https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65237
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65264
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55295
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manu Evans from comment #12)
Hey, I'm still following this with great interest.
Is it possible to make an intrinsic for this instruction so it can be issued
at will?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65262
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65241
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Better test case:
enum E { A, B, C, D };
void fn4 (void);
int
fn1 (enum E p1)
{
static int w[D];
if (w[p1])
switch (p1)
case C:
w[p1] = 0;
}
void
fn2 (p1)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65263
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65241
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux-gnu |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
--- Comment #14 from Fredrik Hederstierna
fredrik.hederstie...@securitas-direct.com ---
Created attachment 34916
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34916action=edit
CSiBE benchmark with gnu89, updates with newer trunk as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
James Greenhalgh jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65245
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65247
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65258
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
Bug ID: 65278
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (in output_718, at
config/rs6000/rs6000.md:11592) on powerpc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65279
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65280
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65279
Bug ID: 65279
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] std::scoped_allocator_adaptor
is not assignable
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So the problem is caused by ICF which makes a symbol to have no direct calls
(and no references). As a result IPA CP triggers verification failure. I hope
the right solution is to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34923
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34923action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
I'm going to run full tests on this patch, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Following up on my comment #14, and as requested on gcc-patches, the test case
below is vectorized with GCC 4.8.2 for T being either 32 bits wide (e.g., int)
or 64-bits wide (e.g.,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65277
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65277
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
221040(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #1)
It is caused by r214422
No, I think this started with r221040.
Yes, it got shown with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65280
Bug ID: 65280
Summary: -fsanitize=bounds does not detect out-of-bounds access
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
yes, 32bit powerpc,
/usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-linux-gnu/5/cc1plus -fpreprocessed DistanceEstimation.ii
-msecure-plt -quiet -dumpbase DistanceEstimation.ii -auxbase DistanceEstimation
-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64367
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 2 16:50:24 2015
New Revision: 221118
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221118root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64367
* include/std/stdexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65261
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Markus, yes, if adding that attribute clears up the messages for you, then I
would agree with that solution. The code is working as designed, as use of
unaligned vector loads and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64367
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #19)
Please remove the extern from the first test and try again (it's a vestige of
the second test). Here's the assembly emitted by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34924
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34924action=edit
preprocessed source
this is the unreduced source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65237
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65237
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I guess it is the case where one type come from -O0 unit and have no
TYPE_BINFO, because it is not optimized. I think just removing the check may
work these days - I changed the way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Allowing users to specify -mcpu=powerpc64le is all well and good, but if
TARGET_DEFAULT is set, it should not be gratuitously overridden in
rs6000_option_override. The logic is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65237
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Correct, TYPE_BINFO(type2) is NULL.
Started with:
commit 87a9c1b6624ae11321799e7c9aba4a7b47567d5d
Author: hubicka hubicka@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Date: Mon Feb 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 2, 2015 7:13:25 PM CET, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #22 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
I guess it is the case where one type come from -O0 unit and have no
TYPE_BINFO, because it is not optimized. I think just removing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65279
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 2 17:50:55 2015
New Revision: 221119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221119root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65279
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Mon Mar 2 18:43:56 2015
New Revision: 221121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221121root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR lto/65276
* ipa-devirt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65279
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65281
Bug ID: 65281
Summary: Lots of macros using non-reserved names in gthr
headers
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65281
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for looking into this! I think this was just the most obvoious of TYPE
flags. Some more we need to look into:
Is the alias class compare enough to handle TYPE_RESTRICT?
We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 2, 2015 5:58:28 PM CET, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #20 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63572
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reported by HJ:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65237
As of r221117, I still see
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin
-flto-partition=none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
Susi Lehtola jussilehtola at fedoraproject dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 2 18:02:18 2015
New Revision: 221120
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221120root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/64885
* gthr-single.h: Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #22 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #21)
g:
.quad.L.g,.TOC.@tocbase
.previous
.typeg, @function
.L.g:
addis 9,2,.LC1@toc@ha
addis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at redhat dot com ---
On 03/02/2015 08:30 AM, doko at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
yes, 32bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And even simpler testcase:
void *init(void);
struct window
{
int line_height;
int pixel_width;
int pixel_height;
int column_width;
int text_cols;
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64988
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-02 2:36 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64988
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Mar 2 20:10:56 2015
New Revision: 221123
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221123root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/64988
* ipa-inline-transform.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65130
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Hi,
the bug is caused by code inlining functions called once. Here is a dead
self recursive function that is called once (from itself) and the inliner
manages
to not punt on the rcurisve
101 - 166 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
