https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90029
--- Comment #2 from Federico Kircheis ---
Thank you for your answer, I need to learn better how to search for related
bugs.
The bugs you linked do surely answer my question, but they do not cover exactly
the same requests.
1) optimize dead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90034
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
wait4 is waiting for child process to finish. You need to do strace with -f
option to follow the forks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90034
Bug ID: 90034
Summary: gcc hangs on wait4 after vfork after opening tmp file
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|netbsd, SymbianOS, LynxOS, |SymbianOS, LynxOS, QNX, TPF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90027
--- Comment #2 from vfdff ---
for deja testcase: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010518-2.c
as the struct a_struct define with __attribute__ ((packed)), so the member
variable b also not aligned with 4 bytes, is this case undefined behavior ?
typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
fink at snaggledworks dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fink at snaggledworks dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #25 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 08:24:29PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
>
> --- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Thanks for the patch, I'll test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90033
Bug ID: 90033
Summary: [concepts] ICE segfault evaluating a requires clause
that transitively depends on itself
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #44 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #43)
> The problem with your suggestions Segher is that we'd have to do them for
> every target which defines insns with a zero_extract destination and that's
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90032
--- Comment #4 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Created attachment 46122
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46122=edit
tester.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90032
--- Comment #3 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Created attachment 46121
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46121=edit
tester.i reload dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90032
--- Comment #2 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Created attachment 46120
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46120=edit
tester.i ira dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90032
Jozef Lawrynowicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46118|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90032
Bug ID: 90032
Summary: [MSP430] reload uses wrong stack slot for variable
after setjmp/longjmp
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks for the patch, I'll test it fully tomorrow.
I'll open a separate bug for the FreeBSD issue. We could use more fine-grained
configure checks so that most C99 math functions are enabled, even if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90027
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89851
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90031
Bug ID: 90031
Summary: Bogus parse error trying to explicitly specialize a
template variable inside class scope
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89851
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #35 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #33)
> (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #32)
> >
> > Either I drop the warning or I keep the hunk in eh_personality.cc - any
> > preferences /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've now reworked my non-dlpi_tls_modid patch to include this after
Solaris 11.[345]/x86 testing gave excellent and pretty much identical
test results:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90008
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #51 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #50)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #48)
> > Perhaps that redefinition of _Atomic should be guarded with
> > #if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L) ||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90029
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53294
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||federico.kircheis at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #5 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Tested with latest gcc [1], same output.
[1] Compiled from source:
gcc (GCC) 9.0.1 20190409 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90008
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 9 18:50:39 2019
New Revision: 270236
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270236=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90008 remove unused capture from variant rel ops
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90030
Bug ID: 90030
Summary: Fortran OpenACC subarray data alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #4 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 46117
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46117=edit
.s file generated by "--save-temps" param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #3 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 46116
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46116=edit
.i file generated by "--save-temps" param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90029
Bug ID: 90029
Summary: optimizing local exceptions, or are they an observable
side effect
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #2 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
While preparing the support files for this report, via --save-temps, recognized
that generated .s file output is a little different, and correct assuming the
suspicion on source of the failure was right:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
--- Comment #1 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 46115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46115=edit
19.05-rc1 -mno-avx512f gcc build on skylake
The build is done with changing the lib/librte_kni/Makefile as following:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90028
Bug ID: 90028
Summary: On Intel Skylake (-march=native) generated avx512
instruction can be wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88915
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88259
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86530
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
+-
《 开》 （
企） 《禾兑》
《具》 （
业） 《栗》
电：李 生，136—6075— 4190，
业 q：157— 533— 2698
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90027
Bug ID: 90027
Summary: misalign variable access by piece load/store even when
define STRICT_ALIGNMENT nonzero
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89794
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
There seems to be more to this than initially thought. Another insn is in
play.
(insn 12 10 14 2 (set (reg:SI 129)
(bswap:SI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 127 [ i ]) 4))) "/tmp/test3.c":10:7 331
{*arm_rev}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, we have:
(insn 41 40 42 6 (parallel [
(set (reg/v:DI 101 [ i ])
(lshiftrt:DI (reg/v:DI 118 [ i ])
(const_int 7 [0x7])))
(clobber (reg:CC 17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #50 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #48)
> Perhaps that redefinition of _Atomic should be guarded with
> #if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L) || defined(__cplusplus)
> or so, so that for C -std=c11 you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90012
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #2)
> Thank you for changing this so quickly. Will your change make it into the
> next translation round before the 9.1 release? That would be good because it
> would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90026
Bug ID: 90026
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error:
missing barrier after block 2)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90012
--- Comment #2 from Roland Illig ---
Thank you for changing this so quickly. Will your change make it into the next
translation round before the 9.1 release? That would be good because it would
save be quite some work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89794
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
According to my bisection, this is not reproduceable on the trunk starting with
r266862.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #7 from Marek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
That'd be much appreciated, I was puzzled as to what we should do when I first
took a look at this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #43 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The problem with your suggestions Segher is that we'd have to do them for every
target which defines insns with a zero_extract destination and that's been the
well understood way to handle this stuff for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > So, do we want to ignore the TYPE_EMPTY_P arguments even for argument
> > alignment computations (both at the caller and callee)?
