http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #14 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for that on the 4.7 branch. plus_constant function takes one argument
less on 4.7 branch. Following patch fixes the issue for me:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59386
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 11 09:18:33 2013
New Revision: 205883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205883root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/59386
* tree-inline.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59417
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 11 09:19:41 2013
New Revision: 205884
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205884root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/59417
* tree-ssa-copy.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59417
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59386
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59464
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59460
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wonder if x86_64 is also affected as it has implicitely zero/sign-extending
loads as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wonder if x86_64 is also affected as it has implicitely zero/sign-extending
loads as well.
Not for this testcase at least, where the code is (and has always been)
optimal:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59467
Bug ID: 59467
Summary: copyprivate in the fortran testsuite
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39997
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
Let's claim the following code is valid.
Cf. Intepretation Request J3/11-198 at
http://j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/195/11-198.txt
Btw, the IR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59399
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Dec 11 12:25:05 2013
New Revision: 205888
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205888root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/59399
* expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59399
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
GoWhoopee at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||GoWhoopee at yahoo dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #6 from Roland Stigge stigge at antcom dot de ---
I searched the differences between 4.7 and 4.8. It turned out that the patch
that I'm attaching fixes the issue.
Any comments?
Can it be applied to the 4.8 line?
Thanks,
Roland
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59468
Bug ID: 59468
Summary: ICE on invalid C++ code with LTO in
gimple_get_virt_method_for_binfo, at
gimple-fold.c:3224
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #7 from Roland Stigge stigge at antcom dot de ---
Created attachment 31415
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31415action=edit
Fix as described
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
--- Comment #4 from janus at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57377
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57001
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56361
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51898
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52511
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59468
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55946
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf octoploid at yandex dot com ---
Created attachment 31417
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31417action=edit
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
Bug ID: 59469
Summary: LLVM build failure with gcc LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58916
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Dec 11 14:02:44 2013
New Revision: 205894
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205894root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/58916
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58916
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #16 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Dec 11 14:05:56 2013
New Revision: 205895
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205895root=gccview=rev
Log:
Committed as obvious fix.
PR target/56807
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[F03] ICE with proc pointer |[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
Bug ID: 59470
Summary: [4.8 Regression] libstdc++ miscompilation after
r205709
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31419
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31419action=edit
locale-inst.ii.bz2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31418
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31418action=edit
11.ii.bz2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59468
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59441
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ICEs for me at
./xg++ -B. -shared t.C -fPIC -nostdlib -flto -O -fvtable-verify=std
t.C: In function '_GLOBAL__sub_I.00099_t.C':
t.C:20:1: internal compiler error: in pool_free,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
I have been tracking 4.8 branch on Linux/i686. I didn't
see any libstdc++ failures on Fedora 19 today:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
1776 || DECL_FILE_SCOPE_P (current_function_decl)
also matches TRANSLATION_UNIT_DECL.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
I have been tracking 4.8 branch on Linux/i686. I didn't
see any libstdc++ failures on Fedora 19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56572
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, removing nested transactions (when possible) is worth doing.
The problem is not just with ipa_inline, but also with early_inline.
Indeed, for an example this small, I would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59468
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
works with 4.8.
Perhaps it should be counted as a 4.8 regression - 4.7 warns about the
non-matching vtables.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59463
--- Comment #2 from Mike Spear spear at cse dot lehigh.edu ---
Bug no longer present in trunk version 205880.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58726
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Let's close this, I don't think that we need the fix on the 4.7 branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
Bug ID: 59471
Summary: ICE using vector extensions (non-top-level
BIT_FIELD_REF, IMAGPART_EXPR or REALPART_EXPR)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
CXXFLAGS='-fstack-protector ...' ../configure ...
(at least I believe so, we override a bunch of other variables in the gcc.spec
file).
Anyway, I've instrumented gcc so that based on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Andrew Church achurch+gcc at achurch dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59472
Bug ID: 59472
Summary: Many warnings type of 'X' does not match original
declaration when linking with libstdc++ static
library compiled with -flto
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For the inline asm, consider e.g.:
int a, b;
int
foo (void)
{
int c;
asm ( : =r (c) : rm (a), rm (b) : memory);
return c;
}
where r205709 regresses expansion (not even combiner
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Created attachment 31420
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31420action=edit
gzipped C++ source code
I just tried to compile the attached source code with flag -O3
with trunk of 20131211
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Mike, can you apply the patch to the 4.8 branch?
