https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87709
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100213
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
For the related:
void a() {
__builtin_memset(a + 0x7fff, 0, 3);
}
we see a similar problem to PR100201 in tree-ssa-alias.c:
$ gcc/xgcc -B gcc alias_test.c -c -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100197
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 15:59, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 4/22/21 2:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Apr 2021, 08:47 Martin Liška, wrote:
> >
> > On 4/21/21 6:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > On 4/21/21 2:15 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > >> Hello.
> > >>
> > >>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100213
Bug ID: 100213
Summary: Signed integer overflow in poly-int.h via
alias.c:memrefs_conflict_p
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 09:26:47AM -0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > * g++.dg/template/nontype29.C: Fix typos and missing comments.
> > * gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-64.c: Likewise.
> > * gcc.dg/Warray-parameter.c: Likewise.
> > * gcc.dg/Wstring-compare.c: Likewise.
> > *
As described in detail in comment #4 of this PR, when tentatively
parsing a construct that can either be a type or an expression, if
during the type parse we encounter an unexpected template placeholder,
we need to simulate an error rather than issue a real error because the
subsequent expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100198
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-22
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #15 from sujay1844 at protonmail dot com ---
I did some digging and found this:-
I checked my timeshift snapshot (which I took just after installation). The
etc/makepkg.conf is that goes like so:-
#-- Compiler and Linker Flags
On 4/22/2021 6:23 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
The patch fixes various typos.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
PR testsuite/100159
PR testsuite/100192
gcc/ChangeLog:
* builtins.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87709
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100203
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
This fixes a linker error on AIX:
FAIL: 30_threads/semaphore/try_acquire_posix.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
ld: 0711-317 ERROR: Undefined symbol: .__atomic_fetch_add_8
ld: 0711-317 ERROR: Undefined symbol: .__atomic_load_8
ld: 0711-317 ERROR: Undefined symbol: .__atomic_fetch_sub_8
Prior to C++20 it should be ill-formed to use std::make_shared with an
array type (and we don't support the C++20 feature to make it valid yet
anyway).
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
PR libstdc++/99006
* include/bits/shared_ptr.h (allocate_shared): Assert that _Tp
is not an
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* config/os/gnu-linux/os_defines.h: Fix type in comment.
Tested powerpc64le-linux. Committed to trunk.
commit 19aa9bc9897955817622574e62b53b24ae0837e9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Thu Apr 22 15:48:29 2021
libstdc++: Fix typo in comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99006
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55650236cd97d81f42f9fdb4f6bcb12babafe51f
commit r12-64-g55650236cd97d81f42f9fdb4f6bcb12babafe51f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to sujay1844 from comment #13)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #12)
> > Is that the default /etc/makepkg.conf, or did you hand-edit it? (i.e is
> > this something that all AUR users
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 4/22/21 2:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021, 08:47 Martin Liška, wrote:
On 4/21/21 6:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 4/21/21 2:15 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> It's addressing the following Clang warning:
>> cp/lex.c:170:45: warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100212
Bug ID: 100212
Summary: Shift by-1 in aarch64_classify_index
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
This implements the wording changes of CWG2374, which clarifies the
wording of P0138 to forbid e.g. direct-list-initialization of a scoped
enumeration from a different scoped enumeration.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
trunk?
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100185
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No and I think it is quite bad idea.
On 4/22/21 3:59 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> For system.h please keep it working for C code (not sure if we use
> a C compiler anywhere).
All right. I've just did --enable-languages=all and all is fine.
So there's likely no C usage of it.
Martin
On 2021-04-22 02:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/04/21 18:29 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
From: Thomas Rodgers
NOTE - This patch also needs to be backported to gcc-11 in order for
semaphore release() to work correctly on non-futex platforms.
Tested sparc-sun-solaris2.11
For types that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100159
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100192
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100159
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bb6a9c01f1e9b5daf9b37fca57e90804ba90d66
commit r12-63-g3bb6a9c01f1e9b5daf9b37fca57e90804ba90d66
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100192
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bb6a9c01f1e9b5daf9b37fca57e90804ba90d66
commit r12-63-g3bb6a9c01f1e9b5daf9b37fca57e90804ba90d66
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
On 4/22/21 4:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> For the dg-bogus did you check the emitted diagnostic not tested for
> doesn't have the same misspelling?
I did. I'm going to push it.
Martin
2021-04-22 Uroš Bizjak
gcc/
PR target/100119
* config/i386/i386-expand.c (ix86_expand_convert_uns_sidf_sse):
Remove the sign with FE_DOWNWARD, where x - x = -0.0.