>
> We should ask it in x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
Summary|warning for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90005
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Looking at
> struct S { long a[0] __attribute__ ((aligned (32))); };
> long double u;
> void baz (struct S *);
> void bar (long double x, struct S y, long double z)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Looking at the rev. and the context I figured the original caller was
added for a case that can no longer happen (SAME_DR_STMT set, that
can never happen since we rewrote interleaving chain detection for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
We have a pseudo:SI<-hardreg:SI assignment followed by
pseudo:DF<-float(pseudo:SI) conversion, and we substitute the latter through
the former, creating a pseudo:DF<-float(hardreg:SI) insn that fails in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at
struct S { long a[0] __attribute__ ((aligned (32))); };
long double u;
void baz (struct S *);
void bar (long double x, struct S y, long double z)
{
u = x + z;
baz ();
}
this doesn't ICE, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
However, '--size=test' helps here, fails quickly. With the revision, there 2
files are difference: mapz_module.fppized.o.s and optics_lib.o.s.
I suspect the later one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89972
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
@@ -30877,6 +30883,11 @@ arm_valid_target_attribute_rec (tree args, struct
gcc_options *opts)
else if (!strncmp (q, "arm", 3))
opts->x_target_flags &= ~MASK_THUMB;
+ else if (!strncmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Please use GCC 8 branch, not trunk. The problem only shows up on GCC 8
> branch.
I can confirm that with r265453 I see:
*** Miscompare of cam4_validate.txt; for details see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 9 13:19:16 2019
New Revision: 270229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270229=gcc=rev
Log:
PR translation/90011
* typeck2.c (check_narrowing): Remove trailing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89998
--- Comment #10 from gandalf at winds dot org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Fixed for trunk. As a workaround I'd suggest using a correct prototype or
> -fno-builtin-sprintf if you intentionally use a different one.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #49 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #48)
> Perhaps that redefinition of _Atomic should be guarded with
> #if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L) || defined(__cplusplus)
> or so, so that for C -std=c11 you still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #48 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps that redefinition of _Atomic should be guarded with
#if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L) || defined(__cplusplus)
or so, so that for C -std=c11 you still get _Atomic?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #47 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Erik Schnetter from comment #46)
> The patch does not include the generated files. You need to run "genfixes"
> in the "fixincludes" directory after applying the patch.
the one I put above has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> I've just tested that on -march=skylake-avx512:
> model name: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8164 CPU @ 2.00GHz
>
> r265451 works for me, but I had to increase a stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |diagnostic
--- Comment #4 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46113
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46113=edit
gcc9-pr90010.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
For the RTL issue there's
compute_hash_table_work (struct gcse_hash_table_d *table)
{
...
/* First pass over the instructions records information used to
determine when registers and memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #46 from Erik Schnetter ---
The patch does not include the generated files. You need to run "genfixes" in
the "fixincludes" directory after applying the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #45 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #44)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #43)
> > Created attachment 46110 [details]
> > Proof-of-principle path
> >
> > Does this work for you?
> > - my local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> I bisected GCC 4.9.x branch and it started with r215059, which is a backport
> of 3 patches. I reverted changes in:
> patching file gcc/recog.c
> patching file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-require-weak "" } */
void __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
check (int i)
{
if (i == 0)
__builtin_exit (0);
}
int i;
extern int x __attribute__((weak));
int main(int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90024
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Malcomson ---
Author: matmal01
Date: Tue Apr 9 11:39:59 2019
New Revision: 270226
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270226=gcc=rev
Log:
Hi there,
The "*neon_mov" patterns for 128 bit sized quantities uses the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89998
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 regression] ICE: |[7/8 regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #44 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #43)
> Created attachment 46110 [details]
> Proof-of-principle path
>
> Does this work for you?
> - my local testing says it generates the right wrapped include file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So looking at one issue I can see is code-hoisting hoisting
MEM[(struct window *)window_6(D) + -5B].contents across a call that might
not return. This can only happen for calls we can alias-disambiguate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #18 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to kugan from comment #12)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> > (In reply to kugan from comment #9)
> > > Created attachment 46040 [details]
> > > patch
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90025
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46112
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46112=edit
gcc9-pr90025.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90025
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90025
Bug ID: 90025
Summary: [9 Regression] botan2 miscompilation on s390x-linux
since r268957
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90024
Matthew Malcomson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90024
Bug ID: 90024
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE on AArch32 NEON mov with TImode
constant.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89794
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Guess with PR89475 fix this will be latent, unless one disables ccp.
> Anyway, to me this looks like a backend bug. The function is leaf, but for
> some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90011
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 9 10:27:14 2019
New Revision: 270225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270225=gcc=rev
Log:
PR translation/90011
* ipa-devirt.c (compare_virtual_tables):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89998
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 9 10:26:13 2019
New Revision: 270224
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270224=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89998
* gimple-ssa-sprintf.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #17 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #16)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> > > There is also something odd with the way the loop iterates, this doesn't
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
