https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94569
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #3 from Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61837
--- Comment #7 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> But -funswitch-loops is much stronger than we want here, and the wrong
> thing to use at -O2 (it often generates *slower* code!)
Not sure your me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94573
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94579
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|---
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94583
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Not all targets have a C99 math runtime. libgfortran configury tests for a
load
of C99 functions:
# Check for C99 (and other IEEE) math functions
GCC_CHECK_MATH_FUNC([acosf])
GCC_CHECK_MATH_FUNC([acos])
GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61837
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
-funswitch-loops changes things like
for (...) {
if (...)
...1;
else
...2;
}
into
if (...) {
for (...)
...1;
} else {
for (...)
...2;
}
which often i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94569
--- Comment #4 from Richard Smith ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> But isn't the alignas(32) also "appertaining to that entity"?
No. The alignas(32) appertains to the struct. This is specified in [class]/2:
"The optional attrib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 07:23:32AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
>
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> Not all targets have a C99 math ru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61837
--- Comment #9 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> -funswitch-loops changes things like
>
> for (...) {
> if (...)
> ...1;
> else
> ...2;
> }
>
> into
>
> if (...) {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94571
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94573
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94573
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> In particular, fixed with r10-3575-g629387a6586a753166f5cf53d587026a34362523
> I thought that commit was about store merging with non-call-expceptions, but
> apparently it affects more.
Possibly the adjust
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94590
Bug ID: 94590
Summary: Incorrectly accepts invalid C++11 braced
initialisation of double from long double if
sizeof(long double)==sizeof(double)
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94587
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 94495, which changed state.
Bug 94495 Summary: [10 Regression] Debug info size growth since
r10-7515-g2c0fa3ecf70d199a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94576
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #4)
> The master branch has been updated by Andrea Corallo :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af19e4d0e23e5f61fc15e44a58bfa3b047854b1e
>
> commit r10-7651-gaf19e4d0e23e5f61fc15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530
--- Comment #6 from akrl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
yeah I noticed that too while testing the backport.
This should solve the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543816.html
Thanks
Andrea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94581
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92856
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's a different bug, so thanks for filing it separately (PR 94590).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94590
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
ession algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.1 20200414 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94573
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Means we should add the testcase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61837
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Note the unswitching pass has special code to hoist guards of inner loops
steming from loop header copying. That could possibly be enabled at -O2
since it doesn't come with a size penalty due to loop copyi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried manually:
--- cas_16_1.s~ 2020-04-14 12:19:03.0 +0200
+++ cas_16_1.s 2020-04-14 12:20:10.083098672 +0200
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
# 1 "" 2
# 1 "/usr/src/gcc/libgcc/config/aarch64/lse.S"
# 53 "/u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94573
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll handle it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94565
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:597601aa7a0f822816041d521fae7da6e883fa7d
commit r10-7710-g597601aa7a0f822816041d521fae7da6e883fa7d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94565
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94592
Bug ID: 94592
Summary: ICE in non-type template parameter with constexpr
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94591
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94569
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94592
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94573
--- Comment #6 from vfdff ---
Created attachment 48267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48267&action=edit
only get the adjust_bit_pos change
base on the adjust_bit_pos change only, I test it on the gcc 9, and find it
take eff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94592
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #4)
> (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #2)
> > > This was introduced by commit e24f6408d so only in GCC10.
> >
> > Thank you for checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
THanks Martin. I'm already well into this one :-)
I'm pretty sure the problem is testqi_ext_3 and the code we generate when
splitting it.
Consider (from my own slightly reduced testcase, but I'm sure your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87163
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #15)
> Martin, are you expecting this build to have 64 bit or 128 bit long doubles?
> The default should be 128 as it is natively but for some reason the cross
> compiler
=rmprofile
Thread model: single
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.1 20200414 (experimental) (heads/master-0-gdecb4a8)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-B'
'/mnt/c/Code/bleeding-edge-toolchain/build/buildNative/newlib-3.3.0-nano/arm-none-eabi/thumb/v8.1-m.main+mve/hard/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94592
Paco Arjonilla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #3 from P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Wonder if the simplest thing is to turn the zero_extract into a zero_extend
so we can maintain the and in SImode. And whether combine will ever
generate a zero_extract that extracts the SImode MSB.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94270
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b0e49a52e1884b501861c128b0a98dec50bdd2e
commit r10-7712-g3b0e49a52e1884b501861c128b0a98dec50bdd2e
Author: Thomas König
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I've pondered just killing that pattern, but I'm pretty sure there'll be
notable regressions. There was a clear regression we fixed in gcc-6 due to not
handling QImode operands in that pattern.
