http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #14 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
08:26:00 UTC ---
Because of this:
#define kLowShadowBeg SHADOW_OFFSET
#define kLowShadowEnd MEM_TO_SHADOW(kLowMemEnd)
If we leave kLowShadowEnd as before, we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56024
Bug #: 56024
Summary: ARM NEON polynomial types behave as if signed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56025
Bug #: 56025
Summary: ARM NEON polynomial types have broken overload
resolution
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56024
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #31 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com richard.guenther at
gmail dot com 2013-01-18 09:49:11 UTC ---
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:45 PM, xinliangli at gmail dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56025
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56026
Bug #: 56026
Summary: Erroneous behaviour of E and ES format descriptor for
large numbers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
10:18:51 UTC ---
Can you fill out known-to-work? Especially whether 4.7.x works and whether
4.6.3 worked?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
Bug #: 56027
Summary: ldmxcsr permuted with asm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56022
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30354
--- Comment #16 from Denis Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail dot com
2013-01-18 10:29:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Honza, did you find time to have a look?
I think this regressed alot in 4.6
Not really - it's just .eh_frame
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56026
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
--- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
10:57:51 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:57:36 2013
New Revision: 195289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195289
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
--- Comment #18 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
10:57:50 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:57:36 2013
New Revision: 195289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195289
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53827
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
10:57:51 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:57:36 2013
New Revision: 195289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195289
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
--- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
10:57:50 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:57:36 2013
New Revision: 195289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195289
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53359
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
10:58:18 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:57:58 2013
New Revision: 195290
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195290
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54114
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
10:58:47 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:58:15 2013
New Revision: 195291
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195291
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
10:58:45 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:58:15 2013
New Revision: 195291
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195291
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #27 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
10:58:43 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:58:15 2013
New Revision: 195291
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195291
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56006
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
11:05:12 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 11:05:04 2013
New Revision: 195292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195292
Log:
Mention PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
11:05:12 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 18 11:05:04 2013
New Revision: 195292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195292
Log:
Mention PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
Bug #: 56028
Summary: Splitting a 64-bit volatile store
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00870.htm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54114
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56006
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #28 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
11:08:06 UTC ---
Is the mem-clobbering compile-time regression still noticeable after the recent
patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54507
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #8 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
11:09:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 29202
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29202
more debug printing patch
From the log, the problem looks as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2013-01-18 11:09:42
UTC ---
- Does language standard guarantee atomic store in this case [wikipedia says
No. [1]]?
- Can a store to a volatile DImode location be implemented as two
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55793
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56022
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21150
Denis Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18 11:14:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I think you want a pass-thru:
#define opaque(x) __asm volatile (# x : =g (x) : 0 (x))
(opaque returns a value in my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53359
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #2 from Paul E. McKenney paulmck at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
2013-01-18 11:25:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
- Does language standard guarantee atomic store in this case [wikipedia says
No. [1]]?
The above example of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #15 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
11:40:57 UTC ---
There are two off-by-one:
In LLVM trunk: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=172807view=rev
Initially I wanted to do a merge to gcc this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
11:49:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
I think you want a pass-thru:
#define opaque(x) __asm volatile (# x : =g (x) : 0 (x))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
Bug #: 56029
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed, location
references block not in block tree
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #3 from Evgeniy Stepanov eugeni.stepanov at gmail dot com
2013-01-18 11:57:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
See 1.9p8 of the C++11 standard, first bullet:
Access to volatile objects are evaluated strictly according to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18 12:08:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I am mostly wondering what guarantees I have there won't be re-ordering.
*mxcsr
are unspec_volatile and thus can commute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #16 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
12:30:11 UTC ---
-#define SHADOW_OFFSET (1ULL 41)
+#define SHADOW_OFFSET (1ULL 43)
On my ppc box which uses 44 bit address space this does not work:
%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
13:02:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
It's the PHI arg location of
integer_cst 0x747f59e0 type pointer_type 0x76754d20 constant 0
as seen after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
13:02:41 UTC ---
But why doesn't the 1 41 version work with both 44 and 46-bit VA?
It should be:
|| `[0x0a00, 0x3fff]` || HighMem||
||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
13:14:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 29204
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29204
somewhat reduced testcase
Somewhat reduced testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #18 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2013-01-18 13:21:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
In LLVM trunk: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=172807view=rev
That only happens when running under gdb which appears
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #19 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2013-01-18 13:25:42
UTC ---
MEM_TO_SHODOW does not work when (SHADOW_OFFSET SHADOW_SHIFT) is less than
kHighMemEnd.
$ ASAN_OPTIONS=verbosity=1 ./clone-test-1.exe
==16778==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56030
Bug #: 56030
Summary: Ada fails to build when targeting x32 non multilib
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
13:52:02 UTC ---
Ah yes, it can't be | SHADOW_OFFSET then, but has to be + SHADOW_OFFSET. + is
what gcc emits (the reason for that was primarily that it resulted in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56031
Bug #: 56031
Summary: Set ABI/Multilib to x32 when targeting x86_64-*-gnux32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56032
Bug #: 56032
Summary: Uniform initialization of references
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
14:18:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 29207
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29207
gcc48-pr55742.patch
This bug is open for way too long given its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56033
Bug #: 56033
Summary: FAIL: libffi.call/cls_struct_va1.c on
powerpc-apple-darwin9 with -m64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56022
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56030
--- Comment #1 from Bill Gates gregnietsky at gmail dot com 2013-01-18
14:57:29 UTC ---
There is a glitch with this testing it with a native x32 and includeing 64
mutlilib fails on the multilib build as there is no /64 multilib
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Hi !