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/100119
* gcc.target/i386/pr100119.c: New test.
Bootstrapped and regression tested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
Marc Feeley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||feeley at iro dot umontreal.ca
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100185
--- Comment #3 from gnzlbg ---
@Jakub, is there a GCC equivalent to `[[clang::trivial_abi]]` that one can use
instead ?
Wrong PR # in subject.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:11 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> gcc on ia32 miscompiles various atomics involving floating point,
> unfortunately I'm afraid it is too late to fix that for 11.1 and
> as I'm quite lost on it, it might take a while for 12 too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100119
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0cda606d08d6196b76524c7b6ad51d87fed0d54b
commit r12-61-g0cda606d08d6196b76524c7b6ad51d87fed0d54b
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu
On 4/22/21 2:47 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:21 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 4/22/21 1:19 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:02 AM Martin Liška wrote:
On 4/22/21 10:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 3:08 PM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100211
Bug ID: 100211
Summary: aarch64: OOB accesses in
aarch64_{save,restore}_callee_saves
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100128
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #13 from sujay1844 at protonmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #12)
> Is that the default /etc/makepkg.conf, or did you hand-edit it? (i.e is
> this something that all AUR users are going to run into, or just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
Is that the default /etc/makepkg.conf, or did you hand-edit it? (i.e is this
something that all AUR users are going to run into, or just you?)
Clearly the "-Werror=format-security" is not compatible with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
sujay1844 at protonmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98672
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100208
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Stubbs ---
LLVM changed the default parameters, so we either have to change the
expectations in the ".amdgcn_target" string (which is basically an assert), or
set the attributes be want explicitly on the assembler
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 3:50 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> The patch fixes various typos.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ready to be installed?
For the dg-bogus did you check the emitted diagnostic not tested for
doesn't have the same
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 3:52 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Right now, we require a C++11 compiler, so the check is not needed any
> longer.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ready to be installed once GCC 11.1 is released?
For system.h please keep it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99216
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
> On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:32 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> ...
> OTOH switching to LRA regresses code generation seriously, by making the
> indexed and indirect VAX address modes severely underutilised, so while
> with these changes in place the backend can be switched to LRA with just a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #9 from sujay1844 at protonmail dot com ---
Oops sorry for sending it thrice. Bugzilla redirected me to some other bug
report, so I clicked back. I thought my comment wasn't submitted, so I sent it
again.
TLDR: i forgot to refresh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #8 from sujay1844 at protonmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> Presumably the AUR package of libgccjit is here:
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libgccjit/
So how do I prevent the AUR package from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #7 from sujay1844 at protonmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> Presumably the AUR package of libgccjit is here:
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libgccjit/
So how do I prevent the AUR package from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #6 from sujay1844 at protonmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> Presumably the AUR package of libgccjit is here:
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libgccjit/
So how do I prevent the AUR package from
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 4/12/21 1:20 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > Here we're crashing during deduction for a template placeholder from a
> > > dependent initializer because one of the initializer's elements has an
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Error in build()|-Werror=format-security
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> (In reply to sujay1844 from comment #2)
> > So is the AUR package having a bug??
>
> What's AUR? Can you investigate what sets the -Wformat-security ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100179
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99216
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34a9bc1f95027eea1560369765b8b2b5722b6779
commit r10-9747-g34a9bc1f95027eea1560369765b8b2b5722b6779
Author: Alex Coplan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100179
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:718fcebe8b65e98b794f9a53ce7358e034657588
commit r11-8282-g718fcebe8b65e98b794f9a53ce7358e034657588
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97971
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99006
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The __cpp_lib_shared_ptr_arrays feature test macro can be used to detect
whether make_shared works correctly:
#if __cpp_lib_shared_ptr_arrays >= 201707L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
The test requires an FPU, so use -march=armv7-a+fp -mfpu=auto instead
of -march=armv7-a.
We also remove dg-require-effective-target arm_fp_ok, but keep
dg-add-options arm_fp: this enables the test to pass on arm-eabi
configured with default cpu/fpu/mode.
dg-require-effective-target arm_fp_ok
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98187
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.5 |10.4
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98072
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99932
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> We're seeing OpenACC/nvptx offloading execution regressions (including a lot
> of timeouts) starting with CUDA 11.2-era Nvidia Driver 460.27.04. Confirmed
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100160
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> ...
