https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91135
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91135
--- Comment #11 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Aug 1 05:57:12 2019
New Revision: 273962
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273962=gcc=rev
Log:
[RS6000] PR91135, __linux__ not defined with -mcall-aixdesc on 9.x and ppc64
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #22 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to Xiong Hu XS Luo from comment #21)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> > > > (In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91317
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Did you consider exceptions? a() could throw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #21 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #19)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > > > Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #20 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
> >
> > --- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42546
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91183
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch to handle the issue discussed in comment #6:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg0.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91315
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91294
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 46654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46654=edit
untested patch
It looks like update_scratch_ops creates a copy of the original scratch
register, but the new scratch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91317
Bug ID: 91317
Summary: [7/8/9/10 Regression] false-positive
maybe-uninitialized warning in destructor with
placement new
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91189
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
How did you conclude it's a target issue? Would you pinpoint where in the avr
backend the problem is?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91316
Bug ID: 91316
Summary: Derived type finalization failing
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:04:17PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This change appears to break FreeBSD as well. See
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-07/msg03699.html
>
Yep,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
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=91312
--- Comment #3 from Kostas Sotiropoulos ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> THis is not a bug, In C, "i += MACRO;" is equivant to:
> i = i + MACRO.
> And since you are using a type smaller than int, it is prompted to int.
>
> NOTE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51333
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] cxxabi.h |[7/8 Regression] cxxabi.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 31 19:56:08 2019
New Revision: 273947
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273947=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/91308 fix constraints on unique_ptr assignment
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51333
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 31 19:56:04 2019
New Revision: 273946
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273946=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/51333 Define recursive_init_error constructor non-inline
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91315
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91315
Bug ID: 91315
Summary: missing strlen lower bound of a string known to be at
least N characters
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91314
Bug ID: 91314
Summary: Confusing warning refers to nonexistent comma operator
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91264
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89746
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried this on a different power7 system and it worked OK there. The failing
system is running Fedora 28. The one that worked Red hat 6.10. Maybe it is
distro related? I will try a couple of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90538
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 31 18:50:00 2019
New Revision: 273944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273944=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/90538 - multiple expansions of capture packs
Previously, with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88233
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
Bug ID: 91313
Summary: [10 regression] r273908 breaks lto on power 7
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91050
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91050
--- Comment #15 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Wed Jul 31 17:18:40 2019
New Revision: 273941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273941=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/91050
* config/rs6000/rs6000.opt (mdejagnu-cpu=):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91312
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91312
--- Comment #1 from Kostas Sotiropoulos ---
Hi,
When compiling the following code snippet with gcc 8.3.0
with -Werror=conversion option:
#include
#define MACRO 1
int main(void)
{
unsigned char i;
i += MACRO;
return i;
}
the following
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91312
Bug ID: 91312
Summary: -Wconversion warning with += operator
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91169
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
The patch totally overlooks that the index can wrap around during the traversal
of the CONSTRUCTOR:
if (index_type)
index = wi::ext (index, TYPE_PRECISION (index_type),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87100
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-03-10 00:00:00 |2019-7-31
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > > Honza probably knows where we output the LTO symtab and why we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91311
--- Comment #1 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
Created attachment 46652
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46652=edit
rr record for the testcase, results in stack-use-after-scope
I'm also attaching the `rr` record for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.1.1
Target Milestone|9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91162
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 15:40:36 2019
New Revision: 273939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273939=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-07-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91145
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 15:40:36 2019
New Revision: 273939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273939=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-07-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91200
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 15:40:36 2019
New Revision: 273939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273939=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-07-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91126
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 15:40:36 2019
New Revision: 273939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273939=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-07-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91131
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 15:40:36 2019
New Revision: 273939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273939=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-07-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91311
Bug ID: 91311
Summary: __attribute__ ((aligned (128))) results in
stack-use-after-scope and stack-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91299
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > You want to look at the output of the linker resolution file (compile with
> > -v -save-temps and look for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91310
--- Comment #4 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 46651
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46651=edit
