https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 104581, which changed state.
Bug 104581 Summary: [12 Regression] Huge compile-time regression building SPEC
2017 538.imagick_r with PGO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104581
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104581
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104581
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe79d652c96b53384ddfa43e312cb0010251391b
commit r12-7293-gfe79d652c96b53384ddfa43e312cb0010251391b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96881
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:422d1d378e52418d821781ad756cf3eafc3fa9a2
commit r12-7292-g422d1d378e52418d821781ad756cf3eafc3fa9a2
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104589
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104588
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> The costs look weird:
> _1 1 times scalar_store costs 12 in body
> _5 1 times scalar_store costs 12 in body
> _1 1 times vector_store costs 12 in body
> 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99197
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||97043
--- Comment #19 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104586
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104586
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, it depends on the PR96522 fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104586
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550
>
> --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to qinzhao from comment #11)
--prefix=/scratch/software/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220217 (experimental) [master -g837eb1262] (GCC)
$
$ cat preprocessed.c
short a, b;
int c, d;
__attribute__((always_inline)) __attribute__((optimize(1))) short e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104004
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104588
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104588
Bug ID: 104588
Summary: user-defined constructor loses alignment information
about `*this`
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103628
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
Yes, I actually have both. But that's the peculiarity of the way I build my
test corpus, which I build from multiple sources, and not really important.
Sorry for mistakenly pointing you at the wrong file
On Linux/x86_64,
1b71bc7c8b18bd1b22debfde155f175fd1654942 is the first bad commit
commit 1b71bc7c8b18bd1b22debfde155f175fd1654942
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Feb 15 19:17:03 2022 -0500
tree: tweak warn_deprecated_use
caused
FAIL: gcc.dg/deprecated.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 08:32, Zhao Wei Liew wrote:
>
> > >>> +/* Test non-empty class */
> > >>> +void f2(B b1, B b2)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> + if (b1 = 0); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
> > >>> + if (b1 = 0.); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
> > >>> + if (b1 = b2); /* {
<<< image/jpg: EXCLUDED >>>
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:47 PM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> The x86 backend piggy-backs on mode-switching for insertion of
> vzeroupper. A recent improvement there was implemented in a way
> to walk possibly the whole basic-block for all DF reg def definitions
> in its mode_needed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94944
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94944
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36278f48cbc08c78e4ed588e5a049bd45fd1c55a
commit r12-7291-g36278f48cbc08c78e4ed588e5a049bd45fd1c55a
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104577
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104566
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
--- Comment #9 from Erich Keane ---
> But in C++20 every function is 'constexpr' now, so every function is inline
> anyway, right? Even the large functions that aren't good candidates for
> inlining (see also PR 93008). So The 'inline' keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104579
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-18
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103035
Bug 103035 depends on bug 104551, which changed state.
Bug 104551 Summary: [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 for skylake-avx512,
icelake-server, and sapphirerapids
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104551
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104551
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 00:59, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On 2/16/22 02:16, Zhao Wei Liew wrote:
> > On Wed Feb 16, 2022 at 4:06 AM +08, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>> Ah, I see. I found it a bit odd that gcc-commit-mklog auto-generated a
> >>> subject with "c:",
> >>> but I just went with it as I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Erich Keane from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > And if we have to mark every single function as 'inline' then maybe the
> > compiler shouldn't be using it as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104559
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104559
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
-- >8--
The SGI STL and pre-1998 drafts of the C++ standard had a default
argument for vector::insert(iterator, const bool&) which was
remove by N1051. The default argument is still present in libstdc++ for
some reason. There are no tests verifying it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104559
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12a88e6e208fa45a449775bfb9353c777a6081aa
commit r12-7289-g12a88e6e208fa45a449775bfb9353c777a6081aa
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Hi!
First, you need to adjust after Robin's patch, and retest.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 01:56:04PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> Don't do int cmoves for IEEE comparisons, PR target/104256.
