http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59015
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58290
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
This appears to have been fixed / gone latent between r204377 and r204433 (~
Nov 6th.)
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
gcc version 4.9.0 20131106 (experimental) [trunk revision 204433] (GCC) yields
the following internal compiler error:
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0x9fee4f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57926
--- Comment #10 from lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com ---
Is this going to be fixed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59011
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=58421
Yukhin Kirill kirill.yukhin at intel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59011
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
void
foo (int m)
{
int a[m];
void bar (void)
{
{
int baz (void)
{
return a[0];
}
}
a[0] = 42;
}
bar ();
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59015
--- Comment #2 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We don't trigger the check in resolve.c:resolve_transfer() because we bail out
early:
if (exp == NULL || (exp-expr_type != EXPR_VARIABLE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59017
Bug ID: 59017
Summary: Infinite loop introduced in program with -O2 or -O3 on
Mageia Linux x86-64 Cauldron with gcc-4.8.2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59017
--- Comment #1 from Shlomi Fish shlomif at shlomifish dot org ---
Created attachment 31171
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31171action=edit
The .c file
This is the offending .c file . I forgot to note that the problem is that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59015
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Allowing EXPR_STRUCTURE to go through the tests (by adding it along
EXPR_VARIABLE and EXPR_FUNCTION) leads to a failure of c_ptr_tests_16.f90 (the
rest of the testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50436
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58985
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
Bug ID: 59018
Summary: [4.9 Regression] libsanitizer doesn't build for x32
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59014
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=59019
Bug ID: 59019
Summary: [4.9 regression] ICE in advance_target_bb, at
sched-rgn.c:3561
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59014
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'd say this is .vrp1. In .mergephi2, we have
bb 4:
a.1_11 = a.1_5;
d = a.1_11;
return 0;
but in .vrp1:
bb 4:
a.1_13 = 0;
a.1_11 = 0;
d = 0;
return 0;
And
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59020
Bug ID: 59020
Summary: [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in
maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:933
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/data/vjoost/gnu/gcc_trunk/install
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib --enable-plugins
--enable-lto --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131106
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59014
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And, it's not related to -Os; the bug triggers exactly when VRP is run.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59021
Bug ID: 59021
Summary: [4.9 regression] new vzeroupper instructions generated
with -mavx
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59019
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=59020
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59021
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59017
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59014
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59011
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59008
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59014
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It seems we create wrong ASSERT_EXPR:
a.1_5 = a;
_7 = (_Bool) a.1_5;
_8 = _4 | _7;
if (_8 != 0)
goto bb 5;
else
goto bb 6;
bb 6:
a.1_15 = ASSERT_EXPR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020
--- Comment #23 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #16)
I want to mention that there is now some additional support for IEEE in
libgfortran/config. None of those functions is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58653
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The issue is that predcom treats
e[c + 3][d] and e[c + 4][d]
as having distance '2', but that's in a dimension that is not evolving.
Later we adjust the evolving dimension index
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58733
--- Comment #3 from octoploid at yandex dot com ---
The issue only happens when I use the 'gold' linker,
ld.bfd is fine. So maybe a binutils bug?
Honza?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59022
Bug ID: 59022
Summary: Bogus warning: conversion to 'short int' from 'int'
may alter its value [-Wconversion]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59021
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59022
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58970
--- Comment #28 from Jan Smets jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com ---
Can this be backported to 4.8 please.
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023
Bug ID: 59023
Summary: [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with
BIND(C)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59021
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Isn't the argument list a bit strange for call insn?
(call_insn 20 19 21 2 (set (reg:SI 0 ax)
(call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:DI (foo) [flags 0x41] function_decl
0x2b9e82c58f00 foo)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58697
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58653
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 58697 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59011
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.3.6 |4.4.0
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58653
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 6 15:00:16 2013
New Revision: 204458
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204458root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-11-06 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58653
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
--- Comment #1 from John Regehr regehr at cs dot utah.edu ---
Simpler test case:
$ cat small.c
int a[10], b;
int main() {
for (; b = 0; b++)
a[b] = a[0] || b;
}
$ gcc -O3 small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:2:5: internal compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59024
Bug ID: 59024
Summary: ICE: after printing certain error messages, the
compiler seg faults.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59025
Bug ID: 59025
Summary: Revision 203979 causes failure in CPU2006 benchmark
435.gromacs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58985
--- Comment #7 from wmi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wmi
Date: Wed Nov 6 17:06:46 2013
New Revision: 204461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204461root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-11-06 Wei Mi w...@google.com
PR regression/58985
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59025
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Was this before r204348, or can you reproduce it also after that follow-up fix?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, dodji at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59021
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
At least one of these patches does not build with clang:
/home/kcc/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:807:21:
error: ignored asm label 'r8' on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #1)
At least one of these patches does not build with clang:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59021
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
I have patch in testing.