intermediate code for test case 2
You can see the central loop described in the original report from lines 18-25.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
The name to function is given here:
get_file_function_name
Breakpoint 1, get_file_function_name (type=0x7fffd670 "I_65535_0") at
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/tree.c:9809
9809 if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 31 14:38:26 2019
New Revision: 273937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273937=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/91308 fix constraints on unique_ptr assignment
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91310
--- Comment #3 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 46650
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46650=edit
intermediate code for test case 1
You can see the central condition described in the original report from lines
17-25,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[8/9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91280
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 14:38:21 2019
New Revision: 273936
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273936=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91280
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91192
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 regression] |[9 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91192
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 31 14:32:24 2019
New Revision: 273935
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273935=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/91192
* c-parser.c (c_parser_sizeof_expression): Call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91310
--- Comment #2 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 46649
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46649=edit
test case 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91310
--- Comment #1 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 46648
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46648=edit
test case 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91310
Bug ID: 91310
Summary: Read overflow generated by character array assignment
to self
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91293
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 14:15:37 2019
New Revision: 273934
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273934=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91293
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed:
$ marxin@marxinbox:/tmp> gcc -flto pr91307-*.c -o a.out && objdump -S a.out |
grep GLOBAL
00401109 <_GLOBAL__I_65535_0_ccIH3dv1.o.4348>:
marxin@marxinbox:/tmp> gcc -flto pr91307-*.c -o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91293
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[8/9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91309
Bug ID: 91309
Summary: Fails to compile when initializing template argument
with immediately-invoked lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
A simple two-file testcase like
static void init(void) __attribute__((constructor));
static void init()
{
static volatile int i = 0;
}
int main() { return 0; }
static void init2(void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91303
--- Comment #3 from Joel Sherrill ---
Pursuing the assumption that the e500 files shouldn't be build, I decided to
remove them from the t-savresfgpr files. With this patch, powerpc-rtems5 builds
again:
diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #3 from Bernhard M. Wiedemann ---
It seems to be triggered by nvme-cli/cmd_handler.h
#define PLUGIN(name, cmds) \
static struct plugin plugin = { \
name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> Honza probably knows where we output the LTO symtab and why we do not put
> undefs for builtins there.
#include
double y, z;
void foo ();
int main()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
>
> Bill Schmidt changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 31 13:49:26 2019
New Revision: 273932
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273932=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91201
* config/i386/mmx.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91303
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill ---
I admit to being completely confused by the multitude of PwerPC variants but if
the e500 was deleted, why does libgcc/config.host still include
libgcc/config/rs6000/t-savresfgpr for multiple powerpc targets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 8.3.0, 9.1.0
--- Comment #13 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com wrote:
>
> OK, so -mveclibabi=mass isn't needed to reproduce the issue, nor is
> linking -lmassv or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
>
> --- Comment #10 from wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com ---
> On 7/31/19 2:25 AM,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #10 from wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com ---
On 7/31/19 2:25 AM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
>
> --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, luoxhu at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91304
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308
Bug ID: 91308
Summary: [7/8/9/10 Regression] unique_ptr assignment fails with
different deleters
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91293
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Equivalent testcase that doesn't run into the operator swapping and thus works:
long long a;
unsigned b, c;
int d = 62;
void e(long long *f, int p2) { *f = p2; }
int xx = 5, yy = 4;
int main()
{
for (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
--- Comment #1 from Simon Schricker ---
We also tried building with -pipe, but the observed behavior didn't change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69678
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91307
Bug ID: 91307
Summary: -flto causes binary to vary
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289
--- Comment #2 from Philipp Spilger ---
Only reverting the "elf_low" insn changes of this commit leads to no encounter
of the problem, i.e. the following diff "resolves" the problem on
gcc-9_1_0-release.
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289
Eric Müller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mueller at kip dot
uni-heidelberg.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91300
--- Comment #2 from zed.three at gmail dot com ---
Forgive me, but what is stupid here? The perceived wisdom is that it is best
practice to always use `stat` with `allocate`, and the addition of `errmsg` now
gives us something portable to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91306
Bug ID: 91306
Summary: [MSP430] libgcc/crtstuff.c: Alignment of frame_dummy
.init_array entry is too big
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 31 09:46:18 2019
New Revision: 273928
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273928=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-07-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91178
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91257
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.5 |---
Summary|[7/8/9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90579
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90579
>
> --- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
> Transform second loop as
>
> diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91305
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #1 from Lauri Kasanen ---
clang 7.0.0 outputs the expected values, aka the gcc -O0 ones, at all
optimization levels. (it calls the builtin __builtin_altivec_crypto_vpmsumd,
but no other changes)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90579
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
Transform second loop as
diff --git a/loop.c b/loop.c
index feea9ea..81a3ea6 100644
--- a/loop.c
+++ b/loop.c
@@ -9,6 +9,6 @@ loop (int k, double x)
for (i=0;i<6;i++)
r[i] = x * a[i + k];
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91305
Bug ID: 91305
Summary: ICF compile-time issues
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee:
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
