https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66390
--- Comment #1 from tornenvi at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 35686
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35686&action=edit
Test case file
Test.txt that shows the issue for the program FileRead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66391
Bug ID: 66391
Summary: suboptimal code for assignment of SImode struct with
bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32394
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66390
Bug ID: 66390
Summary: Text_IO.Get_Line does not correctly handle missing
line marker for last line in all cases
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gmail dot com ---
Is this code old, or a regression introduced by the recent module-equivalence
patch (to reduce the module sizes)?
Does removing the code regress module size in the case of modules with equiv
use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59048
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luca.stoppa at bbh dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66389
Bug ID: 66389
Summary: sh2eb-linux-* is not recognized by configure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65843
Sebastien Alaiwan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastien.alaiwan at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66374
Sebastien Alaiwan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #40 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The issue array reference not recognized as IV is resolved now. From gimple
optimizer's view, there is still another issue in which loop header is bloated
because of lose of signness information.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66388
Bug ID: 66388
Summary: Test gcc.target/i386/pr49781-1.c failed because of
recent scev overflow patches.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
-nostdinc -I- -I. -Iada/gene
rated -Iada -I/build/gcc-multilib/src/gcc-5-20150602/gcc/ada
-I/build/gcc-multilib/src/gcc-5-20150602/gcc/ada/gcc-interface /build/gc
c-multilib/src/gcc-5-20150602/gcc/ada/comperr.adb -o ada/comperr.o
[...]
raised STORAGE_ERROR : stack overflow or erroneous memory access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66258
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66258
--- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson ---
The patch doesn't completely fix grub, because grub is trying to compile FP
code with +nofp, which can't work without a soft-float ABI, which we don't
have. So grub gets an error instead of an ICE with the patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66258
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
Author: wilson
Date: Wed Jun 3 00:46:19 2015
New Revision: 224054
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224054&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/66258
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66325
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
> The ICE backtrace is:
>
> 930408-1.c:6:1: error: type variant differs by TYPE_PACKED.
> } s;
> ^
>
> I see this at least as far back as r223695 and it appears on trunk at r223800.
> Honza, is this relat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Patch posted to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02876.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66351
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hello,
the following patch should fix the miscompilation:
Index: ipa-polymorphic-call.c
===
--- ipa-polymorphic-call.c (revision 224053)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66363
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, ipa-inline's transform pass does fixup_cfg and other things that are not
really optional, so perhaps we should not support disabling it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66342
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 11:37:27PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> OK. Digging a little deeper. The problem is in
> module.c (load_equiv). There is a section of code
> (lines 4526
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
> There could be some negative side effects with the patch above, because it
> forces the R0 usage quite early (at RTL expansion).
Yes, the comment part says it and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65768
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66380
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 07:04:21PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
>
> --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66380
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Jun 2 23:02:05 2015
New Revision: 224049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224049&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-02 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66380
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65768
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Tue Jun 2 22:53:15 2015
New Revision: 224048
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224048&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-06-03 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59048
Ondrej Bilka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neleai at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
building trunk libgo with -fstack-protector-strong yields:
$ go version
fatal error: unexpected signal during runtime execution
[signal 0xb code=0x1 addr=0x3]
goroutine 16 [running]:
:0
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66387
Bug ID: 66387
Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl with lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
--- Comment #8 from James Almer ---
(In reply to James Almer from comment #7)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
> > (In reply to James Almer from comment #5)
> > > Created attachment 35683 [details]
> > > Preprocessed source as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
>
> Defaulting -mlra might be reasonable for gcc 6.
> For gcc 5, I thought the patch for prepare_move_operands like
>
> di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
Adam Conrad changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adconrad at 0c3 dot net
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66385
--- Comment #1 from Mianzhi Wang ---
The bug is bypassed by -fno-frontend-optimize, same as in the case of 66050 and
66386.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65966
--- Comment #3 from Lewis Hyatt ---
Hello-
I thought it would make sense to ping this one again a month later, I am afraid
I may have confused matters by mixing two separate issues in one report...
Definitely the second issue is already covered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66386
--- Comment #1 from Mianzhi Wang ---
The bug is bypassed by -fno-frontend-optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66386
Bug ID: 66386
Summary: ICE: FORALL reading multiple elements from one array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66385
Bug ID: 66385
Summary: ICE: FORALL writing multiple elements of one array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66384
Bug ID: 66384
Summary: Compiler fails with message "compilation abandoned"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
--- Comment #7 from James Almer ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
> (In reply to James Almer from comment #5)
> > Created attachment 35683 [details]
> > Preprocessed source as generated by -freport-bug, third test case, gcc 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 06:41:53PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Thus, there is something about the "arrayness" of x in
> the original testcase that matters. Off-by-one maybe?
>
There certainly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to James Almer from comment #5)
> Created attachment 35683 [details]
> Preprocessed source as generated by -freport-bug, third test case, gcc 5.1.1
> svn 223417
>
> How about this one? Crashe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jun 2 18:45:50 2015
New Revision: 224041
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224041&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/66220: Fix false positive from -Wmisleading-indentation
gcc/c-fam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
--- Comment #5 from James Almer ---
Created attachment 35683
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35683&action=edit
Preprocessed source as generated by -freport-bug, third test case, gcc 5.1.1
svn 223417
How about this one? Crash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 2 17:50:23 2015
New Revision: 224039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/66319
* configure.ac: Use -std=gnu++98.
