https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93781
--- Comment #2 from vfdff ---
For more test, I find the following case2 can get the expect result, while the
case1 can't.
== [case1] ==
unsigned int foo (unsigned int arg)
{
unsigned int C03FE = 4;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94059
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #2)
> Also note I bootstrap m68k regularly, last build was:
>
> 8e6d0dba166324f4b257329bd4b4ddc2b4522359
>
> Without more relevant data, there's nothing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #36 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
The m68k bootstrap also recently got broken (PR/94059). Currently testing
whether this is also a result of this change
(r10-6919-gf3ce088645e5305d932380c7520809181b2d2eb9).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94084
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to vfdff from comment #2)
> thanks very much, you are right.
The same problem is here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94084
--- Comment #2 from vfdff ---
thanks very much, you are right.
I try the case2 with global pointer and it get similar result with case1.
extern int base;
extern int *dest, *src;
void foo (int n)
{
int i;
// #pragma no_swp
for (i=0; i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94085
Bug ID: 94085
Summary: pdp11-aout puts initial variable into .text section
rather than .data
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #35 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #15)
> Started with r10-6919-gf3ce088645e5305d932380c7520809181b2d2eb9.
This change goes against what HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER is documented on doing (I
Mean the false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94084
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94080
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91139
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Richard G. ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
>
> So is the issue fixed or not?
Not fixed as of 9.2.0, I'm afraid:
[...]
if [ xinfo = xinfo ]; then \
makeinfo --split-size=500
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94084
Bug ID: 94084
Summary: Optimizer produces suboptimal code related to
loop-invariant
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Bug ID: 94083
Summary: inefficient soft-float x!=Inf code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #5 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
Created attachment 47994
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47994=edit
reduced testcase
I have reduced it a bit further.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94082
Bug ID: 94082
Summary: __builtin_memcpy in constexpr context should compile
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|kargl at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #44 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #34 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, 16 (or really 12-ish, not all are available) I call "tiny" :-)
It is very surprising (and not pleasantly so) that this overrides
REG_ALLOC_ORDER. We allocate GPR0 last (of the volatile GPRs),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94081
Bug ID: 94081
Summary: -Waddress-of-packed-member doesn’t take variable
attributes or __builtin_assume_aligned into account
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94074
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
And this should be diagnosed but isn't:
struct X {
int i;
};
template
struct S {
const X x;
constexpr S(int) : x{}
{
const_cast(x).i = 19; // { dg-error "modifying a const object" }
}
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94080
Bug ID: 94080
Summary: -mabi=ieeelongdouble and -mfloat128 cause libstc++
header breakage
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #33 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #32)
> So it sounds like this helps for targets with tiny register sets?
I guess it helps for any target but of course more for ones with smaller
register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, the testcase is missing "using std::filesystem::path;"
There's a similar problem for Cygwin with path("/") += "/"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #32 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So it sounds like this helps for targets with tiny register sets?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #31 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #30)
> r10-6919 isn't good for Power, btw. Why would it *ever* be a good idea?
This heuristic avoid creating small gaps in hard reg file which prevent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #15 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #14)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> > Sorry, I have no good knowledge of decompose_address. The original author
> > is Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #30 from Segher Boessenkool ---
r10-6919 isn't good for Power, btw. Why would it *ever* be a good idea?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94079
Bug ID: 94079
Summary: gfortran.dg/vect/pr83232.f90 fails on power 7
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94027
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:191bcd0f30dd37dec773efb0125afdcae9bd90ef
commit r10-7074-g191bcd0f30dd37dec773efb0125afdcae9bd90ef
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94027
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91598
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b8393221177617f19e7c5c5c692b8c59f85fffb
commit r10-7073-g0b8393221177617f19e7c5c5c692b8c59f85fffb
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94027
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93827
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=94033
--- Comment #4 from Avi Kivity ---
Type in build instructions, should be
g++ -std=gnu++17 -c database.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #3 from Avi Kivity ---
Created attachment 47993
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47993=edit
reduced test case
Reduced test case, build with g++ -std=gnu++17 -c database
works on gcc 9.2.1, fails on gcc 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94078
Bug ID: 94078
Summary: bogus and missing -Wmismatched-tags on an instance of
a template
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94076
--- Comment #2 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I'm not at the point of the bootstrap where I can attempt building llvm, but I
opened another report at https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45138 anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91638
--- Comment #6 from Carl Love ---
Yea, I like that a bit better. It is a bit shorter, mine was a bit verbose.
I updated the patch to print:
-mlong-double- Use -mlong-double-64 for 64-bit IEEE floating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94077
Bug ID: 94077
Summary: gcc.dg/gomp/pr82374.c fails on power 7
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94076
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94065
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Edelsohn :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3dcf51ad7b0a9cacba1a056755c16cc1cf7984ee
commit r10-7070-g3dcf51ad7b0a9cacba1a056755c16cc1cf7984ee
Author: David Edelsohn
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94076
Bug ID: 94076
Summary: libsanitizer fails with 64-bit time_t
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93827
--- Comment #2 from dan hayes ---
u say "unlike C only occurs once..." Yea so what I know that and it's not
consistently doing that. This is not a recursive routine. What is your point?
