https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65494
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 23 12:47:54 2015
New Revision: 221592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221592root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-23 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
Hi Kirill,
Thread hierarchy management and creation policy is very interesting
topic for me as well. I came across that paper couple weeks ago.
Creating more threads in the beginning and applying suchlike
busy-waiting or if-master algorithm generally works better than
dynamic parallelism due to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57221
--- Comment #9 from Maxim Kuvyrkov mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Bero,
I'm working on reproducing this. How do you build the android toolchain? Is
it manual or do you have this scripted?
In particular, do you use a pre-generated sysroot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
This fixes PR65494 - I don't remember why I re-allocated matches
before recursing into operands. But that at least breaks backtracking.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied.
Richard.
2015-03-23 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
PR tree-optimization/65494
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24196
Bug 24196 depends on bug 24882, which changed state.
Bug 24882 Summary: [meta-bug] Non-refcounted, moveable basic_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16612
Bug 16612 depends on bug 24882, which changed state.
Bug 24882 Summary: [meta-bug] Non-refcounted, moveable basic_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334
Bug 21334 depends on bug 24882, which changed state.
Bug 24882 Summary: [meta-bug] Non-refcounted, moveable basic_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19495
Bug 19495 depends on bug 24882, which changed state.
Bug 24882 Summary: [meta-bug] Non-refcounted, moveable basic_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64931
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
Hi Mikael,
thanks for looking at the patch. Please note, that Paul has sent an addendum to
the patches for 60322, which I deliberately have attached.
26/02/2015 18:17, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
This first patch is only preparatory and does not change any of the
semantics of gfortran at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35108
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35108action=edit
gcc5-pr65504.patch
Patch I'm going to bootstrap/regtest now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334
--- Comment #51 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is no longer an issue when using the new non-reference-counted std::string
implementation in GCC 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #10)
I believe that the choice to scalarize is based on the vector cost model.
Hm, that would be interesting. The applied patch changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, except ada_demangle is also exported from libgnat*.so - wonder why the
RTS is built with IN_GCC.
This is explained in gcc-interface/Makefile.in.
In that case, guess the
On 20/03/15 16:02, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
Hi Joern,
I have a small patch for ARC backend that fixes the value of instruction length
attribute when the instruction is predicated. Ok to apply?
Assuming you tested it, this patch is OK.
On 23/03/15 11:22, Joern Wolfgang Rennecke wrote:
On 20/03/15 16:02, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
Hi Joern,
I have a small patch for ARC backend that fixes the value of
instruction length attribute when the instruction is predicated. Ok
to apply?
Assuming you tested it, this patch is OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64570
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
Seems ok with trunk dated 20150322.
No, it still fails. You're probably using an --enable-checking=release
compiler...
Le 20/03/2015 14:51, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
Hi all,
during checking that pr 61275 is really fixed, I found a indentation issue and
a piece of my former code, that could be done nicer and more readable. This
patch addresses both these issues.
Bootstraps and regtests ok on
From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:stevenb@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 8:14 PM
I put the cprop_reg_p check there instead of !HARD_REGISTER_P
because
I like to be able to quickly find all places where a similar check is
performed. The check is whether the reg is something that
Dear Andre,
Yes, that's right. The first three (vtab rework 1/2 and pr64787) are
combined and reformatted in the .diff file that I sent you. Please use
that and then apply the pr55901 patch. This is what I am okaying.
Cheers
Paul
On 23 March 2015 at 10:45, Andre Vehreschild ve...@gmx.de
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
What about the cprop_reg_p that needs to be negated? Did I miss something
that makes it ok?
You didn't miss anything. I sent the wrong patch. The one I tested on
ppc64 also has the condition reversed:
@@ -1328,9 +1329,8 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60255
--- Comment #9 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Mar 23 11:58:49 2015
New Revision: 221591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221591root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
2015-03-23 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64570
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
Seems ok with trunk dated 20150322.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #6)
Thanks for finishing the job.
I have yet to fix 4.9 as well, as you suggested. In a week or so.
Will you post a message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64570
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #5)
No, it still fails. You're probably using an --enable-checking=release
compiler...
Indeed I am, sorry for the false alarm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65473
--- Comment #2 from Louis Dionne ldionne.2 at gmail dot com ---
Does the standard specify which headers should define those macros? If not,
then it's a QOI issue that could easily be solved. In all cases, does stdcxx
document which headers must
26/02/2015 18:17, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
This first patch is only preparatory and does not change any of the semantics
of
gfortran at all.