Thanks, David
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #12 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23623
--- Comment #18 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48784
--- Comment #5 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #15 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59474
Bug ID: 59474
Summary: Invalid binaries produced when making win32 EXEs with
-gsplit-dwarf
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23623
--- Comment #19 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #16 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48784
--- Comment #6 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #13 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56572
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at redhat dot com ---
walk the transaction tree and delete nested transactions. Hopefully
we could do this before actually creating the uninstrumented path.
I think moving the creation of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59134
--- Comment #5 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 17:09:17 2013
New Revision: 205898
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205898root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, debugging and inspection shows that it is the
_ZNKSt7num_putIcSt19ostreambuf_iteratorIcSt11char_traitsIcEEE12_M_group_intEPKcjcRSt8ios_basePcS9_Ri
call in the _M_insert_int method
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
--- Comment #48 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to GoWhoopee from comment #47)
Please reconsider and stop gcc from changing our code without our permission.
It is not changing your code at all. Read comment #39 to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #30 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Not at the moment. Focus is on bugfixing for 4.9, particularly regressions.
This doesn't qualify.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
Bug ID: 59475
Summary: gcc with flag -O1 fails to find template
specialization when there is default one.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
--- Comment #1 from Akela1101 akela1101 at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31421
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31421action=edit
ii, source, sh script
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf octoploid at yandex dot com ---
markus@x4 llvm_build % cat BasicBlock.ii
struct A {};
namespace llvm {
struct B {};
template typename struct ilist_traits : B {};
template typename class ilist_iterator : A {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Re: the #c7 second testcase, rth thinks it is undefined behavior since there is
no sequence point. So here is a better testcase that should have defined
behavior, still before
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59390
--- Comment #5 from tmsriram at gcc dot gnu.org tmsriram at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: tmsriram
Date: Wed Dec 11 20:06:46 2013
New Revision: 205904
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205904root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sriraman Tallam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf octoploid at yandex dot com ---
BTW it is interesting that gcc compiles the attached testcase faster
when using LTO.
% time g++ -flto=4 -Wfatal-errors -fPIC -shared -fno-rtti -O3 BasicBlock.ii
Function.ii
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56859
Stephan Tolksdorf st at quanttec dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||st at quanttec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59476
Bug ID: 59476
Summary: gdb pretty-printer cannot print C++11
_Rb_tree_iterator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #3)
BTW it is interesting that gcc compiles the attached testcase faster
when using LTO.
% time g++ -flto=4 -Wfatal-errors -fPIC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf octoploid at yandex dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #3)
BTW it is interesting that gcc compiles the attached testcase faster
when
/gcc-trunk/binary-205881-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131211 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions:
r205881 - crash
4.8 r204890 - crash
4.7 r204889 - OK
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59446
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Dec 11 22:15:14 2013
New Revision: 205905
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205905root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/59446
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59446
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59446
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
Should be fixed on trunk now.
Yep. The SH problem is also gone. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
Lightly tested draft patch:
Fixes all occurrences of the problem for one of my larger codes (which has tons
of namelists).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59478
Bug ID: 59478
Summary: Optimize variable access via byte copy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59255
--- Comment #2 from mark at jarv dot in ---
This is my first time trying to debug GCC, so please forgive me if this is
obvious or unhelpful.
I traced this in GDB and it seems that the segfault is because the
FOR_EACH_EDGE loop at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner meissner at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 04:37:20PM +, dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
--- Comment #3 from Akela1101 akela1101 at gmail dot com ---
Thank you.
But could you explain in more detail, why results of this little program are
different depending on -O1 flag? I thought they both should be 0. Or am I
wrong?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Akela1101 from comment #3)
Thank you.
But could you explain in more detail, why results of this little program are
different depending on -O1 flag? I thought they
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31423
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31423action=edit
The patch fixing incorrect code generation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
In -fdump-rtl-reload-slim we have incorrect:
92: {sp:SI=sp:SI-0x30;clobber flags:CC;}
94: {dx:SI=sp:SI+0x2f;clobber
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