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020, 10:36:43 AM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92792
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93996
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6ce69cae5059dfd715edd4e26653c23baf4cb0f
commit r10-7069-ge6ce69cae5059dfd715edd4e26653c23baf4cb0f
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93996
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94075
Bug ID: 94075
Summary: When using linker-generated list, bad optimization
performed in -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94074
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94074
Bug ID: 94074
Summary: bogus modifying a const object error with const
COMPONENT_REF
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92379
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94073
Bug ID: 94073
Summary: ibm-ldouble-format: the given maximum value of the IBM
long double format is incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
nknown-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r10-7065-20200306122437-g4cdcb2c92a1-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-aarch64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.1 20200306 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94059
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93978
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d082cd90131a9c0ce3142217e84194a5bf0de27
commit r10-7066-g6d082cd90131a9c0ce3142217e84194a5bf0de27
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94038
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d082cd90131a9c0ce3142217e84194a5bf0de27
commit r10-7066-g6d082cd90131a9c0ce3142217e84194a5bf0de27
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94068
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94057
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94071
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47990
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47990=edit
Attempt to self-contained test-case
There's a PRE that needs to be triggered for error_mark_node and I was unable
to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:39bdebf3725d7681e5e9ba06e3862f8facef3572
commit r9-8353-g39bdebf3725d7681e5e9ba06e3862f8facef3572
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88086
Gábor Buella changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gbuella at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94071
Bug ID: 94071
Summary: Missed optimization with endian and alignment
independent memory access
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
José's PR (which came earlier then mine, hmm) has also an extensive test case
in
attachment 47960 for assumed-size arrays.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
*** Bug 94020 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94020
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> Testing shows that assumed-rank arrays are mishandled in several ways
Additionally, with assumed-size arrays passed to assumed-rank dummies:
both size(x) and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 47988
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47988=edit
… with assumed_rank_19.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
Bug ID: 94070
Summary: Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled,
SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed in commit r10-7064-gb0815713a32c5cc062bd41fa75dac4d4408215fb but I put
the wrong PR number in the commit log.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4cdcb2c92a128d2a30a6110084b7ab2f9995c683
commit r10-7065-g4cdcb2c92a128d2a30a6110084b7ab2f9995c683
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Doh, copy error from the previous commit.
That belongs to PR 94069.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
--- Comment #8 from Orgad Shaneh ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #7)
> The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b0815713a32c5cc062bd41fa75dac4d4408215fb
>
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94068
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase with -std=c++17 or -std=c++2a:
enum class A { A1, A2 };
A foo ();
long foo (int);
template
void
bar ()
{
const auto c{foo ()};
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] |[9 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b0815713a32c5cc062bd41fa75dac4d4408215fb
commit r10-7064-gb0815713a32c5cc062bd41fa75dac4d4408215fb
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94068
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This causes a bootstrap failure on darwin8 for gcc-9 and master.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94069
Bug ID: 94069
Summary: [9/10 Regression] doesn't compile
unless PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER is defined
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:180eeeaeb200a07f7f24e1f203cd026880ff861c
commit r10-7062-g180eeeaeb200a07f7f24e1f203cd026880ff861c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:180eeeaeb200a07f7f24e1f203cd026880ff861c
commit r10-7062-g180eeeaeb200a07f7f24e1f203cd026880ff861c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94068
Bug ID: 94068
Summary: Internal compiler error when trying to resolve
function overload
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94067
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47986
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47986=edit
gcc10-pr94067.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #27 from Martin Liška ---
@Segher: Any of -fno-shrink-wrap-separate, -fno-shrink-wrap removes the
problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #26 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47985
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47985=edit
RTL dump files for the function - good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47984
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47984=edit
RTL dump files for the function - bad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94067
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94067
Bug ID: 94067
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE on rotate with -Wconversion since
r10-6527
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #23)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> > The return value of the first _Z11tsubst_exprP9tree_nodeS0_iS0_b.part.0 was
> > being copied into r8 and then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> The return value of the first _Z11tsubst_exprP9tree_nodeS0_iS0_b.part.0 was
> being copied into r8 and then copied back into r3 (return value), but not r0
> is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #22 from Martin Liška ---
>
> good code stores:
> 0x104c9124 <._Z19tsubst_template_argP9tree_nodeS0_iS0_+100> std
> r0,144(r1)
> (gdb) p /x $r0
> $38 = 0x104c9294
>
> but the wrong one into a different memory address:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94035
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94035
>
> --- Comment #5 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
> I see. But the problem with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> The return value of the first _Z11tsubst_exprP9tree_nodeS0_iS0_b.part.0 was
> being copied into r8 and then copied back into r3 (return value), but not r0
> is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94066
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
clang++ diagnostics is
assignment to member 'y' of union with active member 'a' is not allowed in a
constant expression
Note, in C++17 things are clear and we shouldn't reject all changes of union
active
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
The return value of the first _Z11tsubst_exprP9tree_nodeS0_iS0_b.part.0 was
being copied into r8 and then copied back into r3 (return value), but not r0 is
used and that r0 is used for mtlr (moving back the
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
