https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93504
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93502
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Another question would be whether it's easy for the programmer to direct
std::regex_match to use the heap?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The reason why I say that is because the shiffter/rotater can be the full 64bit
value or a smaller value. For PowerPC, it is the full 64bit value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this code is undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93496
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93304
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:afb84a42ad867c117d0112fbb8edd863bdc0dafe
commit r9-8191-gafb84a42ad867c117d0112fbb8edd863bdc0dafe
Author: Kito Cheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92243
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #2 from Richard
322-g6693911f069-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-powerpc64le
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.1 20200129 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602
--- Comment #11 from Jim Wilson ---
Since Marxin pinged this and got me thinking about this again, I realized that
there is a simpler fix based on Serge's second suggestion. We can just delete
the gas version number from the uleb128 gas check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91663
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84680
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84757
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85175
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 71965, which changed state.
Bug 71965 Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] [concepts] Substitution error *after*
failure to satisfy an earlier constraint
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71965
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71965
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90333
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d9679132e0e9b0108e78bf1bc8fdea6238649a3
commit r9-8190-g9d9679132e0e9b0108e78bf1bc8fdea6238649a3
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93504
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note this does not block bit-field lowering because store merging did
not optimize it this way either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93468
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93468
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66af5a226acd0edfbafcbcac76ed268cee0612ed
commit r10-6340-g66af5a226acd0edfbafcbcac76ed268cee0612ed
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93468
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68f3759eff5ee498b52490213650b42b1ad89f16
commit r10-6339-g68f3759eff5ee498b52490213650b42b1ad89f16
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3b6c052b6a0569aa8f89c50db1ac376c42e41e0
commit r10-6338-ge3b6c052b6a0569aa8f89c50db1ac376c42e41e0
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93504
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
OP can be ^ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93504
Bug ID: 93504
Summary: Missed reassociation with constants and not of that
constant with IORs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59da7f96ffc489f4aea649f12ac80c384bad736c
commit r10-6336-g59da7f96ffc489f4aea649f12ac80c384bad736c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93468
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
You've given me less than 48 hours before asking why this takes such a long
time. I am extremely busy. Please be patient. I will get to this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93503
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60503
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
commit r10-6335-g245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89640
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
commit r10-6335-g245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90333
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
commit r10-6335-g245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87489
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |11.0
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93503
Bug ID: 93503
Summary: Duplicated warning on pure virtual implicit template
in C++2a
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
And thanks for the gcov-analysis improvemnets. It is quite handy tool now :)
and it is interesting to know where the many-target calls are. Clearly there is
not much to win on walk_tree, but I guess it all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:165255c7a562e04e3be89eb1c87b4ac3c5248d77
commit r10-6334-g165255c7a562e04e3be89eb1c87b4ac3c5248d77
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93502
--- Comment #2 from Nadav Har'El ---
Maybe you mean it is a dup of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86164 ?
But I'm not sure. I honestly don't understand the conclusion there that ".*" is
implemented recursively. Why would such a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
Seems that the multi-target speculation fallout is now fixed and also indirect
call profiling works similarly as to gcc9 now if the reproducibility logic is
disabled.
I re-benchmarked Firefox. Reproducible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93502
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is a dup of an existing bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93502
Bug ID: 93502
Summary: std::regex_match uses stack space proportional to
input string
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87765
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
A short test by Daniel Kirchner:
struct X { int s(); };
template using Y = void;
template static constexpr void t(X x) { Y v; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87765
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel at ekpyron dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92432
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91243
--- Comment #5 from TC ---
I don't think we should use decltype's special rule in this context :)
Also, std::is_nothrow_invocable_v hard-errors in libstdc++, because the
noexcept operator doesn't have that rule...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92650
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93313
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88092
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88092
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:11ffae58473472766960b2f6c59108e331a9eba7
commit r10-6333-g11ffae58473472766960b2f6c59108e331a9eba7
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93501
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Benson ---
This should be fixed by the patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103#c7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Benson ---
Created attachment 47735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47735=edit
updated patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90788
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Benson ---
Ignore previous comment - wrong PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90788
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Benson ---
Created attachment 47734
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47734=edit
updated patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Benson ---
The patch from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-09/msg00044.html still
applies cleanly to trunk (with some line offsets) and regression tests cleanly
as of today. I'll attached a new version of the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88092
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91903
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Well, we should give you a better error message instead of an ICE. But the ABI
definition of the second argument as "const int" indicates it needs to be an
actual constant in the range 0..31.
