https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63637
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking at the generated assembly, I see there:
movw%di, -80(%rbp)
vpbroadcastw-80(%rbp), %ymm1
vmovdqa %ymm1, -80(%rbp)
I'd have expected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64336
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
hmm...
in this example at tsan.c, instrument_expr()
is exiting twice here:
if (TREE_READONLY (base)
|| (TREE_CODE (base) == VAR_DECL
DECL_HARD_REGISTER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64302
--- Comment #1 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Dec 17 09:25:44 2014
New Revision: 218810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218810root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64302
PR libstdc++/64303
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64303
--- Comment #1 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Dec 17 09:25:44 2014
New Revision: 218810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218810root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64302
PR libstdc++/64303
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64289
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 17 09:26:49 2014
New Revision: 218811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218811root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/64289
* c-convert.c: Include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 17 09:29:12 2014
New Revision: 218812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218812root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64322
* tree-vrp.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64336
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64337
Bug ID: 64337
Summary: ThreadSanitizer: std::thread + lambda false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64337
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Bartosiewicz p.bartosiewi at partner dot
samsung.com ---
There is a very similar bug report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57507
but the code from that one does not trigger a warning with gcc 4.9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64337
Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64302
--- Comment #2 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Dec 17 10:27:21 2014
New Revision: 218814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218814root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-12-17 Tim Shen tims...@google.com
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64303
--- Comment #2 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Dec 17 10:27:21 2014
New Revision: 218814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218814root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-12-17 Tim Shen tims...@google.com
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
Bug ID: 64338
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE in swap_condition, at jump.c:628
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62642
--- Comment #5 from M8R-ynb11d at mailinator dot com ---
I originally put the barriers there in a futile attempt to work around the bug.
Can anyone tell me whether I actually need them, or whether the intrinsic
carries with it an implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com ---
The regression starts from this commit:
trunk@200103
commit f82f0ea592c2d78077e03f5a1a3b9b40751cc116
Author: law law@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Date: Fri Jun 14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Dec 17 11:48:33 2014
New Revision: 218816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218816root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/63568
* match.pd: Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #12 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #11)
(In reply to thopre01 from comment #10)
I have the same gimple and for me the bswap is correctly detected. Can you
break at find_bswap_or_nop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64328
--- Comment #4 from Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: belagod
Date: Wed Dec 17 12:15:36 2014
New Revision: 218817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218817root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/64328
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64328
Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, is this fix acceptable to the reporter? The explanation in the combiner is
that in the first testcase you have multiple uses of the load of 0x1L
constant and therefore it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64339
Bug ID: 64339
Summary: reject unsafe options in pragma GCC optimize
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48026
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64336
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Yes, this patch seems to work...
But why did this only cause problems with template expansions and nothing else
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64254
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63851
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Results with the patch in comment 5 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg02164.html.
Note that the test gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_10.f90 fails at run time when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
Bug ID: 64340
Summary: [5 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/lto8.adb (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043#c11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #16 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Dec 17 14:22:57 2014
New Revision: 218818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218818root=gccview=rev
Log:
Add -malign-data={abi|compat|cachineline}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
This breaks ada: ...
It is now pr64340.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64010
--- Comment #12 from Ulrich Weigand uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Wed Dec 17 15:07:28 2014
New Revision: 218821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218821root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-12-17 Ulrich Weigand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64010
--- Comment #13 from Ulrich Weigand uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Since this has been in mainline for two weeks without reported issues, and it
should in general be a safe change, I've backported the patch to 4.9 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64010
Ulrich Weigand uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64331
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is it just REG_USED/REG_DEAD notes, or is register liveliness
(df_regs_ever_live_p etc..) also not guaranteed to be up to date?
