https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65783
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 65784 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65784
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62182
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Arnaud Bienner from comment #3)
> One thing that doesn't work is turning on this warning using
> -Wunused-comparison parameter. But surprisingly, turning it off with
> -Wno-unused-comparison (whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65784
Bug ID: 65784
Summary: after reload, the memrefs_conflict_p is unreliable?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65783
Bug ID: 65783
Summary: after reload, the memrefs_conflict_p is unreliable?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65782
Bug ID: 65782
Summary: Assembly failure (invalid register for .seh_savexmm)
with -O3 -mavx512f on mingw-w64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-02-13 00:00:00 |2015-4-16
--- Comment #8 from Hans-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35326|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Macleod ---
My opinion:
1) is undesirable... even though it could possibly accelerate the conversion of
legacy sync to atomic calls... I fear it would instead just cause frustration,
annoyance and worse. I don't thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|amodra at gcc dot gnu.org |
Summary|[5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35325|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 35325
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35325&action=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
$ /home/wschmidt/gcc/install/gcc-5_1/bin/g++ -O1 -std=c++11 -S
AArch64InstrInfo.ii -fno-icf
g++: error: unrecognized command line option '-fno-icf'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Potential simple patch.
Index: io/list_read.c
===
--- io/list_read.c(revision 222110)
+++ io/list_read.c(working copy)
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
I can reproduce it with binutils 2.24 on x86-64:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -fPIE -pie /tmp/a.c
/export/build/gnu/binutils/release/usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccazj1RF.o:
relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against undef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65781
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62182
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Arnaud Bienner from comment #3)
> Created attachment 35324 [details]
> unused-comparison warning
You need testcases, and to run the testsuite. See point 4 at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Gett
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65781
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html .
Basically 5.1.0 is the version for the released version 5.0.1 is for
prereleases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65781
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65781
Bug ID: 65781
Summary: gcc-5.1.0-RC-20150412 thinks it is 5.0.1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Also does -fno-common make a difference?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65778
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can't you not use just a move instead of a ldr here? basically it is the
assembler which creates the constant pool here and that is too far from the
where the ldr is located because the function is "huge".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Please provide the output of "readelf -sW a.o" to verify
if optopt is COMMON:
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -O2 -c /tmp/a.c
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ readelf -sW a.o
Symbol table '.symtab' contains 12 entries:
Num:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
james410 at cowgill dot org.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||james410 at cowgill dot o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62182
--- Comment #3 from Arnaud Bienner ---
Created attachment 35324
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35324&action=edit
unused-comparison warning
I also believe it can be useful to have "unused comparison" warning (i.e.
something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
Bug ID: 65780
Summary: [5 Regression] Uninitialized common handling in
executables
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #24 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think we need to at least clarify the documentation of __atomic, probably
also of __sync; we might also have to change the implementation of __sync
builtins on some archs.
First, I think the _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65779
Bug ID: 65779
Summary: undefined local symbol on powerpc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65778
Bug ID: 65778
Summary: v8 build fails with assembly error with LTO enabled on
arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65727
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 15 21:17:03 2015
New Revision: 222132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65727
* lambda.c (lambda_expr_this_capture): In unevaluated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65777
Bug ID: 65777
Summary: SPECOMP component 362.fma3d fails with error
"SIGSEGV, segmentation fault occurred"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #23 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #22)
> (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #12)
> > There are two problems here, one of which concerns me more in the real
> > world, and both of which rely on rac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65776
Bug ID: 65776
Summary: ICE in varpool_node::get_constructor() during chromium
build on arm-linux-gnueabihf with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #22 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #12)
> There are two problems here, one of which concerns me more in the real
> world, and both of which rely on races if you are in the C/C++11 model -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Apr 15 18:51:49 2015
New Revision: 222130
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222130&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/47679
* tree-ssa-dom.c (build_and_record_new_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65487
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65487
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Apr 15 18:43:32 2015
New Revision: 222129
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222129&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix fdump-passes
2015-04-15 Tom de Vries
PR other/65487
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65775
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58586
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65103
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Mar 12 09:53:36 2015
New Revision: 221380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65103
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_address_cost)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 35322
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35322&action=edit
Unreduced save-temps file AArch64InstrInfo.ii.gz
Attaching the (unreduced and compressed) preprocessed source.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65775
--- Comment #1 from Ed Catmur ---
Credit to FISOCPP (http://stackoverflow.com/q/29628571/567292) for finding this
bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65775
Bug ID: 65775
Summary: Late-specified return type bypasses return type checks
(qualified, function, array)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65774
Bug ID: 65774
Summary: [6.0 regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/builtin-arith-overflow-1.c (internal compiler
error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65772
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #21 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #20)
> (In reply to mwahab from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #18)
> >
> > It looks inconsistent with C11 S7.17.7.4-2 (C++11 S29.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Found it...the "real" good code is:
106a8d6c: 78 fb e3 7f mr r3,r31
106a8d70: 78 db 64 7f mr r4,r27
106a8d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65772
--- Comment #2 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
When running the attached testcase on a platform with gccgo (ppc64le, x86_64),
the test fails due to incorrect return values from the function getList. The
source line for the return looks like this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Well, I screwed up, the "good" code is calling a different function. In the
good code this function call was apparently inlined, so I can't point to it.
