https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #36 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
mpolacek isn't a valid bugzilla user by itself. You always need to type the
whole email, or wait for the completion to appear and select it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
Bug ID: 66066
Summary: [6 Regression] r222889 causes bogus error: initializer
element is not constant
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #37 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #36)
mpolacek isn't a valid bugzilla user by itself. You always need to type the
whole email, or wait for the completion to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #35 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
CCing people doesn't work anymore.
For example on https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
when I click edit in the CC List, and add mpolacek and then hit
save
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068
Bug ID: 66068
Summary: error: type variant has different TYPE_VFIELD
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg00071.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 01/05/15 17:02, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
GCC has some logic to expand calls to pow (x, 0.75), pow (0.25) and pow (x,
(int)k + 0.5)
using square roots. So, for the above examples it would generate sqrt (x) *
On 7 May 2015 at 19:51, Martin Uecker uec...@eecs.berkeley.edu wrote:
Am Mon, 04 May 2015 18:28:49 +0200
schrieb Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com:
On 04/05/15 07:40, Martin Uecker wrote:
BTW: Why is 'nonnull' a function attribute and not something
which can be attached to
I'm still playing with the code, so this is a partial review.
We should prevent inlining of ARM state functions into functions we know
will be T16 if !TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT on the grounds that the architecture
doesn't have floating point instruction encodings in the T16 ISA
(Thumb1). We'll just
Hi!
On Thu, 7 May 2015 13:39:40 +0200, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:26:57PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
As reported in the PR, with the addition of all those OpenACC tests,
libgomp make check times have skyrocketed since the testsuite is still
run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66069
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On 11.04.2015 01:49, Xinliang David Li wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
LBR is used for both cfg edge profiling and indirect call Target value
profiling.
I see, that makes sense ;) I guess if we want to support profile collection
on targets w/o this
On 06/05/15 15:27, Christian Bruel wrote:
Implements the hooks for #pragma GCC target
A test included to check that macros were correctly defined/undefined on
pragma regions.
Thanks
Christian
Missing the hooks - this only appears to have the test.
Ramana
On Thursday 07 May 2015, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think it's time to switch to C++11 as the default C++ dialect for GCC
6. Any thoughts?
Would it be unrealistic to make C++14 the default? With it being an fixup of
C++11, I would guess it could have longer staying power as the default.
`Allan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
Bug ID: 66067
Summary: tree check ICE: accessed elt 1 of tree_vec with 0 elts
in write_template_args, at cp/mangle.c:2574
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
Yes, that is expected (in C99!). See
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01946.html. New tests
c90-left-shift-1.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #54 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #53)
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #50)
Created attachment 35478 [details]
implement SYNC flag for memory model
This compiles on all targets,
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:10 PM, François Dumont frs.dum...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Following Marc Glisse comment #4
on:https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65641 I would like to
propose this enhancement to the hash functor for pointers. It simply gets
rid of the irrelevant bits on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66069
Bug ID: 66069
Summary: New -fkeep-all-method-instances
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The reason is that -1 0 is UB in C99, and we should reject the program only
when the invalid shift is happening in a context where a constant expression is
required.
But if it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48904
--- Comment #4 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer aldot at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: aldot
Date: Fri May 8 07:33:42 2015
New Revision: 222903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222903root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/48904 x86_64-knetbsd-gnu
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
this patch tries to tighten a bit the range estimate for x%y.
slp-perm-7.c
started failing by
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev ysrum...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Here is a patch which gives us significant speed-up on HASWELL for
test containing masked stores. The main goal of that patch is attempt
to avoid HW hazard for maskmove instructions through inserting
additional
On 1 May 2015 at 01:23, Trevor Saunders tbsau...@tbsaunde.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:58:09PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On April 30, 2015 5:53:02 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/30/2015 01:58 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
Hi,
On 30 April
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66065
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
On 07/05/15 19:07, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/06/2015 05:36 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 30/04/15 00:18, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
only affects [u]int_fastN_t types
(on 64bit systems for N=16,32 musl uses int but glibc uses long)
i can fix glibc-stdint.h, but
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Jim Wilson jim.wil...@linaro.org wrote:
I noticed this while reading the match-and-simplify docs. The
gimple_simplify API list has two built-in function cases with three
tree args. The last one is supposed to have four tree args for a
ternary function (3
On 21 September 2012 at 21:11, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
Hi,
This patch adds i386/knetbsd-gnu64.h for x86_64-knetbsd-gnu. OK to
install?
I now installed this to trunk as r222903 after Jeff's approval.
Thanks!
Thanks.
H.J.
---
2012-09-21 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, that is expected (in C99!). See
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01946.html. New tests
c90-left-shift-1.c and c99-left-shift-1.c explicitly test such behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48904
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer aldot at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
On 07/05/15 19:02, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/06/2015 05:24 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 29/04/15 00:30, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
* config/linux.opt (mmusl): New option.
New -m options need documenting in invoke.texi.
Patch v3.
Now with
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/06/2015 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
Gentlemen!
I believe I have done as much as is reasonable for a merge, but I'd like
to
get your
Hi!
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:20:30 +0100, Richard Sandiford
richard.sandif...@arm.com wrote:
This patch [...] by replacing most of genrecog [...]
OK to commit?
