https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90431
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #5)
> I have posted a WIP patch as:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg01765.html
>
> I am in the process of cleaning it up for final submission once s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #13)
> Let me look into this request for GCC 10.
It's GCC 10 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80936
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> POSIX says this about bcopy:
>
> For maximum portability, it is recommended to replace the function call to
> bcopy() as follows:
>
> #define bcopy(b1,b2,len
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49194
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #11)
> Well, I am working on gradual improvements in the inlining decisions,
> but since the PR is not very specific, we never will be perfect :)
So should we leave it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37759
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #9)
> Yes, but AFAIK none of the PRs specific to powerpcspe have been closed so
> far. And, personally, I'd like them to stay open for another release cycle
> in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78917
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Another test case:
>
> $ cat f.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -Wextra f.c
> int f (int i)
> {
> const char * p = __builtin_strchr (i ? "123" : "456", '2');
> return __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90411
--- Comment #2 from m101010a at gmail dot com ---
When I said to put spaces ELs at the end of lines, I meant the end of logical
lines (e.g. \n), not the end of screen lines. Sorry for the confusion.
You can't see this issue in gnome-terminal bec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90430
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80195
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90157
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
My checker found a few of these in an x86_64 build too:
gcc/c-family/c-format.c:394:50: warning: ‘args’ is not a word; use ‘arguments’
instead [-Wformat-diag]
gcc/c-family/c-format.c:5148:11: warning: ‘args’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90432
Bug ID: 90432
Summary: Internal compiler error with no_unique_address empty
type with constructor call followed by value
initialized to non-zero
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90431
Bug ID: 90431
Summary: support __builtin_cpu_supports() in Linux kernel code
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90430
Bug ID: 90430
Summary: [9 Regression] internal procedure target rejected in
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90239
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 10 22:23:10 2019
New Revision: 271083
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271083&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90397 fix std::variant friend declaration
Clang diagnoses i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90239
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 10 22:23:01 2019
New Revision: 271081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90239 use uses_allocator_construction_args in
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90426
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90388
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk. The noexcept part might be worth backporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 10 21:41:19 2019
New Revision: 271079
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271079&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90397 fix std::variant friend declarations
Clang diagnoses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81266
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 10 21:41:23 2019
New Revision: 271080
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271080&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81266 fix std::thread::native_handle_type test
The test use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90388
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 10 21:41:16 2019
New Revision: 271078
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271078&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90388 fix std::hash> bugs
A disabled specialization should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90426
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57193
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87716
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90152
--- Comment #3 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Just so I'm clear: what exactly needs to be enclosed in _(...) in
> print_z_candidate?
The code:
print_z_candidate (loc, "candidate:", candidates);
should be:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90152
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90157
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90353
Dávid Bolvanský changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61968
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri May 10 20:14:22 2019
New Revision: 271076
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271076&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/61968
* interface.c (com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandreas at satx dot rr.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90429
Bug ID: 90429
Summary: lto-wrapper.exe: fatal error: C:\Program
Files\WindowsApps\ArduinoLLC.ArduinoIDE_1.8.21.0_x86__
mdqgnx93n4wtt\hardware\tools\avr/bin/avr-gcc returned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90428
Bug ID: 90428
Summary: -Wredundant-move could warn for more cases
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90419
--- Comment #4 from Jim Wilson ---
GCC worked out of the box before we started upstreaming the toolchain. And it
will work out of the box again when we are done with the upstreaming. But
meanwhile, we are still in the middle of upstreaming and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drepper at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56457
Nicholas Krause changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71924
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81266
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 46341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46341&action=edit
updated patch
I'm testing this - the posted one didn't build on Darwin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81266
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
--- Comment #13 from Barry Revzin ---
Thanks Marek!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90427
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90427
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I would suspect there are rounding mode issues with it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90400
--- Comment #2 from Remi ---
I found 69543 which looks similar but is different (and fixed): the cause of
the bug is different and it applies to the first level of a macro, while this
bug requires 2 levels of macro to show up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90427
Bug ID: 90427
Summary: missing "sign flipping" optimization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 10 14:57:22 2019
New Revision: 271066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271066&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78010 - bogus -Wsuggest-override warning on final funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #29 from Than McIntosh ---
Tested patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46337 and that
brings compile time now down to about 700 seconds. -ftime-report shows that
tree-PRE is still the major culprit.