Sure?
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.c b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
index ab6f7a5..d28cf77 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65519
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This boils down to:
with Ada.Strings.Unbounded; use Ada.Strings.Unbounded;
with Interfaces;use Interfaces;
package P is
type Arr is array (Unsigned_32 range ) of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65523
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Hi all,
commited as r221591 to gcc_4.9-branch. Okayed by Paul via IRC on 2015-03-22.
Thanks, Paul.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
2015-03-23 Andre Vehreschild ve...@gmx.de
Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
Backported from mainline
PR fortran/60255
Initial patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
Le 23/03/2015 13:43, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
Hi Mikael,
thanks for looking at the patch. Please note, that Paul has sent an addendum
to
the patches for 60322, which I deliberately have attached.
26/02/2015 18:17, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
This first patch is only preparatory and
This fixes PR65518 where the vectorizer builds a gigantic
load/interleaving chain for single element interleaving with
a very large distance. This situation isn't really supported
(and works by luck with generating absymal code), thus the following
simply disables support for it.
Bootstrapped
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:11:24PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
--- testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+/* { dg-lto-do link } */
+/* { dg-options -O2 -Wno-odr } */
Wasn't this supposed to be dg-lto-options instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65518
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 23 14:59:57 2015
New Revision: 221595
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221595root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-23 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65518
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:11:24PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
--- testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+/* { dg-lto-do link } */
+/* { dg-options
Hi!
As expand_set_or_movmem_prologue_epilogue_by_misaligned_moves uses
src = src - (adjusted_dest - dest)
without proper REG_POINTER flags the aliasing code is very easily confused
on what is really a pointer and what is not - as REG_POINTER was used
after forwprop only on dest, but not on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65521
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 23 15:17:20 2015
New Revision: 221596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221596root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65521
* ipa-icf.c
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
The gnat-style.texi part is OK. I cannot approve the fdl part though.
Gerald,
Can you approve the fdl part?
Let's assume I can. Okay.
Can you just describe the _why_ a bit in a @comment (in simple
words beyond showing the error message), that is,
Hi!
The recent IPA ICF hashing changes broke -fcompare-debug, hashing in
pointers is not stable not just for -fcompare-debug, but supposedly even
just different runs with the exact same options could yield different
assembly. Hashing on DECL_UID is not good either, that is not guaranteed to
be
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
The recent IPA ICF hashing changes broke -fcompare-debug, hashing in
pointers is not stable not just for -fcompare-debug, but supposedly even
just different runs with the exact same options could yield different
assembly. Hashing on DECL_UID
Hi!
Honza's recent change to use the libiberty demangler inside of gcc
broke Ada bootstrap. The issue is that there is a symbol clash,
libiberty contains ada_demangle symbol (with one API), and ada/adadecode.c
(since around 3.3 time, claimed for compatibility) contains another one,
with
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
As expand_set_or_movmem_prologue_epilogue_by_misaligned_moves uses
src = src - (adjusted_dest - dest)
without proper REG_POINTER flags the aliasing code is very easily confused
on what is really a pointer and what is not -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65521
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
Hi All ,
GCC 4.8.3 ,pop up with below error
/home/i16382/an.c:13:18: error: duplicate member 'bOriginator'
unsigned bOriginator;
^
for the case
union
{
struct
{
unsigned bStatusType;
unsigned bOriginator;
};
struct
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65521
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65521
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35105
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35105action=edit
gcc5-pr65521.patch
This fixes this for me. But I haven't done any in-depth analysis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65502
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65506
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65506
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-23 10:05 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Indeed, have verified this with the cross-compiler and the attached patch
should cure this.
I have applied the patch for testing but hit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65524
Arnaud Charlet charlet at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35109|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59254
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-23 10:02 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
3) Use fixincludes to change either the definition of __LWP_RWLOCK_VALID to
(short)0x8c91 or change the definition of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65494
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65523
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65047
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #56 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: clyon
Date: Mon Mar 23 13:43:22 2015
New Revision: 221593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221593root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-23 Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65506
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35111
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35111action=edit
gcc5-pr65506.patch
Indeed, have verified this with the cross-compiler and the attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65519
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's forwprop4 propagating an abnormal SSA name:
bb 5:
[...]