Modi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66380
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
The problem is that an assertion is triggered for
a PAD size that is less than or equal to zero.
The assertion should be an error condition. The
patch that I attached does this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66380
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boger at us dot ibm.com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64866
--- Comment #5 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Arnaud Charlet from comment #2)
> Visibility in the Ada runtime do not follow standard Ada rules. In other
> words, the Ada runtime isn't implemented in Ada, but in a different
> diale
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66162
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> In PR64866 comment 2, Arno said "Visibility in the Ada runtime do not follow
> standard Ada rules. In other words, the Ada runtime isn't implemented in
> Ada, but in a different dialect very close to Ada, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49551
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49551
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Tue Jun 2 16:42:27 2015
New Revision: 224033
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224033&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-02 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
maybe the changes from PR65787 are unrelated.
Building a compiler which has -fstack-protector strong enabled by default. The
crash goes away when I add -fno-stack-protector to AM_CFLAGS in libgo. So it
sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66136
--- Comment #10 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Tue Jun 2 16:21:18 2015
New Revision: 224031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64][PR 66136] rewrite geniterators.sh in awk
2015-06-02 Sza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66383
--- Comment #2 from alltaken380 at gmail dot com ---
$ ~/.local/gcc-5.1/bin/g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/rafalw/.local/gcc-5.1/bin/g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/rafalw/.local/gcc-5.1/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/5.1.1/lto-wra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66383
alltaken380 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35679|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66383
Bug ID: 66383
Summary: ICE in gimplify_expr on this passed in inline
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66382
Bug ID: 66382
Summary: POWER8 Vector optimized implementation of __float128
(IEEE754 128-bit Binary Floating Point)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
--- Comment #4 from Marcus Kool ---
> The intrinsic returns "int", and from the above tree dump, the compiler
> won't even consider to combine the sign-extension with vpmovmskb.
>
> So, why not:
>
>unsigned int v;
>
>v = (unsigned int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66342
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66349
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 35678
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35678&action=edit
patch
What I am testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Bootstrapped / tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions...
testing a more complete fix (applying this to all cases in
follow_ssa_edge_binary)
now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66381
Bug ID: 66381
Summary: ice in dfs_enumerate_from with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66380
Bug ID: 66380
Summary: ICE for intrinsic reshape with insufficient number of
array elements
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #8 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The initial stack frame of a goroutine is set up by the makecontext function,
which is part of the C library. Ideally makecontext should arrange matters
such that a backtrace stops at that point, as pthre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66371
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66379
Bug ID: 66379
Summary: SCCVN doesn't handle aggregate array element accesses
very well
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64181
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so even with PR63916 rudimentary fixed we hit the issue that in
_9 = &D.3665[_11].org;
MEM[(struct vec_ *)_9] = 1.0e+0;
MEM[(struct vec_ *)_9 + 4B] = _8;
...
_24 = MEM[(const struct Ray *)&D.36
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5/6 Regression]|[4.8/4.9/5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 2 12:33:02 2015
New Revision: 224029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-02 Richard Biener
PR debug/65549
* dwarf2o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|5.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|law at gcc dot gnu.org |spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65742
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Jun 2 11:48:56 2015
New Revision: 224028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/65742, PR middle-end/66332] XFAIL acc_on_device compile-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Jun 2 11:48:56 2015
New Revision: 224028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/65742, PR middle-end/66332] XFAIL acc_on_device compile-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66378
Bug ID: 66378
Summary: libgo syscall.Sendfile() does not honor/use offset
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
URL: https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1460530
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66162
--- Comment #6 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> That's not the problem., just avoid using -gnatc on the runtime.
Eric,
In PR64866 comment 2, Arno said "Visibility in the Ada runtime do not follow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Indeed as we just feed the initial condition to chrec_convert it happily just
fold_convert()s the zero to signed char and then back to int ...
So
res = follow_ssa_edge
(loop,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
--- Comment #3 from Marcus Kool ---
> The intrinsic returns "int", and from the above tree dump, the compiler
> won't even consider to combine the sign-extension with vpmovmskb.
That is the core of the issue: the part of gcc that deals with int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt ---
When dumping the complete backtrace, gdb produces a warning. Maybe the
libgo/runtime code does not properly set up the initial stack frame of the
thread?
(gdb) set backtrace past-main
(gdb) bt
#0 main.main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Hum.
:
# prephitmp_22 = PHI <0(4), c.2_15(10)>
...
e_12 = (char) prephitmp_22;
_13 = (int) e_12;
...
c.2_15 = _13 + -11;
Simulating statement (from ssa_edges): prephitmp_22 = PHI <0(4), c.2_15(10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61683
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61683
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 2 10:28:14 2015
New Revision: 224022
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224022&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-06-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/61683
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
Bug ID: 66377
Summary: [F95] Wrong-code with equivalenced array in module
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I have looked briefly at this. The compiler actually generates the following:
vpmovmskb %ymm0, %edx # 16avx2_pmovmskb [length = 4]
testl %edx, %edx # 18*cmpsi_ccno_1/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 2 10:19:18 2015
New Revision: 224020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48052
* cfgloop.h (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
--- Comment #10 from Andrew ---
(In reply to Christian Prochaska from comment #0)
> test.c:
>
> void func()
> {
> unsigned int i;
>
> unsigned int *ptr = (unsigned int*)0xf000;
>
> for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
> *(ptr++)
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