Using GCC 4.8.0 as of 20130118 :
$ cat incompat.c
int a, b, *p;
void f(void)
{
int *q
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56032
--- Comment #1 from Gábor Horváth xazax.hun at gmail dot com 2013-01-18
15:01:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Consider the following code:
// CODE --
#include iostream
#include vector
class S {
public:
S(const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56034
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #21 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
15:33:33 UTC ---
While we are at it...
It is possible to use zero shadow offset of powerpc somehow?
on x86_64 linux, when I build the code with -fPIC -pie
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56032
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56032
--- Comment #3 from Gábor Horváth xazax.hun at gmail dot com 2013-01-18
15:39:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #0)
I guess the origin of this problem is the incomplete fix of the error above.
There is no fix, PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
15:41:09 UTC ---
Forcing everything to be built as -pie is a non-starter. The 5% just aren't
worth the trouble. Especially, how are you going to deal with say a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #23 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
15:46:00 UTC ---
in our use-case 5% of run-time (and code size too) is a lot.
We are currently in the process of migrating the chrome builds to zero based
offset
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56032
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
16:00:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I added a new report because 50025 is about a compilation error, and with gcc
4.7 the code compiles, but fails to work as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54793
Frank Ch. Eigler fche at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21141
Denis Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21141
--- Comment #10 from Denis Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail dot com
2013-01-18 16:03:37 UTC ---
BTW, testcase needs a small fix:
-static const u64 C0[256];
+u64 C0[256];
or else gcc with optimize it almost to nothing :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #4 from Paul E. McKenney paulmck at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
2013-01-18 16:22:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
So, what are these rules of the abstract machine, and why do they allow
non-atomic store of a large volatile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #5 from Evgeniy Stepanov eugeni.stepanov at gmail dot com
2013-01-18 16:38:11 UTC ---
Well, it's true that classes have assignment operators, and basic types don't.
But this does not have anything to do with how the assignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18 16:49:08
UTC ---
Created attachment 29208
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29208
sched-verbose=9 dump output with debugging patch applied
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
16:54:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 29209
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29209
gcc48-pr56029.patch
The bug is that neither
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
16:57:00 UTC ---
Neither insn 24/145 nor insn 28 move through insn 17. The two UNSPEC 44 insn
(LC..2,, LCM..2) are inputs to insn 17. The pseudos are moved into r3 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56034
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #33 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
16:59:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
That sounds good, thanks.
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2013-01-18 17:04:39
UTC ---
4.7.3 [1] bootstraps OK, also passes -fcompare-debug test.
[1] gcc version 4.7.3 20130118 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 195292]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at redhat dot com 2013-01-18
17:14:56 UTC ---
You can use DYLD_PRINT_BINDINGS to find out which __cxa_allocate_exception
call
is being used, it'll also give you the addresses so you can make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
17:15:17 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 18 17:15:07 2013
New Revision: 195301
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195301
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Hi !
Using GCC 4.8.0 as of 20130118 :
$ cat bb.c
short a, c, *p;
void f(void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #34 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2013-01-18 17:27:43
UTC ---
The patch is missing changes in documentation on the new attribute.
David
(In reply to comment #32)
Created attachment 29207 [details]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2013-01-18 17:38:23
UTC ---
Bookkeeping seems somehow broken to me in sched1 pass:
-O2 -fcompare-debug -fdump-rtl-sched1-slim -S:
_.c.190r.sched1:
;;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #6 from Paul E. McKenney paulmck at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
2013-01-18 17:40:13 UTC ---
The fact that a data-race-free program cannot observe the non-atomicity of a
64-bit store, though true, is beside the point. The plain fact
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2013-01-18 17:49:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Bookkeeping seems somehow broken to me in sched1 pass:
*IF* this is problematic, then 4.7+ releases have the same problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
17:51:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 29211
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29211
gcc48-pr55742.patch
Updated patch with ChangeLog entry and code to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #36 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2013-01-18
18:03:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
Created attachment 29207 [details]
gcc48-pr55742.patch
This bug is open for way too long given its severity, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #37 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com 2013-01-18
18:07:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
Created attachment 29211 [details]
gcc48-pr55742.patch
Updated patch with ChangeLog entry and code to prevent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55433
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
18:15:02 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Jan 18 18:14:52 2013
New Revision: 195302
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195302
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56030
Bill Gates gregnietsky at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29205|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55995
--- Comment #4 from Sharad Singhai singhai at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
18:26:17 UTC ---
Author: singhai
Date: Fri Jan 18 18:26:04 2013
New Revision: 195303
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195303
Log:
2013-01-18
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