> Unfortunately there are some conditions like UNLE that can't easily be
> reversed
> due to NaNs.
On 2/17/22 09:26, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here when instantiating the noexcept-spec we fail to resolve the
implicit object parameter for the call A::f() ultimately because
maybe_instantiate_noexcept sets current_class_ptr/ref to the dependent
'this' (of type B) rather than the specialized 'this'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104476
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.4|11.3
Summary|[10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104476
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4e92ae2cacb0ef539326249fc59f790423a0766
commit r10-10467-gb4e92ae2cacb0ef539326249fc59f790423a0766
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104587
Bug ID: 104587
Summary: Cygwin fails wide-character regex match to class
[[:xdigit:]]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104476
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90451
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104539
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104539
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c9b7077b72529fbbe896212a0088bff6025c5e7
commit r12-7288-g2c9b7077b72529fbbe896212a0088bff6025c5e7
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
The PR10968 fix cleared DECL_COMDAT to force output of explicit
instantiations. Then the PR59469 fix added a call to mark_needed, after
which we no longer need to clear DECL_COMDAT, and leaving it set allows us
to inline explicit instantiations without worrying about symbol
interposition.
I
While looking at PR90451 I noticed that this function was failing to find the
attributes if called with a variant of the struct. And we were doing a
redundant lookup_attribute.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk as obvious.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree.cc (warn_deprecated_use):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #20 from Svante Signell ---
Hi again,
Attached are patch #1 to patch #9 to make libgo.so.21.0.0 to build
successfully, from the source gcc-12-12-20220214.
I see that the first patch: "Adding hurd to unixsock_readmsg_cloexec.go"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #19 from Svante Signell ---
Hi again,
Attached are patch #1 to patch #9 to make libgo.so.21.0.0 to build
successfully, from the source gcc-12-12-20220214.
I see that the first patch: "Adding hurd to unixsock_readmsg_cloexec.go"
Snapshot gcc-9-20220217 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20220217/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103195
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Tested x86_64-linux, pushed to trunk. The StdErrorCodePrinter that
crashes GDB is on gcc-11 too so this should be backported there.
-- >8 --
This attempts to implement a partial workaround for the GDB bug
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28856 which causes GDB
to crash when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #18 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52472
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52472=edit
patch #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #17 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52471
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52471=edit
Patch #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #16 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52470
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52470=edit
patch #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71196
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #15 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52469
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52469=edit
patch #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #14 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52468
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52468=edit
patch #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #13 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52467=edit
patch #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #12 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52466
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52466=edit
patch #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #11 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52465
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52465=edit
pathch #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #10 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 52464
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52464=edit
patch #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
--- Comment #2 from
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:05:29PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 08:46:01PM +0100, Marc via Gcc-rust wrote:
> > ../gccrs/gcc/rust/hir -I ../../gccrs/gcc/rust/resolve -I
> > ../../gccrs/gcc/rust/util -I ../../gccrs/gcc/rust/typecheck -I
> > ../../gccrs/gcc/rust/lint
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104253
--- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner ---
Fixed on trunk. Mike mentioned we need backports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I mean, even with commit 50e8b0c9bca6cdc57804f860ec5311b641753fbb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
No luck, even with commit
./xgcc -B./ -O2 -g pr104121.c -mv850e2v3 -mno-app-regs -msmall-sld
-fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector
do I actually need binutils to enable something essential in GCC to
Hi!
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 12:03:09PM -0600, Pat Haugen wrote:
> Mark Power10 fusion option undocumented and remove sub-options.
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.opt (mpower10-fusion): Mark Undocumented.
