https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91228
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91228
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91169
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
可提供各种发票幵 1 36,922 275 95张【 有 】↓【3%-13%】【 増 】各【 发 】【 稙 】种【 票 】【 税 】真【 幵 】
如果你不想再收到该产品的 推荐邮件, 请点击这里退订
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #79 from C. Heide ---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #75)
>
> I think a local patch might be doing this. Rebuild without it.
I did have some other patches applied from other PRs, from previous desperate
attempts to get a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #18 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> I have a patch series to fix this - but it's not really appropriate this
> late in stage 4. So plan is to fix in early 10 stage 1 and back port.
It's early 10 s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23610
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It's inherent in the transformation you're making. You're introducing loads on
paths where they didn't exist before.
Depending on the exact circumstances you may trigger an uninit warning. It's
worth noth
movl%esi, -8(%rsp,%rdi,4)
movl-4(%rsp), %eax
addl-8(%rsp), %eax
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size test, .-test
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 10.0.0 20190722 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224
--- Comment #27 from Lewis Hyatt ---
Created attachment 46620
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46620&action=edit
second attempt at posting the patch
Sorry, the previous patch I sent doesn't seem to show correctly in Bugzilla.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91230
Bug ID: 91230
Summary: Template function containing lambda expression that
has auto parameter and uses __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ does
not compile
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #78 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #77)
>
> I think you need to define _XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED. See for example
> config/pa/pa-hpux11.h.
Yep. I forgot about PR66319.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gmail dot com
--- Comment #26 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80545
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg01457.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The issue here (of course) is that aarch64 has a different set of defaults for
when to open-code vs loop vs function call. My attempts to pick a better size
for the objects results in failures on other ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #77 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-07-22 4:47 p.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> Getting further. Now erroring out with:
> /opt/build/china/gcc-8.3.0/.obj/./prev-gcc/xg++
> -B/opt/build/china/gcc-8.3.0/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91229
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 46617
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46617&action=edit
proposed patch to change ABI and warn for affected structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #76 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #75)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #74)
> >
> > I'm getting further in the build on HP-UX 11.31/IA but when linking
> > libstdc++.la, I get lots
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91229
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91229
Bug ID: 91229
Summary: RISC-V ABI problem with zero-length bit-fields and
float struct fields
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91228
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: *-*-solaris2.*
Between 20190720 (r273633) and 20190722 (r273698
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87808
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, I meant &&. And yes, folding it either way is strictly valid in both C,
where the result of the relational expression is undefined, and C++ where it's
unspecified. But besides being inconsistent with th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
> if (p >= a || p <= a + 3)
I think you mean &&.
I believe we could fold it to true or false as we wish: false because the
preexisting pointer cannot point to a local object, true because you are only
allowe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227
Bug ID: 91227
Summary: pointer relational expression not folded but
equivalent inequality is
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91223
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91203
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91223
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91218
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91226
Bug ID: 91226
Summary: wrong propagation of non-canonical _Decimal64 constant
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is/was documented as a way to get rid of uninitialized warnings. So if
this changes, please change the documentation too. Also -Wself-init should
cause the initialized warnings to come back. Note I imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91225
Bug ID: 91225
Summary: Warning should be produced for a variable initialized
by itself at the declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91224
Bug ID: 91224
Summary: -Wsequence-point claims a defined value is undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91223
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
slightly reduced
$ cat y.i
int a, g;
int *b, *f, *h;
void *memcpy(void *, const void *, unsigned long);
typedef struct {
int b;
} * c;
int d(void);
c e;
int d() {
char c[16];
bd:
for (a = 0; a <=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91223
Bug ID: 91223
Summary: [10 regression] ICE: in curr_insn_transform, at
lra-constraints.c:4459
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #75 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #74)
> (In reply to C. Heide from comment #73)
> > With that change, and some other cajoling (the previously mentioned
> > duplicate symbols and operand64 probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 22 11:18:55 2019
New Revision: 273667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273667&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91221
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #74 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to C. Heide from comment #73)
> With that change, and some other cajoling (the previously mentioned
> duplicate symbols and operand64 problem, and -O1 to work around the ICE), I
> can now get g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
Bug ID: 91222
Summary: [10 Regression] 507.cactuBSSN_r build fails in
warn_types_mismatch at ipa-devirt.c:1006 since r273571
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 22 09:38:26 2019
New Revision: 273666
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273666&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r273660
2019-07-22 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 22 09:38:01 2019
New Revision: 273665
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273665&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r273660
2019-07-22 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 22 09:37:18 2019
New Revision: 273664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r273660
2019-07-22 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84579
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, I've just installed the patch as r273662.
The tests in binutils are now invalid as they grep for the symbol:
$ cat ld/testsuite/ld-plugin/lto-3r.d
#ld: -r tmpdir/lto-3b.o
#source: dummy.s
#nm: -p
#...
[0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91203
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
One another test-case:
$ cat ice.f
parameternumlev=3,numoblev=1000
integer i_otyp(numoblev,numlev)
logical l_numob(numoblev,numlev)
do ixe=1,numoblev
do iye=1,numlev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91221
Bug ID: 91221
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in get_int_cst_ext_nunits, at
tree.c:1299 since r273548
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Known to fail|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 22 07:34:10 2019
New Revision: 273660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273660&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make a warning for -Werror=wrong-language (PR driver/91172).
2019-07-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the switch statement could be optimized better. There is a loop pass
which already handles if statements for the splitting one loop into two. Maybe
it could do the same for switch statements.
Or the
63 matches
Mail list logo