https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88934
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88908
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Great, thanks for the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
--- Comment #15 from Umesh Kalappa ---
like jakub recommended in the other mail thread ,
All the callers of emit_library_call* would need to be changed to pass
triplets rtx, machine_mode, int/bool /*unsignedp*/, instead of just
rtx_mode_t pair
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, you should add a proper error for that case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
May I close the issue as invalid? As noted by Jakub, the option should not be
used by users directly and is not documented right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45452|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
--- Comment #6 from Giovanni Bajo ---
A patch has been posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2018-12/msg00038.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
--- Comment #5 from Giovanni Bajo ---
Created attachment 45474
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45474=edit
Chart generated by chart.cpp that highlights broken distribution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
--- Comment #4 from Giovanni Bajo ---
Created attachment 45473
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45473=edit
What test.cpp actually does output with std::random_shuffle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
--- Comment #3 from Giovanni Bajo ---
Created attachment 45472
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45472=edit
What test.cpp should output if random_shuffle worked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
--- Comment #2 from Giovanni Bajo ---
Created attachment 45471
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45471=edit
Test code to draw a chart of distributions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
--- Comment #1 from Giovanni Bajo ---
Created attachment 45470
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45470=edit
Test code to reproduce bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935
Bug ID: 88935
Summary: std::random_shuffle does not work if the sequence is
longer than RAND_MAX elements
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88934
Bug ID: 88934
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (Error:
mismatching comparison operand types)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Bug ID: 88933
Summary: ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed (Error: caller edge
count does not match BB count)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932
Bug ID: 88932
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (Error:
definition in block 29 does not dominate use in block
25)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88423
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34392
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=34663
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34528
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34392
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33097
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
--- Comment #15 from Jonny Grant ---
Does the implicitly created copy-constructor get saved to a file at all? Or can
it be saved to a file like -save-temps does?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32986
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32515
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32512
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88579
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf ---
Patch submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg00163.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88906
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Before dse1 pass, we have:
5: {r90:SI=frame:SI-0x20;clobber flags:CC;}
REG_UNUSED flags:CC
6: r91:SI=0
7: r92:SI=0x4
8: {r92:SI=0;r90:SI=r92:SI<<0x2+r90:SI;[r90:SI]=0;use r91:SI;use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87615
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Sun Jan 20 20:17:02 2019
New Revision: 268107
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268107=gcc=rev
Log:
Limit AA walking in IPA summary generation
2019-01-20 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65438
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The code removed by the patch in comment 4 is still there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88931
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> You also need -frounding-math.
The default is '-fno-rounding-math'.
This option is experimental and does not currently guarantee to
disable all GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88931
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
You also need -frounding-math .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88501
--- Comment #8 from Jonny Grant ---
Another example - would be good if it could suggest
$ gcc -o undef undef.c
undef.c: In function ‘main’:
undef.c:4:5: error: unknown type name ‘bool’; did you mean ‘_Bool’?
bool a;
^~~~
_Bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88821
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88926
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
With similar changes, I analyzed gcc.dg/vect/pr25413a.c (which we then fail to
vectorize). I expect the issue is similar. In scalar evolution, we get a
polynomial_chrec of type unsigned long wrapped in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88931
Bug ID: 88931
Summary: Failed to convert int128 to float/double with
round=FE_UPWARD/FE_TOWARDZERO
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88928
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88930
Bug ID: 88930
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong frequences when a if statement is after a
?: statement in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88928
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65438
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82215
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68546
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34740
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88927
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops, ignore the cpu_no_init.go related comments, I was looking at my trunk
checkout apparently before r268084, while the failed build was with that change
which added +build !arm in there. That explains
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88501
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Grant ---
Here is anotehr example.
I expected to be suggested, as that contains exact match strerror()
Current G++ trunk output
: In function 'int main()':
:14:33: error: 'errno' was not declared in this scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31009
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Seems also to me that this should be reconsidered whether there is still need
for optimization for the case of arrays not declared as contiguous.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30733
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30438
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88929
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
There is a partially reduced test in pr88908 (TODO reduce the modules).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88908
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88929
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30123
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88908
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This looks like a duplicate of pr88929 where a patch has been proposed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88929
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88929
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 45469
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45469=edit
A proposed patch for the PR.
Handling of fortran dummy arguments was not implemented in the recent
ISO_Fortran_binding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88929
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88929
Bug ID: 88929
Summary: ICE on building MPICH 3.2 with GCC 9 with
ISO_Fortran_binding
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88928
Bug ID: 88928
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE segfault in
check_address_or_pointer_of_packed_member since
r268075
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status:
59 matches
Mail list logo