The call_insn RTX should always define its mode. Previously, the state was
switched to DIRTY by an eventual move to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #1)
At least one of these patches does not build with clang:
/home/kcc/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #4 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
the patches look good and pass our testing on x86_64 and i386.
Thanks!
committed as http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revisionrevision=194155
(fixed 4 small lint warnings
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you try
register void *r8 __asm__ (r8) = newtls;
register int *r10 __asm__ (r10) = child_tidptr;
Yep, works!
But you need to enable x32 first on your OS, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #4)
the patches look good and pass our testing on x86_64 and i386.
Thanks!
committed as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #5)
Can you try
register void *r8 __asm__ (r8) = newtls;
register int *r10 __asm__ (r10) = child_tidptr;
Yep, works!
But you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #8 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I will submit my patches to GCC now.
Ok!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55946
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59025
--- Comment #2 from Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, this still fails with r204348.
I did discover that adding -mrecip=rsqrt allows the benchmark to succeed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59021
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 6 19:37:12 2013
New Revision: 204464
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204464root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/59021
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59026
Bug ID: 59026
Summary: ELEMENTAL procedure with VALUE arguments emits wrong
code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56806
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59028
Bug ID: 59028
Summary: gengtype 4.7 fails with operator inside GTY-ed struct
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59029
Bug ID: 59029
Summary: ICE with builtin function and -fsanitize=address
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59027
Bug ID: 59027
Summary: std::is_signed does not include check for
is_arithmetic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59029
--- Comment #1 from Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The broken caret diagnostic seems to be a general problem of today's build.
I'll open a separate bug report for this.
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
With today's trunk (4.9.0 20131106) the caret diagnostic always points to the
first line, although the line number is correct.
==
// First
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11006
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 6 20:19:10 2013
New Revision: 204469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204469root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-11-06 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59030
--- Comment #1 from Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With yesterday's build I got a correct diagnostic:
bug.cc:5:9: error: expected primary-expression before ';'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11468
Bug 11468 depends on bug 11006, which changed state.
Bug 11006 Summary: [CNI] ICE with use of __java_boolean
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11006
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4439
Bug 4439 depends on bug 11006, which changed state.
Bug 11006 Summary: [CNI] ICE with use of __java_boolean
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11006
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11006
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59030
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59031
Bug ID: 59031
Summary: vtable lookup not optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30807
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Nov 6 20:26:35 2013
New Revision: 204473
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204473root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/30807
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59032
Bug ID: 59032
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE incrementing vector type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59032
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59022
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reference for completeness: C99, 6.3.1.1, paragraph 2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59026
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #2 from Evgeniy Stepanov eugeni.stepanov at gmail dot com ---
As discussed in a email thread on gcc-patches, we will probably move away from
including kernel headers and just define all the types in our code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59033
Bug ID: 59033
Summary: cannot control inherited constructors visibility
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30807
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59028
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59014
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
Why does it think that a.1_5 must be 0?
That's because VRP is innocent here after all, it's the forwprop1 what does
- _6 = a.1_5 1;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023
--- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Using an intermediate variable works around the bug. If you replace:
toto = t(helper())
with
i = helper()
toto = t(i)
where i is an integer variable, you don't have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 6 21:49:36 2013
New Revision: 204480
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204480root=gccview=rev
Log:
Cast pointers to uptr for 64-bit syscalls
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #10 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 6 21:50:42 2013
New Revision: 204481
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204481root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix internal_clone for x32
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #11 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 6 21:51:41 2013
New Revision: 204482
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204482root=gccview=rev
Log:
Use 64-bit system types for x86-64
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 6 21:52:29 2013
New Revision: 204483
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204483root=gccview=rev
Log:
Check __x86_64__ for FPU state
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59034
Bug ID: 59034
Summary: [4.9 Regression] FAIL
gcc.c-torture/compile/20031208-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59034
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
split2 generates
(insn 26 25 8 2 (set (mem:SI (plus:DI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
(const_int 4 [0x4])) [0 S4 A8])
(const_int -1766711296 [0x96b22000])) x.i:4 86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59034
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
The fix is obvious:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index c7ec0c1..a2c81e5 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -1669,7
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
