then toppling that
RMS's notion of GNU is as something under his
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:52 AM BST, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 2021, at 7:44 PM, Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >>
> >> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When
> >> people
> >> at IBM began to come
Christopher Dimech via Gcc :
> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When people
> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it,
> and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to distribute
> it for them, we did not criticise
> On Apr 15, 2021, at 7:44 PM, Frosku wrote:
>
> On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>>
>> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When
>> people
>> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use
>> it,
>> and maybe
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When
> people
> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use
> it,
> and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to
>
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:11 AM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" , chris.punc...@silogroup.org
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 9:51 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris
- ping
[A sincere and special thanks for the sustained perseverance of the
reviewers in pointing me in the proper direction to get this patch
polished. The original proposal was June 1, 2020 and only covered
double precision. The current version is dramatically better, both
from extending
David Malcolm :
> > I will, however, point out that it is a very *different* point from
> > "RMS has iupset some people and should therefore be canceled".
>
> Eric: I don't know if you're just being glib, or you're deliberately
> trying to caricature those of us who are upset by RMS's behavior.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:30 PM David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 16:26 -0400, Chris Punches wrote:
> > What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red
> > Hat
> > employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my
> > employer's interest and it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99971
Dávid Bolvanský changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 9:51 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
> > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on
> > behalf of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86172
Bug 86172 depends on bug 89202, which changed state.
Bug 89202 Summary: missing -Wnonnull-dereference or -Wuninitialized for a
certain bug (CCP)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89202
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #96 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 89202 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 89202, which changed state.
Bug 89202 Summary: missing -Wnonnull-dereference or -Wuninitialized for a
certain bug (CCP)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89202
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89202
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90844
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 3:40 PM BST, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I intended the weaker observation that driving away a large number of
> smart autistic assholes (and non-assholes with poor social skills)
> is not necessarily a good trade for the people the project might
> recruit by being "more
On 4/15/2021 2:26 PM, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red Hat
employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my
employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal
feelings".
Every single proponent of this
Snapshot gcc-8-20210415 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20210415/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 21:26, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
>
> What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red Hat
> employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my
> employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal
> feelings".
>
> Every single
On 4/14/21 3:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs in tsubst_decomp_names because the assumptions
that the structured binding artificial var is followed in DECL_CHAIN by
the corresponding structured binding vars is violated.
I've tracked it to extract_locals* which is done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 99972, which changed state.
Bug 99972 Summary: missing -Wunused-result on a call to a locally redeclared
warn_unused_result function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99972
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99972
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99420
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99420
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da879e01ecd35737c18be1da3324f4560aba1961
commit r11-8205-gda879e01ecd35737c18be1da3324f4560aba1961
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99972
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da879e01ecd35737c18be1da3324f4560aba1961
commit r11-8205-gda879e01ecd35737c18be1da3324f4560aba1961
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 17:31 -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 21:48 +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
[...snip...]
> > > Perhaps a pronouncement like: "try to make everything be
> > consumable as
> > > libraries with APIs, as well as as standalone binaries" might
> > have
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 21:48 +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> David,
>
> for some reason or other, I did not get your mail, so I will
> just reply copying in from the archive.
>
> First, thanks for injecting some sanity into the discussion.
Thanks Thomas
> I will not discuss RMS' personal
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:04 PM Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
>
> David,
>
> for some reason or other, I did not get your mail, so I will
> just reply copying in from the archive.
>
> First, thanks for injecting some sanity into the discussion.
>
> I will not discuss RMS' personal shortcomings or
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 16:26 -0400, Chris Punches wrote:
> What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red
> Hat
> employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my
> employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal
> feelings".
I'm not sure I'm "high
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 8:51 AM
> From: "Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc"
> To: chris.punc...@silogroup.org
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Every single proponent of this argument that I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100106
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100106
Bug ID: 100106
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in gen_movdi, at
config/arm/arm.md:6187 since r10-2840-g70cdb21e
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
> >> ===
> >>
> >> So .. in summary:
> >>
> >> 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving
> >> in a
> >> non-constructive manner can be pointed.
> >>
> >> 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is
> >> unable to
> >> follow them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055935.html
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
>
> Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
> employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on
> behalf of my company I swear".
>
> Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying
Hello everybody,
we currently write the interface for intrinsic procedures to module
files although that should not be necessary. (F2018:15.4.2.1 actually
states that interfaces e.g. of intrinsic procedures are 'explicit'.)
This lead to bogus errors due to an apparently bogus ambiguity.
A simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7)
> which looks like a default initialization. Does sqrt need to be
> recorded into the module? If not, then your patch is probably ok.
My patch actually
Unfortunately it appears that this PR is on nobody's radar.
Xfailing it to get an arguably artificial zero regression
state (since T0=2007-01-05) helps my autotester.
