https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Hende
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64041
Bug ID: 64041
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63938
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64012
--- Comment #5 from Airbak ---
I'm sorry for my mistake.
GCC-4.8.3 also have this phenomenon. GCC 4.4.1 is OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64015
--- Comment #5 from Zhenqiang Chen ---
It seams you always win with ccmp. Please go ahead for your patch and make sure
the following case work.
int
test (unsigned short a, unsigned char b)
{
return a > 0xfff2 && b > 252;
}
Thanks!
-Zhenqiang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64012
--- Comment #4 from Airbak ---
When I build toolchain with GNU , the problem also exist.
--
lijianhui@key:~/hi3535/Hi3535_SDK_V2.0.3.1/osdrv/kernel/linux-3.4.y$
arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64015
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> See how with forcing is always the same size or smaller?
Actually is always smaller by at least one instruction. due to the need to do
one extra cset and one an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64015
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zhenqiang Chen from comment #2)
> 2) How to justify it is valueable (the overhead of ccmp is OK) when
> generating ccmp?
If we ignore the case for swapping.
Try this one:
int
test (int a, int b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64015
--- Comment #2 from Zhenqiang Chen ---
You force it to register? In fact, I tend to not force it to register in
gen_ccmp_next, since it will introduce more overhead for ccmp, which
performance maybe worse.
My patch to fix the issue is at:
https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64040
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0xc020e9d8 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libc.2
(gdb) bt
#0 0xc020e9d8 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libc.2
#1 0xc01a9a74 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libc.2
#2 0xc01eadf8 in ?? (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64040
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Strange. Maybe some number is overflowing and trying to allocate a huge number
of bytes. I'll try to look into it but not for a few days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63852
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64040
Bug ID: 64040
Summary: FAIL: 23_containers/vector/ext_pointer/types/2.cc
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64039
Bug ID: 64039
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump
optimized "return 28;"
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63790
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64038
Bug ID: 64038
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-5.c (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64023
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #3)
> Even with that patch, there remains the "silent" issue of not linking
> statically when clang is the system compiler.
The underlying issue is that ld64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #13 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 34086
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34086&action=edit
Patch
Testing...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64023
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Last reconfirmed|2014-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #21 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 22-Nov-14, at 2:31 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is that with r217946 or later?
This is now fixed on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44054
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Sun Nov 23 23:47:42 2014
New Revision: 217992
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217992&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2014-11-23 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
--- Comment #3 from Julian Stecklina ---
Created attachment 34085
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34085&action=edit
Miscompiled binary (built with 4.9.2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
--- Comment #2 from Julian Stecklina ---
Created attachment 34084
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34084&action=edit
gcc --verbose --version for 4.9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
--- Comment #1 from Julian Stecklina ---
Created attachment 34083
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34083&action=edit
gcc --verbose --version for 4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
Bug ID: 64037
Summary: Miscompilation with LTO and enum class : char
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64036
Bug ID: 64036
Summary: [SH] Evaluate re-enabling scheduling before RA
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53976
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Nov 23 21:45:18 2014
New Revision: 217989
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217989&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2014-11-23 Oleg Endo
PR target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64035
Bug ID: 64035
Summary: [C++11] ICE in reshape_init_r when using initializer
list aggregate initialization for default function
parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53976
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Nov 23 21:16:26 2014
New Revision: 217987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217987&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/53976
* config/sh/sh_optimize_sett_clrt.cc
(sh_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
HJ,
The test was not failing on Linux x86-64 nor x86-32. I sent pre-processed
testcase from AIX that Jason was able to reproduce on Linux. But the fix did
not solve the failure on AIX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63203
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64034
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64034
Bug ID: 64034
Summary: [5 regression] cc1 stack-overflow with -O2
-fsanitize=undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #12 from John David Anglin ---
Breakpoint 3, delete_dead_store_insn (insn_info=0x1b5ccf0)
at ../../gcc/gcc/dse.c:948
948 if (!dbg_cnt (dse))
(gdb) p *insn_info
$3 = {cannot_delete = false, wild_read = false, non_frame_wild_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63497
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I think this is OK for the branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
--- Comment #11 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #10)
> note that there are 4 bootstrap breakers on PPC (trunk)
More annoying, I think, is that this one is also on 4.9, and actually made it
into the 4.9.2 re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
sorry I fixed this months ago locally..
I will push a patch to fix ASAP.
note that there are 4 bootstrap breakers on PPC (trunk)
1. this
2. libcc1 (same fail as x86)
3. libiberty needs some options massage t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #28 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #27)
> 10.7+ - (albeit 10.7 is somewhat transitionary)
> here we need to stop building the eh stuff into libgcc, we probably need to
> split the emul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 34079
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34079&action=edit
Assembler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
We now have:
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[
\t]_?_
ZTI4Heya
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[
\t]_?_
ZTIN4Heya1AE
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53976
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 34078
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34078&action=edit
Reduced problem from linux kernel
This one exposes a problem of the sh_optimize_sett_clrt RTL pass, where it will
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-11-22 00:00:00 |2014-11-23
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
32-bit x86 looks OK:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-11/msg02534.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-11/msg02537.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
--- Comment #7 from Denis Excoffier ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #6)
There is no lldb here, and also no direct 'bt' available. I used gdb with a
break point:
% cd /tmp/lcl/tmp/gcc/obj
%
% grep -n 'gcc_assert (sizeof reg_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #25)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #23)
> > 2. we have so many versions, different layouts and version-specific issues,
> > that I think it's time to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64033
Bug ID: 64033
Summary: [5.0 Regression] ICE: in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at
expr.c:7741
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #26 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Created attachment 34077
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34077&action=edit
Patch removing 10.4 and earlier support from our specs/driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #25 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #23)
> 2. we have so many versions, different layouts and version-specific issues,
> that I think it's time to reorganise our GCC extensions library to meet
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64032
Bug ID: 64032
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/undefined-loop-2.c (test for warnings,
line 18)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61324
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
It is caused by r210597.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63472
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|spear at cse dot lehigh.edu|
Severity|critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63671
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 34076
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34076&action=edit
Patch to fix aliases and dead code removal.
One of problem was the abstract origin tracking already solved. Othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63786
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63875
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|tejohnson at google dot com|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57919
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lundberj at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57758
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61019
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60943
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63216
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63385
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Jason, can we resolve this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63423
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63497
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|moophy at foxmail dot com |
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63959
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|ville.voutil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64031
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
-ffast-math lets it vectorize (using min directly). Otherwise, for the first
test, ifcvt gives (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63905
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64031
Bug ID: 64031
Summary: Vectorization of max/min is not robust enough
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64030
Bug ID: 64030
Summary: some libiberty sources includes stdio.h prior to
config.h causing redefined symbol warnings on
i?86-*-solaris2.11
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63926
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||63470
--- Comment #3 from Joost Van
73 matches
Mail list logo