Also tested se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 10 14:53:30 2019
New Revision: 271065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271065&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78010 - bogus -Wsuggest-override warning on final funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90426
Bug ID: 90426
Summary: [P0732] Error constructing non-type template parameter
from a prvalue
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
--- Comment #13 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Fri May 10 14:00:17 2019
New Revision: 271064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-05-10 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90411
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 46340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46340&action=edit
Patch under test
This is a combination of Jakub's patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg00484.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46339
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46339&action=edit
untested patch
This is another patch. It changes the iteration scheme to RPO order instead of
DOM order to n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-apple-darwin9 |powerpc-apple-darwin9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #39 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 10 May 2019, ian at airs dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
>
> --- Comment #38 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Ah, sorry, misunderstood.
>
> Yes, that wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #38 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Ah, sorry, misunderstood.
Yes, that work was all for the goal of implementing -Wjump-misses-init, which
is a small aspect of -Wc++-compat. That was part of the work of getting GCC to
use the common subs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90425
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, we already have a duplicate for it. It's about trailing '||'
> operator.
> Following is fine:
>
> -:4:int
> 1:5:main ()
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
>
> > Though, I don't und
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90425
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46338
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46338&action=edit
Debugging patch
So the issue started before the revision, output of the debugging patch is
following:
$ ./xgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90425
Bug ID: 90425
Summary: [GCOV] wrong coverage for complicated function call in
if expression when the abort() statement is in the
body of if statement
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90424
Bug ID: 90424
Summary: memcpy into vector builtin not optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> 6.22% 80774 wrf_r_peak.pgo
> __module_mp_wsm5_MOD_nislfv_rain_plm
> 5.50% 71494 wrf_r_peak.pgo __module_mp_wsm5_MOD_wsm52d
>
> vs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46337&action=edit
untested patch
So this is another patch adjusting PRE insertion to only iterate when necessary
(well, I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90423
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90370
--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > The issue is basically that the C++ Standard Library defines two categories
> > for error numbers known to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90423
Bug ID: 90423
Summary: Breakage with C++ and "-mlong-double-128"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90370
--- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The issue is basically that the C++ Standard Library defines two categories
> for error numbers known to the implementation: "generic" and "system", where
> th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #27)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #24)
> > > Created attachment 46335 [details]
> > > T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Though, I don't understand why that
> if (DEFAULT_ABI == ABI_DARWIN &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90414
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Malcomson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> (In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #0)
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm looking into how we can implement MTE in the compiler.
>
> What is MTE?
It's an arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #27 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #25)
> (In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #24)
> > Created attachment 46335 [details]
> > Testcase: Fortran coverage .gcda and .gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> OK, so the hashtable looks good. But
>
> 135 pre "insert iterations == 1084" 1
>
> is indeed excessive. Expecially combined with
>
> 135 pre "Insertions"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > Most likely similar problem to the one analyzed in PR59813, after all, it is
> > the same function. Previously, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #26 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46336
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46336&action=edit
Patch 2/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #24)
> Created attachment 46335 [details]
> Testcase: Fortran coverage .gcda and .gcno files
>
> Hi Martin
>
> here is coverage test data for one of the For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Most likely similar problem to the one analyzed in PR59813, after all, it is
> the same function. Previously, in that function there were no tail calls
> and most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90383
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 10 08:19:44 2019
New Revision: 271058
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271058&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90383
* tree-inline.h (struct copy_body_data): Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so the hashtable looks good. But
135 pre "insert iterations == 1084" 1
is indeed excessive. Expecially combined with
135 pre "Insertions" 3
I wonder if you can share the full -fdump-tree-pre-detai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90385
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 10 08:20:38 2019
New Revision: 271059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90385
* tree-parloops.c (try_create_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90093
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri May 10 07:59:42 2019
New Revision: 271057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
--- Comment #8 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > Line #5 is marked as not executed. I understand that this function might be
> > optimized as an inline function. However, since Line #7 and Line #8 is
> > marked a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90355
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri May 10 07:59:42 2019
New Revision: 271057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90352
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri May 10 07:59:42 2019
New Revision: 271057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90271
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 10 07:53:23 2019
New Revision: 271056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88709
PR tree-optimization/90271
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 10 07:53:23 2019
New Revision: 271056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88709
PR tree-optimization/90271
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #37 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #36)
> Different Ian, but I'm not sure which one -- ILT
I'm sure it was you - r148512. Of course the intent of that rev. was to
speed things up. I didn't check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90414
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #0)
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking into how we can implement MTE in the compiler.
What is MTE?
...
> 3) Would there be any obvious difficulties with a transformation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90387
--- Comment #4 from JunMa ---
LGTM
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
