https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #11 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> Fixed - note it needs to be backported when the PR95638 fix is backported.
I backported PR95638/PR95804 to GCC-10/GCC-9 branches. However, unnecessary to
backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96143
Bug ID: 96143
Summary: C++ demangler should not add a lambda as a
substitution
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Bin Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c25c91b117d814cf5c1deffd8a79b03fce68621
commit r9-8731-g8c25c91b117d814cf5c1deffd8a79b03fce68621
Author: Bin Cheng
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Bin Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc7a8afce35eb8948b481b5bcb8d26124a267f55
commit r9-8730-gdc7a8afce35eb8948b481b5bcb8d26124a267f55
Author: Bin Cheng
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Bin Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7247272375899af51726df8424e911f00374200
commit r10-8454-gc7247272375899af51726df8424e911f00374200
Author: Bin Cheng
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Bin Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f737ca45bee4ea61571393e04495955aeb7d67ab
commit r10-8453-gf737ca45bee4ea61571393e04495955aeb7d67ab
Author: Bin Cheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95976
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96052
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
--- Comment #3 from Steven Munroe ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> Have you tried it for -m32, out of curiosity?
no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93892
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80272
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zoid at riseup dot net
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
vvinayag at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vvinayag at arm dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96125
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95270
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Julian Brown :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d00fe404c162ad0cf922ca8455aa23a74042b63
commit r11-1976-g0d00fe404c162ad0cf922ca8455aa23a74042b63
Author: Julian Brown
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Have you tried it for -m32, out of curiosity?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96142
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94749
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The fix is actually not right, it fails to discard the delimiter if it occurs
after ignoring more than numeric_limits::max() characters.
I have a fix for that though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96141
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Baumanns ---
Created attachment 48854
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48854&action=edit
II File
II File
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96141
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Baumanns ---
Here you can see the error at godbolt:
https://godbolt.org/z/PGarTE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96142
Bug ID: 96142
Summary: is_constant_evaluated() returns false for variable
with constant initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96141
Bug ID: 96141
Summary: Coroutine and noexcept(false) destructor cause:
internal compiler error: in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl,
at gimplify.c:2817
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93473
Andrew Benson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abensonca at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93473
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Anything left to do?
I looked at the gcc-testresults, and it appears things are fixed now,
e.g. for Solaris or aarch64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96125
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd263be4b523ff1b7f7dda49d856cc57221e8d21
commit r11-1973-gfd263be4b523ff1b7f7dda49d856cc57221e8d21
Author: Peter Bergner
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89574
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> Since changing "module init" to "module init1" avoid the issue in all
> cases, this lookslike a namespace / symbol issue.
I spent some time debugging this, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Doesn't even need to be in the ?: operator:
int
main ()
{
enum { E = (2 } e;
if (E != 2)
__builtin_abort ();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96140
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Similarly va_start can't handle ref parameters either.
void test_va_start(ref va_list a, ...) { return va_start(a, a); }
---
0x623234 expand_intrinsic_vastart
../../gcc/d/intrinsics.cc:549
0x623234 may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96140
Bug ID: 96140
Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_intrinsic_vaarg
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
--- Comment #1 from Steven Munroe ---
Created attachment 48851
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48851&action=edit
Test case for printf of vector long long int elements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96080
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
In contrast, see the same example with 'dimension(:)' removed, that is, scalar
data. Here, we see the directives and the runtime library routines behave in
the same way for Fortran 'pointer'.
program
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 1:33 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if this is the right mailing list for asking about
>
> No it's not, this list is for automated mails from our bug database.
>
> > (possible) g++ issues. If not, I'd appreciate it if someone can point
> > me to the right one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
Bug ID: 96139
Summary: Vector element extract mistypes long long int down to
long int
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133
--- Comment #7 from Ingo Weyrich ---
Richard, does you last comment mean, you already fixed it?. How can I test?
Maybe using godbolt?
Ingo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96080
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OpenACC] 'acc_is_present' |OpenACC/Fortran runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96138
Bug ID: 96138
Summary: DR 458: Hiding of member template parameters by other
members
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92171
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
--- Comment #3 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> I would treat them just like ICEs. They are useful if the testcase isn't
> complete garbage. This one is sort of useful because it shows that my
> change above has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-09
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #5)
> The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9ddea9306251b7d4e4fd1d67a5941ef7448b2e66
>
> commit r11-1972-g9ddea9306251b7d4e4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96132
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96134
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9ddea9306251b7d4e4fd1d67a5941ef7448b2e66
commit r11-1972-g9ddea9306251b7d4e4fd1d67a5941ef7448b2e66
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95322
--- Comment #15 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 96134, which changed state.
Bug 96134 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in tree_to_poly_uint64, at tree.c:2985
since r11-1801-g9e5508c2d006f2d4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96134
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9ddea9306251b7d4e4fd1d67a5941ef7448b2e66
commit r11-1972-g9ddea9306251b7d4e4fd1d67a5941ef7448b2e66
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95497
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:614662064ad4993a2aaecf190e7399ac5279e78e
commit r11-1971-g614662064ad4993a2aaecf190e7399ac5279e78e
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96132
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:614662064ad4993a2aaecf190e7399ac5279e78e
commit r11-1971-g614662064ad4993a2aaecf190e7399ac5279e78e
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #6 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> The warning in the test case in comment #3 looks correct to me.
