https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83327
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6)
> Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg01030.html
Approved. Todo: testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 19 16:43:04 2017
New Revision: 255829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255829=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81914
* predict.c (zero_one_minusone): New function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #18 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #16)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > SWAPINIT should end up with swaptype_long == 1 I think and swaptype_int == 1
> > for the cases in question.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105
--- Comment #3 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Any reason why this should be a supportable configuration? I want hard
> float, but don't care what CPU/FPU I target...
i think there should be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83423
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42921
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42921=edit
gcc7-pr83356.patch
Untested patch for the second sanopt. This doesn't change anything on this
testcase though,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It could well be the same problem. The fix for the codegen bug I'm tracking
affects relax_sh.c from 435.gromacs. I'm still investigating.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83378
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Guskov ---
Wait, isn`t XPASS an unexpected (i.e. erroneous) pass?
I know that XFAIL = expected fail, so I don`t consider it a fail. But what
about XPASS?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83492
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64_be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
What sense does it make to align an empty struct anyway?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
This actually reproduces with C and C++ ABI 12, too. The problem is this:
4096 /* Stack must be properly aligned now. */
4097 gcc_assert (!pass
4098 || !(stack_pointer_delta %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754
--- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Dec 19 15:25:56 2017
New Revision: 255828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255828=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-15 Bin Cheng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82726
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Dec 19 15:25:56 2017
New Revision: 255828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255828=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-15 Bin Cheng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79663
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Dec 19 15:25:56 2017
New Revision: 255828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255828=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-15 Bin Cheng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81010
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
But I see the same for LE ELFv2? I wonder what's going on...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83492
Bug ID: 83492
Summary: [7 Regression] Optimized search_line_fast breaks
preprocessor on aarch64_be
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83489
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Uh, ignore Comment 2, I goofed on the PR # :(. That was for PR83489.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 19 14:58:17 2017
New Revision: 255824
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255824=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/83490
* config/i386/i386.c (init_cumulative_args): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #15)
> No, that's not it - gcov-dump 6/7 have no problem dumping previous versions.
> I'm just not sure if the problem with gcov-dump-8 is architecture specific
> (ARM) or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42919
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42919=edit
Patch that removes violation of aliasing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> but it seems this is how _mm512_set1_pd works:
>
> extern __inline __m512d
> __attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__, __artificial__))
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Better testcase:
struct __attribute__ ((aligned)) S
{
};
void bar (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, struct S);
struct S s;
void
foo (void)
{
bar (6, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, s);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614
--- Comment #15 from PeteVine ---
No, that's not it - gcov-dump 6/7 have no problem dumping previous versions.
I'm just not sure if the problem with gcov-dump-8 is architecture specific
(ARM) or it's something to do with my setup. I'm going to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81010
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82096
--- Comment #3 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> I can with:
>
> commit 23298f15ba71145bae317e9c07f7078663dbd923 (HEAD, parent/trunk,
> parent/master)
> Author: rguenth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83491
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Richi,
>
> I've got a code correctness issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> SWAPINIT should end up with swaptype_long == 1 I think and swaptype_int == 1
> for the cases in question. Enforcing swaptype_int = swaptype_long = 2
> should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Richi,
I've got a code correctness issue I'm looking at with those changes. If you
could pass along the .dom2 and .dom3 dumps for the 435.gromacs benchmark I
could probably scan them for the issue without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
SWAPINIT should end up with swaptype_long == 1 I think and swaptype_int == 1
for the cases in question. Enforcing swaptype_int = swaptype_long = 2
should make it work (scratch SWAPINIT calls).
#define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83471
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Dec 19 13:40:42 2017
New Revision: 255822
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255822=gcc=rev
Log:
Add a tetst for PR middle-end/83471
Backported from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Copies in more benchmarks:
> find benchspec -name spec_qsort.c
benchspec/common/spec_qsort/spec_qsort.c
benchspec/CPU/505.mcf_r/src/spec_qsort/spec_qsort.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83471
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Dec 19 13:38:29 2017
New Revision: 255821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255821=gcc=rev
Log:
Add a tetst for PR middle-end/83471
PR middle-end/83471
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Likely invalid. spec_qsort is full of alias violations. We sort
typedef struct basket
{
arc_t *a;
cost_t cost;
cost_t abs_cost;
LONG number;
} BASKET;
and spec_qsort does stuff like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 81842, which changed state.
Bug 81842 Summary: -fcf-protection -mcet is incompatible with makecontext
family functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82675
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Dec 19 13:20:07 2017
New Revision: 255818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255818=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix off by one error in loop-unroll.c (PR rtl-optimization/82675).
