On 10/04/14 02:50, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On Apr 9, 2014, at 4:15 AM, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking at some curious pre-reload scheduling behaviour and I noticed this:
At the add_branch_dependences function sched-rgn.c there is a comment that says
branches,
Hi there,
we ported gcc 4.8.1 to our ptivate target and the code is bloated for
the array access as shown below
C file :
int a[10];
int i;
test()
{
a[9] = 10;
a[i] = 20;
}
xgcc -O2 -S test.c
_test:
ld (_a+18), 10 ;a[9] = 10;
ld WA, (_i) ; a[i] = 20;
add
On 04/10/2014 04:12 PM, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
Please somebody from the group can share their thoughts and will be
appricate the same.
But unoptimized code is expected to be large. Why do you expect
otherwise?
Andrew.
On Apr 11, 2014, at 2:47 AM, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote:
On 10/04/14 02:50, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On Apr 9, 2014, at 4:15 AM, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking at some curious pre-reload scheduling behaviour and I noticed
this:
At the
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140410 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140410/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60803
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Which template argument deduction should be take, B or A?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60803
--- Comment #3 from Eric Niebler eric.niebler at gmail dot com ---
B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #9 from Dominik Muth dominik.muth at gmx dot de ---
Please note that in Bug 60791 no warning is given even with -O3 (except when
using a legacy version of gcc).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:45:21 2014
New Revision: 209262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209262root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-06 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36282
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:47:55 2014
New Revision: 209263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209263root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-13 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60516
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:49:02 2014
New Revision: 209264
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209264root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-17 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60603
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:51:52 2014
New Revision: 209265
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209265root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-22 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60689
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:54:08 2014
New Revision: 209267
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209267root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-28 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60693
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:57:09 2014
New Revision: 209268
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209268root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-28 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60516
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 regression]: |[4.7 regression]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36282
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60603
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60689
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60693
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Apr 10 08:13:30 2014
New Revision: 209269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209269root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix PR debug/60655 part 2.
2014-04-10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
--- Comment #10 from Akim Demaille akim.demaille at gmail dot com ---
Well, I have finally found a simple workaround for some of the cases: GCC seems
to be right in the order of evaluation when initializing an array so:
templateint... IS
int f1()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60805
Bug ID: 60805
Summary: Validate const expressions created by var-tracking /
debug information across targets.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60806
Bug ID: 60806
Summary: libstdc++ abi check should ignore missing TLS symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #10 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
(In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #6)
Yes, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15)
This patch fixes the ICE by copying forced_by_abi as part of cgraph fixup in
ipa visibility. I would like Jason to comment on this. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You need to include gimple-expr.h header for that. But, if you look e.g. at
c/c-typeck.c or c-family/cilk.c, it is already used in the FEs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
By the C++ FE change, do you mean something like:
--- gcc/cp/method.c.jj2014-03-27 08:06:11.0 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/method.c2014-04-10 10:59:36.226288999 +0200
@@ -387,6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60795
--- Comment #4 from Kergonath kergonath at me dot com ---
The slightly modified version:
module m
contains
subroutine allocate_array(s_array)
character(:), dimension(:), allocatable, intent(out) :: s_array
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60502
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 09:35:39 2014
New Revision: 209274
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209274root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-12 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60502
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #21 from John Marino gnugcc at marino dot st ---
Hi Eric,
When I tried to build the ARMv5 cross compiler (-march=armv5te) I get the
following error:
/tmp//cc5BKnWK.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp//cc5BKnWK.s:31: Error: selected processor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60807
Bug ID: 60807
Summary: internal compiler error (basic_string.tcc)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60807
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Klausner tk at giga dot or.at ---
This was first filed in the NetBSD bug tracker at
http://gnats.netbsd.org/48731
where it was suggested to file this upstream.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
When I tried to build the ARMv5 cross compiler (-march=armv5te) I get the
following error:
/tmp//cc5BKnWK.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp//cc5BKnWK.s:31: Error: selected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60807
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60807
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can't reproduce this on Linux/x86_64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60804
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60800
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Unfortunately, I could not replicate this with -Ofast -ffast-math
(isn't -ffast-math part of -Ofast?) and trunk revision 209179.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
Also, perhaps to make the change conservative enough for 4.9, might be best
to not append anything now, and only look at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60800
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57926
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to lailavrazda1979 from comment #14)
Why wait? I'm not hugely opposed, but bugfixes are bugfixes, and one more
fixed bug makes a better 4.9 release, right?
