https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #20 from Marc Glisse ---
I created bug 90436 about the excessive checking so it does not distract from
the warning that this bug is about (and doesn't get lost either).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90436
Bug ID: 90436
Summary: Redundant size checking in vector
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to lavr from comment #2)
> > Okay, but "d" points to a clearly separate storage on stack within a local
> > frame. None of the pointers passed to (s)pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63793
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #21 from Eric Gallage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90435
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to 庞庆源 from comment #2)
> gcc pmalloc.c -O2 -o ppp -ldl -fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns
> -fno-strict-aliasing
> Still not work.
-fno-builtin (the malloc+memset -> calloc is not part of loop dist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61048
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90435
--- Comment #2 from 庞庆源 ---
gcc pmalloc.c -O2 -o ppp -ldl -fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns
-fno-strict-aliasing
Still not work.
Why I don't see stack overflow if this will trigger function loop calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90435
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Your implementation of calloc will be calling itself due to the optimization of
malloc followed by memset into calloc.
You need to use -fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns for that case since your
implementat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90435
Bug ID: 90435
Summary: gcc generate infinite loop code when using -O2 or -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #9)
> Changing
>
> /* Extra stack adjustment for exception handler return. */
> if (crtl->calls_eh_return)
> emit_insn (gen_addsi3 (stack_pointer_rtx, stack_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn ---
Changing
/* Extra stack adjustment for exception handler return. */
if (crtl->calls_eh_return)
emit_insn (gen_addsi3 (stack_pointer_rtx, stack_pointer_rtx,
EH_RETURN_STAC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
--version
gcc (GCC) 8.3.1 20190511
...
$ PATH=/local/bin/gcc-9.x/bin:$PATH gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 9.1.1 20190511
The 8.x version works correctly, while the 9.x version results in incorrect
code generation, which leads to a crash when executed. Both versions work fine
when LTO is not in use.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sat May 11 20:19:31 2019
New Revision: 271098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271098&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fixincludes - fix PR90379
One should not provide test_text for wrap style
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #95 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sat May 11 20:19:31 2019
New Revision: 271098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271098&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fixincludes - fix PR90379
One should not provide test_text for wrap style
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
fiesh at zefix dot tv changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90426
--- Comment #5 from Mateusz Pusz ---
(In reply to Mateusz Pusz from comment #3)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> > This compiles if I use {} instead of ():
> >
> > struct gram : unit {};
>
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It also fails all over on powerpc-linux. Pretty much all targets just
do something like
/* Extra stack adjustment for exception handler return. */
if (crtl->calls_eh_return)
emit_insn (gen_add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90426
--- Comment #4 from Mateusz Pusz ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> This compiles if I use {} instead of ():
>
> struct gram : unit {};
I know that it compiles fine in the following cases:
struct gram : unit {};
struct gram : uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90426
--- Comment #3 from Mateusz Pusz ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> This compiles if I use {} instead of ():
>
> struct gram : unit {};
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> I think this is invalid. [temp.arg]p2:
> "In a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
>
> Stage 1 has opened again.
And therefore I have submitted a cleaned-up version for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg00472.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
I had started by doing that but gave up when I noticed that there are lots of
them, some like this:
if (TREE_CODE (expr) == REALPART_EXPR
|| TREE_CODE (expr) == IMAGPART_EXPR
|| TREE_CODE (expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81058
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sat May 11 15:05:58 2019
New Revision: 271097
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271097&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
testsuite, darwin] Fix PR81058.
The tests fail because Darwin indirects com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to marc from comment #9)
> The patch does no longer apply to current gcc-9-branch, which, however,
> still has the problem. The_Atomic stuff is easy to spot, though, and I can
> confirm this fixes it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
marc at kdab dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc at kdab dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61968
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90433
Bug ID: 90433
Summary: POINTER_DIFF_EXPR in vectorizer prologue
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81266
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81266
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat May 11 11:38:51 2019
New Revision: 271095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271095&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=81266
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat May 11 11:35:59 2019
New Revision: 271094
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271094&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=81266
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat May 11 09:33:22 2019
New Revision: 271093
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271093&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59813
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_expand_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90430
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90355
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90352
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81266
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90093
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90352
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat May 11 07:49:52 2019
New Revision: 271090
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271090&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* gfortran.dg/IS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90093
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat May 11 07:49:52 2019
New Revision: 271090
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271090&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* gfortran.dg/IS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90355
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat May 11 07:49:52 2019
New Revision: 271090
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271090&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* gfortran.dg/IS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90352
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat May 11 07:47:32 2019
New Revision: 271089
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271089&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90355
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat May 11 07:47:32 2019
New Revision: 271089
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271089&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90093
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat May 11 07:47:32 2019
New Revision: 271089
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271089&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90430
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also I have just looked into the Fortran 2018 standard, and I don't think the
situation has changed there:
R1518 initial-proc-target is procedure-name
C1519 (R1518) The procedure-name shall be th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90430
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the test case is actually invalid (at least wrt Fortran 2008), see PR
85537 comment 18 (and 20).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90326
Alex Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On May 10, 2019 10:34:03 PM GMT+02:00, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
>
>Martin Sebor changed:
>
> What|Removed
47 matches
Mail list logo
