https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96731
--- Comment #3 from Tony E Lewis ---
Thanks for correcting my failure to find the relevant part of the standard and
for confirming this as an enhancement request.
Yes please. If libstdc++'s sample() could play nicely with range-v3's
view::indice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96755
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96753
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Maybe using vrp_evaluate_conditional (or some other similar helper) instead of
manually comparing ranges in simplify_div_or_mod_using_ranges would help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96753
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96758
Bug ID: 96758
Summary: strncmp miscompiles as memcmp
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96757
Bug ID: 96757
Summary: aarch64：ICE during GIMPLE pass: vect
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96756
Bug ID: 96756
Summary: [AArch64] Missed FPSR description on saturating
instruction patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93372
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e6c51de8ec47bf5f0dfaabfd1898c722d0485b4
commit r11-2814-g0e6c51de8ec47bf5f0dfaabfd1898c722d0485b4
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96754
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
signed char e, long long g) {
for (long c = 0; c < 20ULL; c = g)
for (short d = 0; d < 9; d++)
for (char f = e; f < 8; f += 4) {
arr_3[f] = 0;
var_22 = ~(unsigned)b;
arr_4[c][d][f] = a;
}
}
gcc version 11.0.0 20200823 (87c753ac241f25d222d46ba1ac66ceba89d6a200)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96754
Bug ID: 96754
Summary: Failure to optimize strcpy+strlen to memcpy when
strlen is done after strcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96747
--- Comment #2 from Martin Matous ---
Other compiler's behavior does makes more sense, but yeah, personal opinion. In
case the patch ends up not being reverted the docs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wshadow shou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96753
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96753
Bug ID: 96753
Summary: Missed optimization [x86-64] on modulo when left side
value is known to be greater than right side value
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96748
Manuel Lauss changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96752
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> But I can't use standard LTO because my project contains C and CPP files
> which is compiled with different configuration flags.
That should not matter in new enough GCCs as GCC record the options per
fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96744
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87c753ac241f25d222d46ba1ac66ceba89d6a200
commit r11-2812-g87c753ac241f25d222d46ba1ac66ceba89d6a200
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Aug 21 09:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92959
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92785
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dbc724d6d2073c7f2d1ea4497b4f9714c9b7ec3c
commit r11-2811-gdbc724d6d2073c7f2d1ea4497b4f9714c9b7ec3c
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Sun Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96737
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96737
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:967454a212c7693577a1911e637c3f9f3edc7ccf
commit r11-2810-g967454a212c7693577a1911e637c3f9f3edc7ccf
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Sun Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96737
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4565031c8dc6b5289e36553e5cd937a91825953
commit r11-2809-gc4565031c8dc6b5289e36553e5cd937a91825953
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Sun Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96747
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96737
--- Comment #3 from Andre Vehreschild ---
Sorry, I was in a hurry to post the pr. You're right one needs to specify '-g'
to see the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96752
--- Comment #1 from Djuki Bascarevic ---
Created attachment 49105
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49105&action=edit
WHOPR diagram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96752
Bug ID: 96752
Summary: -fwhopr feature - is it available in gcc 9.2.0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96751
Bug ID: 96751
Summary: overwriting libstdc++ for a default target during
building libraries for armv5te/mthumb-interwork
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96153
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
The distinction between x86_64 passing and SPARC64 failing seems to be whether
the struct returns in memory, or via registers. If via registers, alignment
holes that were filled are ignored by the caller (valu
30 matches
Mail list logo
