https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71196
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Related to pr67804 (ICE at the same line) and pr68569 (ICE at the next line).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69720
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 20 13:03:19 2016
New Revision: 236510
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236510=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-05-20 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 20 13:24:29 2016
New Revision: 236512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236512=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-05-20 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71166
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
build_vec_init_elt (tree.c) says:
/* Subroutine of build_vec_init_expr: Build up a single element
intialization as a proxy for the full array initialization to get things
marked as used and any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71210
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71207
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71210
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Shouldn't you be using --with-sysroot to tell GCC where to find the target libs
for the cross-compiler?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51488
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71213
Bug ID: 71213
Summary: ICE on invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51488
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Frankly I didn't have high expectations ;) But certainly we should do something
about all these pretty old bugs about infinite template recursions which we are
not catching.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #92 from Mike Vermeulen ---
Passes with snapshot: gcc-7-20160501
Fails with snapshot: gcc-7-20160508
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
Mike Vermeulen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mike at vermeulen dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71079
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71206
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71206
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67921
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 20 08:51:06 2016
New Revision: 236497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236497=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-05-20 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70780
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 20 08:51:06 2016
New Revision: 236497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236497=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-05-20 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 20 08:51:06 2016
New Revision: 236497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236497=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-05-20 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70623
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 20 08:51:06 2016
New Revision: 236497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236497=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-05-20 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29756
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 20 09:17:16 2016
New Revision: 236501
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236501=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-05-20 Richard Guenther
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71079
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71148
--- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> Thanks. Please add a reference to the PR in the ChangeLog next time, this
> will automatically add a cross-reference in the audit trail.
I did add PR reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70809
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71079
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Fri May 20 09:44:50 2016
New Revision: 236504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236504=gcc=rev
Log:
PR71206: inconsistent types after match.pd transformation
2016-05-20 Marc Glisse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71206
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Fri May 20 09:44:50 2016
New Revision: 236504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236504=gcc=rev
Log:
PR71206: inconsistent types after match.pd transformation
2016-05-20 Marc Glisse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71204
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71185
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 20 09:09:28 2016
New Revision: 236499
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236499=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-05-20 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71148
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I did add PR reference but it didn't work for some reason.
No, you didn't in the commit message, which is where it is needed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2016-05/msg00780.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71148
--- Comment #10 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9)
> > I did add PR reference but it didn't work for some reason.
>
> No, you didn't in the commit message, which is where it is needed:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71208
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71204
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 20 18:52:38 2016
New Revision: 236526
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236526=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/71204
* frontend-passes.c (realloc_string_callback):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71214
Bug ID: 71214
Summary: Typo in feature test macro for rvalue references
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71204
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 20 18:49:24 2016
New Revision: 236525
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236525=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/71204
* frontend-passes.c (realloc_string_callback):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70466
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71210
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 20 19:06:09 2016
New Revision: 236529
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236529=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/71210
* gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_call): Do not remove lhs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71204
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 20 19:00:54 2016
New Revision: 236528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236528=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/71204
* frontend-passes.c (realloc_string_callback):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71204
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70712
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70466
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri May 20 19:09:59 2016
New Revision: 236530
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236530=gcc=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71210
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67992
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67992
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Joshua: gcov is seriously old tool. There is quite some need to handle profile
in more generic matter (for autoFDO/LTO and other cases). So if you have more
flexible implementation, it would make sense to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67937
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
We can have negative counters on fake edges in case the code uses abnormal
edges that we can't instrument correctly. setjmp/longjmp is one of examples.
If you profile kernel, you will have inconsistencies in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71192
user1172464 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #13 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Created attachment 38535
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38535=edit
VRP/match.pd patch
Found some time again and hacked together a fix for match.pd and VRP. The patch
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Couldn't reproduce with these versions:
gcc version 7.0.0 20160520
gcc version 6.1.1 20160520
gcc version 5.3.1 20160520
I always get output:
short string: short string
Allocated a big object
long string: I'm a long string. My size is bigger than 16 bytes
Compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67937
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71196
--- Comment #2 from georg.bugzilla at gmx dot at ---
Thanks for the feedback!
I can confirm that workaround 1 (reversing order in substructure_)works.