But still, the load of r3 with zero is a bad thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65773
Bug ID: 65773
Summary: [5.1 regression] GCC 5.1 miscompiles LLVM function
AArch64InstrInfo::loadRegFromStackSlot()
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65772
--- Comment #1 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 35321
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35321&action=edit
testcase for bad return values
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65772
Bug ID: 65772
Summary: With multiple return values including a function with
side effects, incorrect value is returned
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The code around the gcc_unreachable is:
#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
/* Otherwise this is a generic code; we should just lists all of
these explicitly. We forgot one. */
gcc_unre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #19)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #18)
>
> It looks inconsistent with C11 S7.17.7.4-2 (C++11 S29.6.4-21) "Further, if
> the comparison is true, memory is affected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #10 from __vic ---
What brings new dependences on locales?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #19 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #18)
> (In reply to mwahab from comment #17)
>
> >
> > int cas(int* barf, int* expected, int* desired)
> > {
> > return __atomic_compare_exchange_n(b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65742
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This PR is fixed by the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00667.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #17)
>
> int cas(int* barf, int* expected, int* desired)
> {
> return __atomic_compare_exchange_n(barf, expected, desired, 0,
>__AT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> The switch statement in loc_list_from_tree
> doesn't handle DEBUG_EXPR_DECL which is why it ICEs.
> However, I'm not familiar with the code.
> Should it handle DEBUG_EXPR_DECL (just return 0)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #2)
> The loc tree that ends up hitting the gcc_unreachable is:
> type public SI
> size
> unit size
> align 32 symtab -15156822
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #9 from __vic ---
For 4.9 this change was enough for me:
--- libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/functexcept.cc2014-01-03 02:30:10.0
+0400
+++ libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/functexcept.cc2014-11-06 18:40:20.0
+0300
@@ -89,6 +89,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The loc tree that ends up hitting the gcc_unreachable is:
unit size
align 32 symtab -151568224 alias set 1 canonical type 0x77035690
precision 32 min max
pointer_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65637
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
Bug ID: 65771
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (in loc_list_from_tree, at
dwarf2out.c:14964) on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64527
ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64099
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 35320
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35320&action=edit
Reduced version with most I/Os removed and generalized_hookes_law inlined
manually.
The subroutine perd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65729
Yvan Roux changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> That patch is relative to current trunk, meaning 6.0.
I think it should not matter: the patch should apply on 5.0.1 or 6.0.
Applied on a patched 6.0 tree it works as advertised.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #17 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
According to the GCC documentation, __atomic_compare_exchange(ptr, exp, des,
..) is: if (*ptr == *exp) *ptr = *exp; else *exp = *ptr;
On Aarch64 the else (*ptr != *exp) branch is a store rather t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #15 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That patch is relative to current trunk, meaning 6.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #14 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to vehre from comment #13)
> Created attachment 35318 [details]
> Follow-up patch fixing latest regression.
>
> The attached patch fixes the ICE.
>
> Juergen, please check and report back, to pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #13)
> > But LDAXR/STLXR doesn't do that, and there's no write barrier at all when
> > the compare fails. If the intention real
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42522
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42522
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Apr 15 12:24:28 2015
New Revision: 222125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/42522
* cse.c (fold_rtx): Try to simpl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65765
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65765
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 15 12:09:56 2015
New Revision: 222124
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222124&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65765
* ipa-icf-gimple.c (func_checker::compare_bb): For G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65760
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #14)
> The LDAXR/STLXR sequences rely on the C11/C++11 prohibition of data races.
> That the __atomic builtins assume this restriction is implied by the
> references to C11/C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65765
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 15 11:47:44 2015
New Revision: 222123
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222123&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65765
* ipa-icf-gimple.c (func_checker::compare_bb): For G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, because nothing has changed in this regard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #6 from __vic ---
5.1-RC (gcc-5.1.0-RC-20150412) - the same problem. Suppose in GCC 6 too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64099
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 35319
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35319&action=edit
Reduced version with most I/Os removed.
Run time can be tuned by changing the value of number_of_sample
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65769
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think this is a missed diagnostic in the C++ frontend if it doesn't warn
about this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #14 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #13)
> There's surely a documentation problem here.
>
> GCC defines this:
>
> `__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST'
> Full barrier in both directions and synchronizes wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65770
Bug ID: 65770
Summary: [AArch64] vst2_lane broken on bigendian
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aph at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65763
--- Comment #6 from __vic ---
(In reply to __vic from comment #2)
> Will it help? OK, I'll try.
Yes. Has been built successfully.
Thanks!
P.S. I've read doc about building in a separate directory but all previous
versions in practice used to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #13 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35318
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35318&action=edit
Follow-up patch fixing latest regression.
The attached patch fixes the ICE.
Juergen, please check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Same cause though. See my comment there, can you prepare and verify a patch?
Yeah. Will do that.
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