These REG_UNUSED/REG_DEAD notes are special
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64341
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64341
Bug ID: 64341
Summary: [5 regression] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at
expr.c:7718
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63336
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63908
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
Olivier Hainque referred to having a 4.9 version of his patch, I suggest
you ask him.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
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=64342
Bug ID: 64342
Summary: [5 Regression] Tests failing when compiled with '-m32
-fpic' after r216154.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64343
Bug ID: 64343
Summary: [5 Regression] lto compile options
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64343
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64343
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is intended change. Compiling with -O0 -flto and linking with -O3 will not
really give you -O3 optimized code in earlier compilers either; you will not
get any of early
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64344
Bug ID: 64344
Summary: [5 Regression] [UBSAN] ICE with
-fsanitize=float-cast-overflow [ICE in
-fsanitize=float-cast-overflow]
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64343
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64325
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64344
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61265
--- Comment #2 from Chris Manghane cmang at google dot com ---
A slightly smaller program can reproduce this as well:
package main
var a = [1][0]int{B}[0]
var B = [0]int{}
func main() {}
This error occurs because in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64011
Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thank you for the missing externally visible attribute.
I've been testing following patch:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf.c b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
index b193200..0685019 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61263
Chris Manghane cmang at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Thank you for the missing externally visible attribute.
I've been testing following patch:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf.c b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
index b193200..0685019 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61952
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||valeryweber at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64333
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 17 20:41:18 2014
New Revision: 218832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218832root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/64333
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64333
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53987
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It seems that converting unsigned values to signed values, i.e. replacing
zero-extensions with sign-extensions and recombining sign-extensions with loads
could make sense in general.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Dec 17 21:12:42 2014
New Revision: 218834
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218834root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-12-17 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/64173
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've just fixed the problem reported by H.J.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63851
--- Comment #9 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
Results with the patch in comment 5 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg02164.html.
Note that the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #13 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
Looking at the generated assembly, I see there:
movw%di, -80(%rbp)
vpbroadcastw-80(%rbp), %ymm1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39570
Kai-Uwe Eckhardt kuehro at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kuehro at gmx dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61265
--- Comment #3 from Chris Manghane cmang at google dot com ---
Sorry for the noise, responding with new information as I discover it.
The above patch doesn't really work (it fails a few tests) because this isn't a
problem with zero-sized array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64345
Bug ID: 64345
Summary: [SH] Improve single bit extraction
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #81 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Dec 17 22:52:21 2014
New Revision: 218847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218847root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/51244
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #30 from Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #29)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #28)
Assuming fixed.
builtin-arith-overflow-14/17 are fixed with the patch, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
Looking at the generated assembly, I see there:
movw%di, -80(%rbp)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #82 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Dec 17 23:08:14 2014
New Revision: 218850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218850root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/51244
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #83 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #71)
* The RTL pass does the treg combine only when there is a conditional
branch. It should also handle conditional move insns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
Bug ID: 64346
Summary: gcc generates incorrect debug info for ctor/dtor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64157
tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64047
tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
_ZN3ABCC4Ev
That is the internal name of the function (it demangles to ABC::ABC() anyways)
and the symbol does not need to be in the symbol table at all.
We are going to run into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
--- Comment #3 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For AutoFDO, we actually needs symbols from the symbol table because indirect
call promotion needs the symbol name to find the right callee.
You are right, ICF also causes trouble to AutoFDO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64347
Bug ID: 64347
Summary: constructor priorities are not supported in avr-gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63851
--- Comment #10 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
Results with the patch in comment 5 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg02164.html.
Note that the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62178
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Dec 18 02:53:42 2014
New Revision: 218855
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218855root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/62178
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62178
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58623
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Evandro,
There is specific PR for this issue. But as we know, fwprop often corrupts
optimizations on address expression, for below example:
add rb, r1, r2
ldr rx, [rb]
add rb, rb, #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61931
--- Comment #2 from Ishiura Lab Compiler Team ishiura-compiler at ml dot
kwansei.ac.jp ---
We are sorry for having reported an error program with undefined behavior.
We have redone minimization. The resulting program is as follows.
$ cat test.c
97 matches
Mail list logo
