https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92652
Bug ID: 92652
Summary: function call to lambda expression that return true
does not satisfy the constraint in requires-clause
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651
Bug ID: 92651
Summary: [10 Regression] Unnecessary stv transform in some x86
backend
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92650
--- Comment #1 from Luke Dalessandro ---
x86-64 gcc (trunk) - cached
#1 with x86-64 gcc (trunk)
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/libs/rangesv3/trunk/include/range/v3/action/action.hpp:19,
from
/opt/compiler-explorer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92650
Bug ID: 92650
Summary: internal compiler error: canonical types differ for
identical types
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
Bug ID: 92649
Summary: dead store elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Nov 25 02:24:55 2019
New Revision: 278664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-24 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/92100
gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92648
Bug ID: 92648
Summary: Handling of unknown attributes
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92499
--- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 47348
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47348&action=edit
mips output for improved test case, -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92499
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 47347
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47347&action=edit
nios2 output for improved test case, -O2 -mgpopt=global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92499
--- Comment #6 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 47346
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47346&action=edit
improved test case with global/external cases as well as local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92499
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Richard Sandiford complained that my patch to not put objects containing
flexible arrays in small data was an ABI change for references across
compilation units, so I've been taking another look at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Nov 24 22:14:59 2019
New Revision: 278660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278660&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-24 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/92100
io/trans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92445
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Did anybody look into this one here? At the moment, I cannot build gcc on
MACOSX Catalina.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92586
--- Comment #2 from epagone ---
I managed to produce a test case that does not require any external library
(much easier to test). Please find it attached in my previous comment.
I was able then to test it easily with all the versions of gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92586
epagone changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47303|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|8.4
Summary|[8/9/10 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Nov 24 19:16:23 2019
New Revision: 278659
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278659&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix EOF handling for arrays.
2019-11-23 Thomas Koenig
Haral
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
Ariel Torti changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 06:07:20PM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92644
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For pointers, it boils down whether say
void *
foo (void *p)
{
return p ? p : (void *) 1;
}
optimization into MAX_EXPR <1B, p> is valid or not. The original code doesn't
involve any non-equality comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91800
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91783
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 03:59:41AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
>
> --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> % gdb831 ./z
> (gdb) run
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92644
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92647
Bug ID: 92647
Summary: Internal enum may conflict with the time() function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42118
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33097
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #22 from Thomas Koen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24878
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-01-05 00:00:00 |2019-11-24
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Ko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92646
Bug ID: 92646
Summary: Compilation fails on armv7l with sys/cdefs.h: No such
file or directory
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 47343
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47343&action=edit
GCC 10 output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 47341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47341&action=edit
clang output with -O2 -mavx2 -mf16c -mfma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 47342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47342&action=edit
GCC source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 47340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47340&action=edit
Clang source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
Bug ID: 92645
Summary: Hand written vector code is 450 times slower when
compiled with GCC compared to Clang
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
It also fails on aarch64-*-linux, both ILP32 and LP64.
38 matches
Mail list logo