Workaround 2 also works, but it is not applicable in my case (auto generated
code - arbitrary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71217
Bug ID: 71217
Summary: [concepts] Incorrect recursive concept evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70884
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 regression] 2nd SRA|[6 regression] 2nd SRA pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri May 20 22:23:10 2016
New Revision: 236549
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236549=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/71115 - [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] Missing warning: excess elements
in struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55917
Howard Hinnant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howard.hinnant at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #5 from Petr Ovtchenkov ---
Created attachment 38537
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38537=edit
patch that fix issue
This changes fix issue for me. But I know nothing what CANADIAN ad-hoc
workaround intended
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70884
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri May 20 21:04:31 2016
New Revision: 236544
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236544=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR 70884] Constant pool SRA fix
2016-05-20 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
--- snip ---
>
> Although I partially agree with that, I don't understand why
>
> if ( x(1) < 0 .or. &
> x(2) < 0 ) print
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71216
Bug ID: 71216
Summary: Incorrect PPC assembly due to inserted .machine
pseudo-op
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71215
Bug ID: 71215
Summary: Compile error when using in-class initialization of
template class attributes (c++11)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71208
Yaakov Selkowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #15 from Andre Vieira ---
So the code change for sccp moves the following sequence out of the loop:
_2 = (sizetype) i_30;
_3 = _2 * 8;
_10 = _3 + 4;
_1 = + _10;
a_p = _1;
This is basically:
*a_p = [last_i].y;
I agree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70634
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No objections from me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #16 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andre Vieira from comment #15)
> So the code change for sccp moves the following sequence out of the loop:
>
> _2 = (sizetype) i_30;
> _3 = _2 * 8;
> _10 = _3 + 4;
> _1 = +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70634
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Jason
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70634
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 38536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38536=edit
patch for gcc 5
Here's the patch if anyone wants to build their own gcc 5 with this fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68030
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had a patch for this, will send for review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #2 from Petr Ovtchenkov ---
No, adding
--with-sysroot=/export/staging/ptr/continuous/development/../arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi
\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #4 from Petr Ovtchenkov ---
(In reply to Petr Ovtchenkov from comment #3)
>
> ...
Is following still actual?
# This lets us hard-code the functionality we know we'll have in the cross
# target environment. "Let" is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29756
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 20 11:55:58 2016
New Revision: 236505
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236505=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/29756
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-6.c: Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71212
--- Comment #3 from Petr Ovtchenkov ---
(In reply to Petr Ovtchenkov from comment #2)
> ...
Mmm, may be this line is origin of problem:
libstdc++-v3/configure:GLIBCXX_INCLUDES="$GLIBCXX_INCLUDES
-I\${includedir}"
(missed ${DESTDIR} in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71081
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri May 20 12:36:57 2016
New Revision: 236507
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236507=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-05-20 Thomas Preud'homme
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I have a patch testing for this. I am not sure this is a regression.
> I see it as far back as 4.5. I don't have any earlier builds.
Gcc-4.3.1 and 4.4.7 give the errors
pr66461.f:4.27:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71210
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 20 11:58:49 2016
New Revision: 236506
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236506=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/71210
* gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_call): Do not remove lhs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729
--- Comment #18 from Andreas Schwab <sch...@linux-m68k.org> ---
FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr68279.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
/opt/gcc/gcc-20160520/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/graphite/pr68279.f90:8:0:
internal compiler error: A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr68279.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
>
> /opt/gcc/gcc-20160520/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/graphite/pr68279.f90:8:0:
> internal compiler error: Aborted
> 0xb9e487 crash_signal
> ../../gcc/toplev.c:333
> 0x10f4473 extract_affine_chrec
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 May 2016, andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
>
> Andre Vieira changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70738
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70572
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri May 20 16:24:58 2016
New Revision: 236522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236522=gcc=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70572
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6/7 Regression] ICE |[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70738
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri May 20 16:06:39 2016
New Revision: 236520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236520=gcc=rev
Log:
Add -mgeneral-regs-only option
X86 Linux kernel is compiled only with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71070
--- Comment #2 from Oleksii Oleksenko ---
Sorry, I guess, I had a wrong configuration. I had the CHKP_RT_BNDPRESERVE
variable set to '1', and after I tried setting it to '0', the problem
dissipated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70931
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 20 08:51:06 2016
New Revision: 236497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236497=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-05-20 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71207
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Simonov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Started with r229859, -fno-devirtualize -O2 works.
Thank you for hint with workaround
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71206
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #5)
> Could you please also check if it is a dup of PR71079?
Cf https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01598.html ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70809
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri May 20 09:12:59 2016
New Revision: 236500
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236500=gcc=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/70809: Delete aarch64_vmls pattern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71191
--- Comment #6 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
There are a couple of ways the problem could be reduced in scope. Most of the
constructs that the kernel has that fall into this category are conditional
adds/subtracts:
typedef struct {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #17 from Andre Vieira ---
Ah yes my bad, its not sccp doing it... got a bit confused there... It is
indeed sink that moves that sequence down. Sorry for the noise.
Question remains on how to clean this up though. Ideally you would
95 matches
Mail list logo