Because all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60808
Bug ID: 60808
Summary: Typo in definition of ATxmega256A3BU
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
jimis jimis at gmx dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jimis at gmx dot net
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
Bug ID: 60809
Summary: C99 struct initialiser with embedded self assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #15)
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
It is not clear to me why you want to print clone at all. It is an
internal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60589
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
--- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Apr 10 14:06:36 2014
New Revision: 209276
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209276root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-04-10 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
--- Comment #2 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
I see nothing surprising here; an assignment expression has the value of the
left operand after the assignment. So we 1) set query2.ai_flags to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
6.7.9 Initialization
23 The evaluations of the initialization list expressions are indeterminately
sequenced with respect to one another and thus the order in which any side
effects
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #12 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com ---
Thanks, will post a patch after the testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60807
--- Comment #4 from Martin Husemann martin at netbsd dot org ---
Neither can I on NetBSD/amd64 - will check with Thomas for differences on his
system
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60804
Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32577|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gereon.kremer at cs dot rwth-aache |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60800
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
-O3 -fstack-arrays -ffast-math also fails on both i686 and x86-64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60800
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
Mircea Namolaru mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 16:20:07 2014
New Revision: 209278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209278root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/60761
* error.c (dump_decl) case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60663
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
--- Comment #4 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net ---
Thanks Andreas, that's the reference I was looking for!
I guess since this code triggers unspecified behaviour, a warning would be even
more needed. :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32581
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32581action=edit
gcc49-pr60567.patch
The ipa.c version (changing node-forced_by_abi instead of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60810
Bug ID: 60810
Summary: [4.9 Regression] list directed io from array results
in end of file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60811
Bug ID: 60811
Summary: arc/arc.c:2135: possible bad argument to abs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
--- Comment #5 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net ---
Andreas: On a second thought, this paragraph only talks about the order
*within* the initialisation list. But no matter of that order, the
initialisation list is always evaluated to:
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
Created attachment 32581 [details]
gcc49-pr60567.patch
The ipa.c version (changing node-forced_by_abi instead of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 18:57:48 2014
New Revision: 209280
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209280root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR lto/60567
* ipa.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60191
--- Comment #16 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Thu Apr 10 20:13:23 2014
New Revision: 209282
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209282root=gccview=rev
Log:
moved this ChangeLog entry to fortran/ChangeLog
2014-04-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60784
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This regtested/bootstrapped patch fixes it, but I'm not fully confident it's
the Right Place. The problem is that constructor_designated wasn't set
properly when entering
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60812
Bug ID: 60812
Summary: gcc -g -gpubnames statically linked produces a
.debug_pubnames that is wrong or corrupted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60813
Bug ID: 60813
Summary: [Coarray] substrings mishandled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
--- Comment #19 from Mircea Namolaru mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr ---
The problem for many of these simple cases is with Graphite formulation of
memory accesses constraints. For Fortran, or C (if arrays are declared as
pointers), a memory
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57926
--- Comment #16 from lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com ---
Okay, no worries.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60769
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Apr 10 23:22:10 2014
New Revision: 209285
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209285root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-04-10 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58600
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60814
Bug ID: 60814
Summary: incorrect integer promotion when multiplying unsigned
short values
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60814
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60815
Bug ID: 60815
Summary: Inconsistent prologue line table location
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60815
--- Comment #1 from David Blaikie dblaikie at gmail dot com ---
Oh - and if we can confirm the direction you're going with this (if the
decision is that the prologue should start, like Clang, at the opening '{'
always, for example) I'll go ahead
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60810
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60662
--- Comment #2 from Stuart Ambler sambler at alumni dot nd.edu ---
Using gdb on my code, it appears that the immediate problem is caused by what
gthr-default.h and/or gthr-posix.h do to detect whether a program is
multi-threaded, which they seem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60816
Bug ID: 60816
Summary: Optimzed arm code generates infinite loop via branch
instruction branching to current program counter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60810
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60816
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60817
Bug ID: 60817
Summary: gcc configure script misdetects TLS support on
x86_64-pc-solaris* with gnu as
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 06:29:48PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01370.html
PR sanitizer/56781
fix --with-build-config=bootstrap-ubsan bootstrap of lto-plugin
I have no particular problem with this patch, although the build has
gotten
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:52:35AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Tested on ia64-suse-linux and installed as obvious.
Please don't add the TLS symbols in there, they aren't included
in any of the linux baselines so that there aren't failures in
--disable-tls configurations or when using too old
Hi!
I've committed several backports patches from trunk to 4.8 branch after
bootstrapping/regtesting them on x86_64-linux and i686-linux.
Jakub
2014-04-10 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
Backport from mainline
2014-03-06 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
Hi,
the hoist-register-pressure testcases currently fail on S/390 since
the rtl hoist pass requires that the expression to be hoisted can be
assigned without clobbering cc. We do not have a 32 bit add which
does not clobber cc.
On 64 bit we might use load address if the operands are DImode. On
Hi!
This backport didn't apply cleanly, because 4.8 doesn't have
build_all_ones_cst function.
So, either we can apply something like the patch below
(bootstrapped/regtested with the other backports), or as another
alternative I see backport the addition of build_minus_one_cst
and
Hi,
This fixes the tail of PR60655 where there were still issues without
-fdata-sections despite the fix in const_ok_for_output_1. For now, given
the pressure to get 4.9 out of the door, it's probably best to handle
this in the backend and reject constants that cannot be handled by GAS.
For
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:52:35AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Tested on ia64-suse-linux and installed as obvious.
Please don't add the TLS symbols in there, they aren't included
in any of the linux baselines
Actually, there are some:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:15:59AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:52:35AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Tested on ia64-suse-linux and installed as obvious.
Please don't add the TLS symbols in there, they aren't included
in
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