I.3_30(ab) = I.3_1 + 1;
_31 = (interfaces__unsigned_32) I.3_30(ab);
[...]
bb 13:
_43 = v.P_ARRAY;
_45
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21494
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65047
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65524
Bug ID: 65524
Summary: gnatbind generates decrementing the unexisting
elab-counter into finalize_library
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #57 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Cherry-picked r230324 and committed in GCC as r221593, to fix aarch64 problems.
I'm not sure whether the old arm and hppa problems have been fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #1)
At one time, GCC was permissive about system header issues, particularly
when they aren't
really a problem. Is this still the case?
It
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:07:10PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:11:24PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
--- testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65475b_0.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] select |[4.9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65518
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65496
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
Richard, any thoughts what to do about this? Avoid scheduling frame related
instructions across conditional jumps? Something else?
In any case, for compatibility, this patch just changes the guard so that
adadecode.c's ada_demangle is compiled only into libgnat*.{a,so} and not
into gnat1, which can then successfully link against libiberty
cplus-dem.o.
The ipa-devirt.c change is obvious IMHO, the same header is included
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64967
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks reasonable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 23 15:49:02 2015
New Revision: 221599
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221599root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/65522
* ipa-devirt.c: Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Hi Mikael,
This pointer stuff is very difficult to swallow to me.
I totally understand. When doing the patch I had to restart twice, because I
mixed up the development on the class arrays so completely, that I couldn't get
it right again.
I understand that for classes, the CLASS_DATA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65519
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problematic statement is created by the gimple-match stuff:
Applying pattern match.pd:761, gimple-match.c:1727
Applying pattern match.pd:625, gimple-match.c:1525
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 23 15:31:59 2015
New Revision: 221597
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221597root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65504
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60851
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
In 4.9 branch, the check is located in three different places throughout
constrain_operands. There was a big cleanup by Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64967
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
Or drop the gnu-versioned-namespace support altogether.
I'd like to do that ... maybe for GCC 6 though. It seems a bit late now to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65523
Bug ID: 65523
Summary: ICE: in gimple_op, at gimple.h:2270 with
-fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:11:24PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
PR ipa/65475
* ipa-devirt.c: Include demangle.h
===
--- ipa-devirt.c (revision 221572)
+++ ipa-devirt.c (working copy)
@@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ along
I have a small patch for ARC backend that fixes the value of
instruction length attribute when the instruction is predicated. Ok
to apply?
Assuming you tested it, this patch is OK.
Sorry, I replied to the wrong patch - I meant to reply to your email with the
patch that only adds a
On 03/20/2015 10:53 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
* tree.c (strip_typedefs): Ignore alignment
difference during processing template.
+ || (processing_template_decl
+ TYPE_ALIGN (t) != TYPE_ALIGN (result)))
Your change is actually ignoring alignment differences when *not*
On 03/23/2015 03:33 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
FWIW, you have to be very careful depending on REG_POINTER. I believe
Ada can still set REG_POINTER on things that are not pointers (via
virtual origins) and cross jumping can cause problems too where one arm
has x + y with X as the pointer and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65531
Bug ID: 65531
Summary: ICE: symtab_node::verify failed: Two symbols with same
comdat_group are not linked by the same_comdat_group
list. with -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65532
Bug ID: 65532
Summary: [5 Regression] Unexpected error with legacy code
(D1MACH)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Joel Matz joel.matz at horizonbtc dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.matz at
On 03/23/2015 09:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
As expand_set_or_movmem_prologue_epilogue_by_misaligned_moves uses
src = src - (adjusted_dest - dest)
without proper REG_POINTER flags the aliasing code is very easily confused
on what is really a pointer and what is not - as REG_POINTER was used
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
This is a fix for PR64208 where LRA loops when dealing with
iwmmxt_arm_movdi insn. As explain in the PR, the issue was introduced
on trunk and 4.9 branch by fix of PR rtl-optimization/60969 and then
workaround by
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Bin Cheng bin.ch...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
This patch is the second part fixing
Hi all,
The ICE in the PR happens on arm during the hoist pass when the code
generates a SET rtx of the form:
(set (reg:OI) (const_int 0)). It checks whether const_int 0 is a
general_operand for OImode which involves asking the backend whether it's a
legitimate constant.
1 - 100 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