> $ ./install/bin/g++ test-1.cpp -fopenmp -foffload=nvptx-none
> lto-wrapper: fatal error: could not find accel/nvptx-none/mkoffload in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100210
Bug ID: 100210
Summary: [[nodiscard]] constructor causes warning on
arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a21f3b38c3b9a5c28c79be37b040e7d06d827d76
commit r11-8281-ga21f3b38c3b9a5c28c79be37b040e7d06d827d76
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f4588141fcbe4e0f1fa12776b47200870f6c621
commit r12-60-g0f4588141fcbe4e0f1fa12776b47200870f6c621
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100179
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b2db8077136d2f8b5a0db026e6161810be327b3
commit r12-59-g4b2db8077136d2f8b5a0db026e6161810be327b3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
On 22/04/21 14:42 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
gcc on ia32 miscompiles various atomics involving floating point,
unfortunately I'm afraid it is too late to fix that for 11.1 and
as I'm quite lost on it, it might take a while for 12 too
(disabling all the 8 peephole2s would be easiest, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99564
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:52 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:22 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 01:23:20PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > > The question is if the pragma GCC target right now behaves incrementally
> > > > or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #25 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Thanks, I'll just use an older compiler for building Gambit.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:22 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 01:23:20PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > > The question is if the pragma GCC target right now behaves incrementally
> > > or not, whether
> > > #pragma GCC target("avx2")
> > > adds -mavx2 to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100160
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100209
Bug ID: 100209
Summary: multiple inheritance with crtp pattern fails on
sequentioal member access
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:21 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 4/22/21 1:19 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:02 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/22/21 10:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 3:08 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99988
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d44d8ed6b4e6fb2d0cf7566214e2e8281dd44cf0
commit r12-58-gd44d8ed6b4e6fb2d0cf7566214e2e8281dd44cf0
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #11)
> I'm just noting that DejaGNU appears to have a bug in the standard_wait
> procedure:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100198
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> would be nice if you'd hinted on whether you think your testcases are valid
> C++ or not. guessing invalid here
Oops, I should do that, this is a valid code.
Hi!
gcc on ia32 miscompiles various atomics involving floating point,
unfortunately I'm afraid it is too late to fix that for 11.1 and
as I'm quite lost on it, it might take a while for 12 too
(disabling all the 8 peephole2s would be easiest, but then we'd
run into optimization regressions).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to sujay1844 from comment #2)
> So is the AUR package having a bug??
What's AUR? Can you investigate what sets the -Wformat-security ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100208
Bug ID: 100208
Summary: amdgcn fails to build with llvm-mc from llvm12
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #2 from sujay1844 at protonmail dot com ---
So is the AUR package having a bug??
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 01:27:40PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I'm just finishing testing this on various targets and will push to
> trunk. I'd like to backport it to gcc-11 too, to fix PR100179.
Ok for 11.1.
> commit 50070d8602a07160cece5890899929e9f210244d
> Author: Jonathan Wakely
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On 21/04/21 15:30 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/04/21 13:12 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/04/21 12:38 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/21 22:12 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
@@ -86,6 +88,24 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
}
}
+_GLIBCXX_ALWAYS_INLINE bool
+
Right now, we require a C++11 compiler, so the check is not needed any
longer.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed once GCC 11.1 is released?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog:
* program-state.cc (program_state::operator=):
Hello.
The patch fixes various typos.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
PR testsuite/100159
PR testsuite/100192
gcc/ChangeLog:
* builtins.c (expand_builtin): Fix typos and missing comments.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 01:23:20PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > The question is if the pragma GCC target right now behaves incrementally
> > or not, whether
> > #pragma GCC target("avx2")
> > adds -mavx2 to options if it was missing before and nothing otherwise, or if
> > it
On 4/22/21 1:19 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:02 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 4/22/21 10:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 3:08 PM Martin Liška wrote:
When -flto=jobserver is used and we cannot detect job server, then we can
still
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 1:58 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 4:23 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:30 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 06:01:07PM -0700, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > How about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Might very well be
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-dejagnu/2018-07/msg0.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100205
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (I think GCC is correct)
clang9 accepts your reduced testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
Bug ID: 100207
Summary: Error in build()
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100203
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Richi's patch is in DejaGnu 1.6.2 but Jakub and I are using 1.6.1
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 4:23 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:30 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 06:01:07PM -0700, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > How about this?
> > >
> > > @item general_regs_only
> > > @cindex
201 - 300 of 388 matches
Mail list logo