> (mpower10-fusion-ld-cmpi, mpower10-fusion-2logical,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104552
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not with "macros" plural.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90451
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c352ef0ed90cfc07d494dfec21bc683e337b
commit r12-7285-gc352ef0ed90cfc07d494dfec21bc683e337b
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
We were getting the deprecated warning twice for the same call because we
called mark_used first in finish_qualified_id_expr and then again in
build_over_call. Let's not call it the first time; C++17 clarified that a
function is used only when it is selected from an overload set, which
happens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104552
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
But "an" + "invalid" does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104586
Bug ID: 104586
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/pr102798.c in
523f5950c70d65714bedf9d5fe164d9e6d69dd87 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Hi Marc,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 08:46:01PM +0100, Marc via Gcc-rust wrote:
> build...@builder.wildebeest.org writes:
>
> > Build Reason:
> > Blamelist: Philip Herron
>
> g++ -fno-PIE -c -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions
> -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104552
--- Comment #4 from Roland Illig ---
>From common.opt:
> an invalid linenum macros
"an" + "macros" doesn't match
Ping.
On 1/28/22 12:03 PM, Pat Haugen via Gcc-patches wrote:
Mark Power10 fusion option undocumented and remove sub-options.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on powerpc64le(Power10).
Ok for master?
-Pat
2022-01-28 Pat Haugen
gcc/
* config/rs6000/rs6000.opt (mpower10-fusion):
name_lookup::search_unqualified uses a statically allocated vector
in order to avoid repeated reallocation, under the assumption that
the function can't be called recursively. With modules however,
this assumption turns out to be false, and search_unqualified can
be called recursively as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102369
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a.shahmoradi at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104585
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276
--- Comment #14 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> and so for flag_auto_var_init > AUTO_INIT_UNINITIALIZED perhaps we could also
> avoid warnings on:
> 1) call to .DEFERRED_INIT
> 2) call to
build...@builder.wildebeest.org writes:
> Build Reason:
> Blamelist: Philip Herron
g++ -fno-PIE -c -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings
-Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104257
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pc at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104121
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Do you still get this? I can't trigger the problem with the reduced testcase
with -O2 -g -mv850e2v3, on a cross to v850-rtems hosted on x86_64-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104585
Bug ID: 104585
Summary: incorrect error for dummy arguments with both VALUE
and DIMENSION attributes
Product: gcc
Version: og11 (devel/omp/gcc-11)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder gccrust-debian-arm64 while
building gccrust.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.wildebeest.org/buildbot/#builders/58/builds/1648
Buildbot URL: https://builder.wildebeest.org/buildbot/
Worker for this Build: debian-arm64
Build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104257
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Clarke :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efbb17db52afd802300c4dcce208fab326ec2915
commit r12-7284-gefbb17db52afd802300c4dcce208fab326ec2915
Author: Paul A. Clarke
Date:
> Please send patches as plain text, not as base64.
It seems like Thunderbird does not support this anymore since later
versions, grml. Probably need to look for another mail client.
> Why that first test? XEXP (op, 0) is required to not be nil.
>
> The patch is okay without that (if it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104535
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104335
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fac15bf84807a58f83c741b1034c1bc96348319d
commit r12-7283-gfac15bf84807a58f83c741b1034c1bc96348319d
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104256
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 52463
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52463=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104256
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |meissner at gcc dot
gnu.org
Don't do int cmoves for IEEE comparisons, PR target/104256.
Protect int cmove from raising an assertion if it is trying to do an int
conditional move where the test involves floating point comparisons that
can't easily be reversed due to NaNs.
The code used to generate the condition, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104539
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
Thanks H-P! I'll certainly check it out.
Andras
February 17, 2022 9:15 AM, "Hans-Peter Nilsson" wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Andras Tantos wrote:
>
>> Hello all!
>>
>> I'm working on porting GCC to a new processor architecture. I think
>> I've finally got to a fairly stable stage, so the
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 17 2022, Erick Ochoa wrote:
>> If I understand you correctly, that is indeed the jump function,
>> obtainable through ipa_get_ith_jump_func (args, i) where args is a
>> result of ipa_edge_args_sum->get and i is the index of the parameter.
>>
>
> Thanks Martin!
>
> So then, am I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