Thank you! I'll try to re-reduce and not introduce new NULLs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
--- Comment #1 from Haoxin Tu ---
Also, I want to know are those cases (invalid code but makes GCC hang on) worth
reporting? If those cases can help improve the GCC FE or its performance, I
will continue to file more reports. Otherwise, I will ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |c++
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
Bug ID: 96137
Summary: [11 Regression] GCC hang on in invalid function
definition
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96136
Bug ID: 96136
Summary: [11 regression] ICE in reduce_to_bit_field_precision
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Other no_unique_address ABI issues: PR96052, PR95976
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95322
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96088
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> > Adding hash::operator()(string_view) is an interesting idea for the
> > standard though.
>
> Indeed. If we want to, I think it is possible to add some overload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96135
Bug ID: 96135
Summary: [9/10/11 regression] bswap not detected by bswap pass,
unexpected results between optimization levels
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #59 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fab263ab0fc10ea08409b80afa7e8569438b8d28
commit r11-1970-gfab263ab0fc10ea08409b80afa7e8569438b8d28
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed Jan 23 06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96134
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95963
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96134
Bug ID: 96134
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in tree_to_poly_uint64, at
tree.c:2985 since r11-1801-g9e5508c2d006f2d4
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95766
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95766
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48849
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48849&action=edit
gcc11-pr95766.patch
For that, we could use something like this (even though:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512cd-vpb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95322
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38250e577e26de7aace65b4d32a94a1404f076a9
commit r10-8450-g38250e577e26de7aace65b4d32a94a1404f076a9
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96128
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89962
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96128
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96128
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96128
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Just trace make_ssa_name ...
So this one is leftover from gimplify.c where we expand the first argument to
assignment to a SSA NAME and so we end up only with th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Interestingly it works for int[4] but fails for int[2].
typedef int T;
static const T a[2][3] = { { 1, 2, 3 }, { 4, 5, 6 } };
typedef T v2 __attribute__((vector_size(2*sizeof(T;
int
main()
{
const T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed. The i == 1 lane is different. We're using standard interleaving
vectorization here, the innermost two loops are unrolled and rgb_cam is elided.
Note eventually we optimize the whole loop at com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96132
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95766
--- Comment #8 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Well, I don't mind that the ABI may be different from LLVM, but for me the bug
was also about the fact that the code uses k registers when I'd assume they
might impact performance/code size somewhat what com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||95638
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 95804, which changed state.
Bug 95804 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in generate_code_for_partition, at
tree-loop-distribution.c:1323 since r11-1565-g2c0069fafb53ccb7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
Bug 95638 depends on bug 95804, which changed state.
Bug 95804 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in generate_code_for_partition, at
tree-loop-distribution.c:1323 since r11-1565-g2c0069fafb53ccb7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
--- Comment #37 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #36)
> (In reply to jojo from comment #35)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #30)
> > > A possible solution can be usage of '-flinker-output=nolto-rel -r' for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95159
--- Comment #5 from Toni Neubert ---
I don't think this one is valid.
But the code inside the duplicated issue could be valid:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96123
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133
Bug ID: 96133
Summary: x86-64 gcc 10.1 using -O3 leads to wrong calculation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95159
--- Comment #4 from Toni Neubert ---
I don't think this one is valid.
But the code inside the duplicated issue could be valid:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96123
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96132
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96130
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Created attachment 48848 [details]
> patch
statistics show it's not always a win for the overall number of processed
blocks. stage3 of a GCC boostrap for gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96088
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Or use unordered_map, equal_to<>> which
> should perform better.
Good idea.
> We haven't implemented http://wg21.link/p0919r3 and http://wg21.link/p1690r1
> ye
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Bin Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd21b03900085c4d60bf03207ad28bcbfbc86a4b
commit r11-1968-gdd21b03900085c4d60bf03207ad28bcbfbc86a4b
Author: Bin Cheng
Date: Thu Jul 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
--- Comment #36 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to jojo from comment #35)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #30)
> > A possible solution can be usage of '-flinker-output=nolto-rel -r' for huge
> > files.
>
> it's useful for splitting huge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94936
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b19640035d2df46758c7d31e5aab1186518e514
commit r10-8449-g6b19640035d2df46758c7d31e5aab1186518e514
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95989
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> I'm testing this:
>
> diff --git a/libgcc/gthr-posix.h b/libgcc/gthr-posix.h
> index 965247602ac..0af84a781e5 100644
> --- a/libgcc/gthr-posix.h
> +++ b/li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48848
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48848&action=edit
patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
jojo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rjiejie at me dot com
--- Comment #35 from jojo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
As update with todays trunk 96b7f495f9269d5448822e4fc28882 I see for
not bootstrapped build of asan_interceptors.cc on x86_64 with -fno-checking:
callgraph ipa passes : 1.24 ( 11%) 0.11 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96132
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