So You're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93501
Bug ID: 93501
Summary: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/pr93473.f90 ICEs starting
with r10-6294
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89565
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boris.rura at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90335
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93494
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> With a slightly modified testcase:
> unsigned short a;
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> register unsigned long long y = 0;
> int x = __builtin_add_overflow (y,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 regression] false |[8/9 regression] false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0de349f108d963219bd59aa374a68c15355236be
commit r10-6332-g0de349f108d963219bd59aa374a68c15355236be
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Jan 29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91803
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #64 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2812a28418b72b24979805cfca1f140dda4963b7
commit r10-6331-g2812a28418b72b24979805cfca1f140dda4963b7
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91754
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3b60da8e07030b1417067295f047b25015f21f2
commit r10-6330-ge3b60da8e07030b1417067295f047b25015f21f2
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92948
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed on trunk so far, will backport to 9 sometime soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92948
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:423284053ec51832bc4c823fb90dc41e632e37ac
commit r10-6329-g423284053ec51832bc4c823fb90dc41e632e37ac
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93500
Bug ID: 93500
Summary: ICE in gfc_numeric_ts, at fortran/expr.c:891
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93499
Bug ID: 93499
Summary: ICE in gfc_zero_size_array, at fortran/arith.c:1686
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92003
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93498
Bug ID: 93498
Summary: ICE in gfc_resolve_findloc, at fortran/iresolve.c:1844
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93497
Bug ID: 93497
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_constructor_expr, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:7594
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93498
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92171
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Not working on this now, needs to wait till GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92171
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The constexpr evaluator doesn't see the "ref." part at all: VALUE is a static
data member, so build_class_member_access_expr produces "value":
(gdb) pt result
unit-size
align:8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93496
Bug ID: 93496
Summary: Miscompile of range-for over braced-init-list in
constructor of class with virtual inheritance
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92895
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92895
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a8f4febf75e9e44f847b65776d7f5f38940b3bf
commit r10-6328-g0a8f4febf75e9e44f847b65776d7f5f38940b3bf
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91489
--- Comment #3 from Paul Gofman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> @Paul: Can you please send the patch to GCC patches mailing list?
I think I found later that unfortunately this patch is not quite correct: the
stack was still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93491
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Const functions by definition dont trap or throw. So adding const to a
> function that traps makes the testcase undefined.
It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
-
gcc x86-64 version: gcc (GCC) 10.0.1 20200129 (experimental)
--
Again, this doesn't mean that gcc have to support such use cases.
> Do you have a testcase were gcc does this optimize without the user addin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91762
--- Comment #4 from Edoardo Apra ---
@Jakub Thanks for the update.
Please keep in mind that this bug shows up only when OpenMP target directives
are used in subroutines are called by the main program.
I have just upload a new test that tests the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91762
--- Comment #3 from Edoardo Apra ---
Created attachment 47732
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47732=edit
Fortran code to test the OpenMP directive target exit data map(release) without
subroutines
Same test as previous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91629
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The observation about GCC_EXEC_PREFIX is correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93495
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Yes, I confirmed the same issue for GNU ld and as, but didn't report that yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93495
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93468
--- Comment #3 from Svante Signell ---
ping!
These patches are very minor. What takes so long time? They were reported for
gcc-10, I did not find any entry for gcc-snapshot. Is gcc-10 released and
stable, compared to gcc-snapshot, i.e. current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91938
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91848
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93490
Cristian Morales Vega changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93490
--- Comment #7 from Cristian Morales Vega ---
Oh, it isn't a bug because it's returning a reference and even if the value of
member_ changes the reference (i.e. pointer) will always be the same?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93490
--- Comment #6 from Cristian Morales Vega ---
Yes,
--
struct Class1 {
int member_;
};
int (Class1 *a) { return a->member_; }
--
also generates the warning.
This is a bug, right? I'm basing this issue on
1 - 100 of 320 matches
Mail list logo