2017-12-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
It's this change:
@@ -5660,10 +5668,12 @@ store_one_arg (struct arg_data *arg, rtx argblock, int
flags,
}
}
- emit_push_insn (arg->value, arg->mode, TREE_TYPE (pval), size_rtx,
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
>
> --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10)
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
> >
> > --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83491
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
>
> --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
> Using just a single ltrans, I see first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83491
Bug ID: 83491
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals_1 at
gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:585
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Weird it ICEs even with -fabi-version=11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30552
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490
Bug ID: 83490
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in find_call_stack_args, at
dce.c:392
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
One correction: In c#4 line 17 has incorrect index, should be 8 instead of 9.
For some reason gcc did not complain here.
vLastRow = _mm512_load_pd ([8][0]);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83489
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Here is also valid AVX version, it also spills a bit. Compiled with "-O3
-march=haswell -Wall -Werror".
[code]
#include "immintrin.h"
double test(const double
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83489
Bug ID: 83489
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in init_cumulative_args, at
config/i386/i386.c:7223
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
Bug ID: 83488
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE on a CET test-case
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Rule No.1: never log bugs before morning coffee ;)
This does not produce warnings, compiled with "-O3 -march=haswell -mavx512f
-mavx512vl -mavx512bw -mavx512dq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Bug ID: 83487
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #14 from James Clarke ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> > Can't be done without an ABI break. But it is just the PIC register, and I'm
> > still of the view this is a GCC bug. You seem to not be listening to my
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83485
--- Comment #1 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Reduced test case:
struct uart_port {
char quirks;
};
struct uart_8250_port {
struct uart_port port;
int em485;
} b[1];
int a, c;
void fn1(void) {
struct uart_8250_port *d = [c];
d->port.quirks |=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Using just a single ltrans, I see first divergence in mcf_r.ltrans0.088t.dom1.
Richi, how possible is the revision real culprit?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #13 from James Clarke ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #11)
> > > Again you're wrong, the call-saved registers are properly preserved if you
> > > don't clobber the stack pointer, just write a small test or simply tweak
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Can't be done without an ABI break. But it is just the PIC register, and I'm
> still of the view this is a GCC bug. You seem to not be listening to my
> arguments and just reciting that "setjmp must save
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83486
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > Again you're wrong, the call-saved registers are properly preserved if you
> > don't clobber the stack pointer, just write a small test or simply tweak
> > yours.
>
> Yes, I know that.
OK, at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83465
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Here I admit it's confusing, but it's related how GCC emits variable
> initiation for scalars and arrays with -O0:
>
> While for the scalar we do:
> struct S *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83486
Bug ID: 83486
Summary: [GCOV] two-dimensional const arrays is marked as not
executed while the other is not
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82231
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The baseline target CPU for arm linux is ARM10TDMI (armv5t), but that processor
only had VFPv1 and GCC has never supported that. Code generated historically
was incompatible with that target and if you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82365
--- Comment #12 from Arnd Bergmann ---
The first partial workaround for strncpy() got merged into Linux and stable
backports:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=146734b091430
Submitted a second
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #10 from James Clarke ---
(In reply to James Clarke from comment #9)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> > > And for what it's worth, 32-bit Solaris/SPARC's setjmp isn't saving any of
> > > the caller's input or local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
And compiling with -Wall gives
t.c: In function ‘test’:
t.c:32:37: warning: index value is out of bound [-Warray-bounds]
vLastCol = _mm256_set1_pd(vLastRow[4]);
^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #9 from James Clarke ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> > And for what it's worth, 32-bit Solaris/SPARC's setjmp isn't saving any of
> > the caller's input or local registers either, so it's not glibc-specific.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> You already have code in sched-deps.c to deal with setjmp potentially not
> saving registers it should across all architectures:
>
> if (find_reg_note (insn, REG_SETJMP, NULL))
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83485
Bug ID: 83485
Summary: cris: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83475
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83482
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 19 11:12:35 2017
New Revision: 255817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255817=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83482
* g++.dg/torture/pr83482.C: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83087
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83087
>
> --- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #6 from James Clarke ---
And for what it's worth, 32-bit Solaris/SPARC's setjmp isn't saving any of the
caller's input or local registers either, so it's not glibc-specific.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83484
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-8
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/srv/local/gnu/install/gcc-8-host/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79209
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g |powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78420
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83484
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 42917
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42917=edit
tmp.cpp: C++11 test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83484
Bug ID: 83484
Summary: constexpr not evaluated at compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
James Clarke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83329
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83087
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> > > 1.4% increase is not negligible if it is forced on
101 - 200 of 251 matches
Mail list logo