What I'm pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48269
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48269&action=edit
gcc10-pr93053.patch
So how about this (tested just that when preprocessing + assembling with
-DHAVE_AS_LSE and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94593
Bug ID: 94593
Summary: [OpenMP] c-c++-common/gomp/requires-1.c: Missing
diagnostic, test-case issues
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538
--- Comment #8 from Christophe Lyon ---
> Adding Christophe. I'm thinking the best approach right now is to revert
> given -mpure-code doesn't work at all on Thumb-1 targets - it still emits
> literal pools, switch tables etc. That's not pure co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94576
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |arm
Summary|Regression buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94594
Bug ID: 94594
Summary: struct containing an aligned obj with stronger
alignment, change the alignment accordingly instead of
throwing an error, inconsistent with the C++ standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94594
--- Comment #1 from Inbal Levi ---
* declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> I've pondered just killing that pattern, but I'm pretty sure there'll be
> notable regressions. There was a clear regression we fixed in gcc-6 due to
> not han
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94594
--- Comment #2 from Inbal Levi ---
Also, an example with the first struct declaration being in the right form: :)
https://godbolt.org/z/G5rU5h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or, if the .macro COMMENT hack is too ugly, we could tweak it like:
#ifdef HAVE_AS_LSE
# define LDOP glue4(LDNM, A, L, S) s(0), s(0), [x1]
#else
# define LDOP .inst 0x38200020 + OPN + B + N
#endif
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Please don't take this PR serious; it might not be a valid use-case in
real-world application.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-04-13 11:02 p.m., kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Does math.h define fmaf? If yes, this this is bogus bug report.
> If no, please disable building gfortran on hppa64.
No, math.h does n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94561
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:438ffa2a8fac925b1bee8862fa15bc5380c0dffd
commit r10-7715-g438ffa2a8fac925b1bee8862fa15bc5380c0dffd
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Apr 14 06:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think it's trying to use smaller modes because the encodings can be smaller.
In other cases it changes the mode to avoid partial register stalls. It's a
bit of a mess.
WRT the fragment you mentioned, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87163
--- Comment #17 from Bill Seurer ---
Is there some earlier report to which this is a follow-on? The first comment
here sort of implies that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87163
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
Maybe PR86684?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94574
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f65cecabc32fe12b024253502af953e657e1a878
commit r10-7716-gf65cecabc32fe12b024253502af953e657e1a878
Author: Yang Yang
Date: Tue A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94573
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66b8801141f5c1a65613b8f42501e8cd4b9195d9
commit r10-7717-g66b8801141f5c1a65613b8f42501e8cd4b9195d9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94270
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c94472580af3e2328bebb1493e7693c2b9cadc2
commit r9-8497-g7c94472580af3e2328bebb1493e7693c2b9cadc2
Author: Thomas König
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94595
Bug ID: 94595
Summary: gcc.target/arm/thumb2-cond-cmp-*.c fail for cortex-m
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94270
--- Comment #6 from Ignacio Fernández Galván ---
Will the fix be backported to gcc7? I noticed this when Ubuntu updated the gcc7
version, so I would like to have the chance of seeing it fixed eventually too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94571
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I think that won't handle
auto x(1), [e,f] = test2;
where we should also say what clang says (or at least give inform()).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94592
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94270
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Ignacio Fernández Galván from comment #6)
> Will the fix be backported to gcc7? I noticed this when Ubuntu updated the
> gcc7 version, so I would like to have the chance of seeing it fixed
> even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538
--- Comment #10 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #8)
> > Adding Christophe. I'm thinking the best approach right now is to revert
> > given -mpure-code doesn't work at all on Thumb-1 targets - it still emits
> > literal po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94578
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94578
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Looks like span is not handled in reshape (at all).
It will be interesting to see how other intrinsics
such as maxloc and just about everything else
handles this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94593
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
error: Only one unified_shared_memory clause can appear on a requires directive
in a single translation unit
is incorrect, dunno where they took it from.
The same clause can't appear multiple times on the sam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b256222910cfa4a9b2b477dff8954e51fdc36bb9
commit r10-7718-gb256222910cfa4a9b2b477dff8954e51fdc36bb9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94587
Patrick J. LoPresti changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94110
--- Comment #2 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Hi Thomas!
IIRC assumed-size arrays are implemented has packaged descriptor less arrays.
In order to point to them or to pass them to a procedure expecting an assumed
or deferred-shape array one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 12:55:45PM +, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
>
> --- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2020-04-13 11:02 p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94596
Bug ID: 94596
Summary: possible false positive when analyze OVS macro
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94592
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
{} as a template argument is currently only supported by GCC as an extension,
but I raised this on the core C++ list and it seems that the the conclusion is
that we want this to work, though there's no CWG fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94592
--- Comment #6 from Paco Arjonilla ---
Thanks for supporting this feature. I think it is one of the core features that
modern C++ should have.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94270
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e67ee3aa084a54f59c0848c32c17faddbb04c4c
commit r8-10179-g5e67ee3aa084a54f59c0848c32c17faddbb04c4c
Author: Thomas König
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94270
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94110
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Summary|Erroneous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94022
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-14
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538
--- Comment #11 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
>
> For example:
>
> int x;
> int f1 (void) { return x; }
>
> with eg. -O2 -mcpu=cortex-m0 -mpure-code I get:
>
> movsr3, #:upper8_15:#.LC1
> ls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93956
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93948
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-04-14 11:40 a.m., sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote:
> After '#include ' in trigd.c, add
>
> #if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 199901L)
> #define fmaf(a,b,c) ((a)*(b)+(c))
> #define fma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94434
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9707b593f88041e74e5cf5640ec64fea13a0387c
commit r10-7719-g9707b593f88041e74e5cf5640ec64fea13a0387c
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94434
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 48270
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48270&action=edit
asserts to trigger it
I have found the cause, but not the underlying reason. We have template
arguments that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93500
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