Caveat: the pass/fail state of this test, as long as stack
alignment isn't adjusted, is dependent on the alignment of
the stack at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84877
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58fe131b91007793c0f12f5fe6cab3f1a017d0fa
commit r11-8204-g58fe131b91007793c0f12f5fe6cab3f1a017d0fa
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100105
Bug ID: 100105
Summary: stack exhaust by recursion in cxxfilt demangler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80456
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80456
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3682052e4ccf0a29d1f61df1c8e31f8190eafafe
commit r11-8203-g3682052e4ccf0a29d1f61df1c8e31f8190eafafe
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
When calling a static member function we still need to evaluate an explicit
object argument. But we don't want to force a load of the entire object
if the argument is volatile, so we take its address. If as a result it no
longer has any side-effects, we don't need to evaluate it after all.
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> There's another similar piece of code in pushdecl() that I didn't
> touch, although I couldn't come up with a test case showing it's
> necessary. Both hunks go back ages so I wonder if they might have
> been obviated by other
What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red Hat
employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my
employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal
feelings".
Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
employed by one of
The false positives have disappeared thanks to
g:520d5ad337eaa15860a5a964daf7ca46cf31c029. I have added the two
test cases in the attached diff in r11-8202 after testing on aarch64,
arm, powerpc64le, and x86_64, out of an abundance of caution.
Martin
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2dbbbe893f75f587c48111ab4c97cf5e74fb91bb
commit r11-8202-g2dbbbe893f75f587c48111ab4c97cf5e74fb91bb
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
On 4/15/21 3:51 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here, reduced_constant_expression_p is incorrectly returning true for a
partially initialized array CONSTRUCTOR, because when the
CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING flag is set the predicate doesn't check that
every array element is initialized by the CONSTRUCTOR,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100096
--- Comment #17 from Sascha Wilde ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16)
> (In reply to Sascha Wilde from comment #10)
> > (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #8)
> > > It would be good to know exactly where that error message is
Christopher Dimech wrote:
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 7:21 AM
From: "Iain Sandoe"
To: "GCC Development"
Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
Paul Koning wrote:
On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
...
responding in general to this part of the thread.
* The GCC
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 12:45 PM Christopher Dimech via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Proposing the guidelines essentially means that the community accepts the fact
> that many of us are incapable of navigate everyday problems and dilemmas by
> making
> “right” decisions based on the use of good judgment and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 89230, which changed state.
Bug 89230 Summary: Bogus uninited usage warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 7.3.0, 8.3.0, 9.2.0
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 8.3.0, 9.3.0
Last
Here, reduced_constant_expression_p is incorrectly returning true for a
partially initialized array CONSTRUCTOR, because when the
CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING flag is set the predicate doesn't check that
every array element is initialized by the CONSTRUCTOR, it just checks
that every initializer within
David,
for some reason or other, I did not get your mail, so I will
just reply copying in from the archive.
First, thanks for injecting some sanity into the discussion.
I will not discuss RMS' personal shortcomings or the lack of them.
In today's toxic political climate, such allegations are
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 7:21 AM
> From: "Iain Sandoe"
> To: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Paul Koning wrote:
> >> On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> responding in general to this part of the thread.
> >>
> >> * The GCC
On 4/14/21 3:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The requires clause parsing has code to suggest users wrapping
non-primary expressions in (), so if it e.g. parses a primary expression
and sees it is followed by ++, --, ., ( or -> among other things it
will try to reparse it as assignment expression or
On 4/14/21 9:21 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Here we ICE when compiling this code in C++20, because we're trying to
slam a 'typename' after the ->. The cp_parser_template_id call just
before the spot I'm changing parsed A::template A as a BASELINK
that contains a constructor, but make_typename_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100104
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 5:31 AM
> From: "David Malcolm via Gcc"
> To: e...@thyrsus.com, "Joseph Myers"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 09:49 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Joseph Myers :
> > > On Wed, 14 Apr
Paul Koning wrote:
On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
...
responding in general to this part of the thread.
* The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so
years I’ve been part of the community.
* We would notice if it became so, I’m not sure about the
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:31 AM David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
>
> I still admire much of what RMS has written, and have spent much of my
> career trying to implement part of a vision inspired by him. I'm sad
> about the way things have turned out. Twitter seems to turn everything
> into a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80456
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100101
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f
commit r11-8201-g2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100101
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99583
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f
commit r11-8201-g2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
Here instantiating the noexcept-specifier for bar() means
instantiating A::value, which complains about the conversion from 0 to
int* in the default argument of foo. Since my patch for PR99583, printing
the error context involves looking at C::type, which again wants to
instantiate A::value,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99683
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 07:11:11PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
> > --- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md.jj2021-04-15 10:45:02.798853095
> > +0200
> > +++ gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md 2021-04-15 13:28:04.734754364 +0200
> > @@ -3572,6 +3572,18 @@ (define_insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The rotates in 6 and 7 are not merged, and neither are the vec_selects in
8 and 9. Both should be pretty easy to do, there is no unspec in sight,
etc.
Hi All!
Proposed patch to:
PR100103 - Automatic reallocation fails inside select rank
Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Add select rank temporary associated names as possible targets of
automatic reallocation.
The patch depends on PR100097 and PR100098.
Thank you very much.
Best
1 - 100 of 288 matches
Mail list logo
