https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pawel_sikora at zoho dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||25290
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97499
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |target
Summary|/test/gnu/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* The character codes corresponding to all the access modes. */
static constexpr char mode_chars[5] = { '-', 'r', 'w', 'x', '^' };
Is this after building stage 1 or after building stage 2 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100732
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|ICE with -Wall: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100737
Bug ID: 100737
Summary: g++ segfaults in template substitution
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100737
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100738
Bug ID: 100738
Summary: Gimple failed to simplify ((v4si) ~a) < 0 ? c : d to
((v4si)a) >= 0 ? c : d
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97938
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba19b5543d31a76f494e76c32a548d70ac4d3cc1
commit r9-9553-gba19b5543d31a76f494e76c32a548d70ac4d3cc1
Author: Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100739
Bug ID: 100739
Summary: Definition of function template doesn't match
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91383
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why don't you have CI that builds with other implementations, so that your
co-workers are told automatically when they do that? It seems like you're
expecting GCC to solve a non-technical problem with your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100739
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
DocMAX changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||forum at docmax dot tk
--- Comment #6 from Doc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91383
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Some of the removed features are missing deprecated attributes, which should be
fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100735
Bruno Haible changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruno at clisp dot org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100725
--- Comment #2 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Those binutils are too old for dwarf5.
> When the linker doesn't print any diagnostics, that isn't a big deal, but if
> it needs to diagnose something and parse DWAR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100724
--- Comment #2 from Dave Love ---
The manual says not to use -flto with -fwhole-program. Is that misleading?
I checked self-built gfortran 10.2.0 again, and it definitely works for me
without -flto on Debian 10, but it fails with Red Hat devto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100733
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210524 (experimental) [master revision
dc084c487e9:bd7ae6b8ef8:9d38e096c5e3b1c2233b28d0e6ff8ee81517af56] (GCC)
[637] %
[637] % gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
[638] %
[638] % gcctk -O1 small.c
[639] % ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100733
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-fcompare-debug failure for |[8/9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100741
Bug ID: 100741
Summary: [enhancement] Should show better error message if
using ‘typedef’ instead of ‘using’.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100741
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100741
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Complete testcase:
struct X { };
typedef Rng = X;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100740
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code at -O1 and above |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
It's after stage1. I'm bisecting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to DocMAX from comment #6)
> check: https://github.com/xenia-project/xenia/issues/1819
I don't think this is related, I think you're just linking wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100740
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100742
Bug ID: 100742
Summary: False positive -Wignored-attributes with std::map and
aligned(8) attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99960
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32d4fa7d3792566b378ba0de003d50c0301de3a0
commit r11-8460-g32d4fa7d3792566b378ba0de003d50c0301de3a0
Author: Alex Coplan
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100743
Bug ID: 100743
Summary: Segmentation fault passing a polymorphic as an
optional argument
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100744
Bug ID: 100744
Summary: Undefined symbol __gcov_flush when building with
-fprofile-arcs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100745
Bug ID: 100745
Summary: GCC generates suboptimal assembly from vector
extensions on AArch64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100744
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100744
--- Comment #2 from Raffael Casagrande ---
Oh, I didn't notice this change. Thanks for pointing this out!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86470
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e3b3b77e13cac764a135a7118613c47686e0a62
commit r12-1016-g0e3b3b77e13cac764a135a7118613c47686e0a62
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86470
--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #14)
> It looks as if the committed patch handles this specific testcase correctly,
> however, there are still many issues with PRIVATE and FIRSTPRIVATE with
> polymor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99519
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
The patch was now committed as:
commit r12-1016-g0e3b3b77e13cac764a135a7118613c47686e0a62
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Mon May 24 16:50:51 2021 +0200
OpenMP/Fortran: Handle polymorphic scalars in data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100537
--- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I have a patch for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100746
Bug ID: 100746
Summary: NRVO should not introduce aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100368
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100666
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81612
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vctrex at mailfence dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81955
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78889
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84862
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> I think we want to fix both for-3.c and for-9.c similarly to
> r11-2571-g916c7a201a9a1dc94f2c056a773826a26d1daca9 i.e.
> #define DO_PRAGMA(x) _Pragma (#x)
> #def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess that is because the functions that have #pragma omp target teams
directive in it are marked declare target to.
So, either we'd need to play with macros etc. to make sure that those functions
aren't dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100479
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:46ed811bcb4b86a81ef3d78ea8cfffc6cd043144
commit r12-1018-g46ed811bcb4b86a81ef3d78ea8cfffc6cd043144
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100747
Bug ID: 100747
Summary: Possibly Wrong Permissions in "liboffloadmic"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100724
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.1, 11.1.0, 12.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95298
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-24
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100537
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:358832c46a378e5a0b8a2fa3c2739125e3e680c7
commit r12-1022-g358832c46a378e5a0b8a2fa3c2739125e3e680c7
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100745
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas F. ---
I'll attach a second version of profile.c, with the vector extension code
that's actually going to be used in mpv (some cleanup has been done).
Performance is unchanged. Some absolute numbers from gcc 11.1.0:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100745
Nicolas F. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50861|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100746
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
PR 80740 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100537
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100748
Bug ID: 100748
Summary: [12 regression] 30_threads/jthread/95989.cc fails
after r12-843
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100748
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-24
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100749
Bug ID: 100749
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.dg/pch/valid-1.c fails after
r12-949
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100748
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I do see it failing on at least one powerpc64 LE machine. PR97944 said it used
to fail randomly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> > The rotates in 6 and 7 are not merged, and neither are the vec_selects in
> > 8 and 9. Both should be pretty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74762
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750
Bug ID: 100750
Summary: new test case gcc.target/powerpc/rop-5.c fails on BE
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100748
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'd better disable it again until I have time to figure it out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100310
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
w/o mask operands, v{,p}expand* are equal to mov instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95782
--- Comment #1 from Evan Nemerson ---
This seems to also happen on s390x with -mzvector:
# s390x-linux-gnu-gcc-10 -march=z14 -mzvector -o test test.c
test.c:4:1: internal compiler error: in _cpp_pop_context, at
libcpp/macro.c:2644
4 | b(vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100711
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > I suppose we're confused about the vec_duplicate. Would generally swapping
> > the duplicate and the bit_n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100513
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100711
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
>
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > > I suppose we're confused about the vec_duplicate. Would g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
Bug ID: 100751
Summary: __gcov_dump and __gcov_reset usage
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
Gejoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gejoed at rediffmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
81 matches
Mail list logo