Is it a bug that I'm seeing these warnings only in the stage 1 build with
the bootstrap GCC 4.6 compiler, but not anymore later on? (I
Hi,
GCC's IVO currently handles every IV use independently, which is not right
by learning from cases reported in PR65447.
The rationale is:
1) Lots of address type IVs refer to the same memory object, share similar
base and have same step. We should handle these IVs as a group in order to
Hi Mikael,
thanks for the review. I still have some questions/remarks before commiting:
On Thu, 07 May 2015 12:14:59 +0200
Mikael Morin mikael.mo...@sfr.fr wrote:
snip
@@ -2158,6 +2158,8 @@ build_function_decl (gfc_symbol * sym, bool global)
gfc_set_decl_assembler_name (fndecl,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66063
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 7 May 2015 18:52:52, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Hi Bernd,
On 05/06/2015 03:01 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015 18:03:15, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Now that gcc-5 is out, what about an automake-1.11.6 update for gcc-6?
BTW, the actual commands I use to
On 05/08/2015 12:10 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
On 05/06/15 01:58, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Trivial patch for fixincludes.
A) sufficiently trivial that explicit permission ought not be required
Agreed for the actual code change - more important is to notify the automake
revbump.
B) it is
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Kyrill Tkachov
kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
GCC has some logic to expand calls to pow (x, 0.75), pow (0.25) and pow (x,
(int)k + 0.5)
using square roots. So, for the above examples it would generate sqrt (x) *
sqrt (sqrt (x)),
sqrt (sqrt (x))
@@ -5204,28 +5199,6 @@ gnat_write_global_declarations (void)
types_used_by_var_decl_insert (t, dummy_global);
}
}
-
- /* Output debug information for all global type declarations first. This
- ensures that global types whose compilation hasn't been finalized
yet, -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You can always make it a -pedantic error only...
On Fri, 8 May 2015, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
At present, the first parameter in a function prototype must have
some type specifier that is not an attribute specifier; this resolves
an ambiguity in the interpretation of void f(int (__attribute__((foo))
x))
Am 2015-05-07 um 13:37 schrieb Richard Sandiford:
One problem with the automatically-generated gen_rtx_FOO () macros
is that they always have a mode parameter, even for codes like SET
where the mode should always be VOIDmode. This inevitably leads to
cases where a caller accidentally passes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #38 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net ---
I can confirm the regression. I reported this issue upstream:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1162914
Thanks Markus for catching that! :)
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
@@ -5204,28 +5199,6 @@ gnat_write_global_declarations (void)
types_used_by_var_decl_insert (t, dummy_global);
}
}
-
- /* Output debug information for all global type declarations first. This
-
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Marcus Shawcroft
marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 September 2014 04:45, Michael Collison
michael.colli...@linaro.org wrote:
On certain patterns in atomics.md the constraint 'n' is used in combination
with the predicate atomic_op_operand. The constraint
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Hi!
On 06.05.2015 14:38, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, 5 May 2015 15:38:03 -0400, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 14:10 +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 29/04/2015 02:02, David Malcolm a écrit :
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/parse.c b/gcc/fortran/parse.c
index
Franz Sirl franz.sirl-ker...@lauterbach.com writes:
Am 2015-05-08 um 13:57 schrieb Segher Boessenkool:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:32:30PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
this patch (r222882 is fine, r222883 fails) breaks bootstrap for me on
x86_64-linux-gnu:
i386.md has set:BND twice; replace that
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:18:46AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
2015-05-08 Segher Boessenkool seg...@kernel.crashing.org
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Require operand inequality in one
of the peepholes.
Okay.
Is there an artificial testcase?
I don't have one.
On 05/08/2015 03:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
@@ -5204,28 +5199,6 @@ gnat_write_global_declarations (void)
types_used_by_var_decl_insert (t, dummy_global);
}
}
-
- /* Output debug information for
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Tom de Vries tom_devr...@mentor.com wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes PR66013.
I.
Consider this test-case, with a va_list passed from f2 to f2_1:
...
#include stdarg.h
inline int __attribute__((always_inline))
f2_1 (va_list ap)
{
return va_arg (ap, int);
This peephole transforms
lis a,HI ; ori a,a,LO
cmpw c,a,b ; beq c,...
to
xoris a,b,HI1
cmpwi c,a,LO1 ; beq c,...
when a and c are dead after this. But it forgets to check that a and b
are not the same reg, generating non-sensical code. This patch fixes that.
Tested etc.; is this
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Szabolcs Nagy szabolcs.n...@arm.com
wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:59, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Rich Felker dal...@libc.org writes:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:58:02PM +, Matthew Fortune wrote:
There does however appear to
On 08/05/15 15:25, Matthew Fortune wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Szabolcs Nagy szabolcs.n...@arm.com
wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:59, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Rich Felker dal...@libc.org writes:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:58:02PM +, Matthew
On 08/05/15 16:13, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 08/05/15 15:46, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Szabolcs Nagy szabolcs.n...@arm.com writes:
if you think that's ok, i can now submit the patch with %{msoft-float:-
sf} added to all abi variants.
That's fine. Go ahead.
the patch for the record.
I've
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:54:17PM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
I do not have the privileges to do a review so I can't help you there. Good
luck finding a reviewer.
You probably understand this area of code as well as anyone
else, and your contributions to gfortran over the last few
On 8 May 2015 at 16:23, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
Yes, the i386 backend has not implemented conditional sibcalls.
See: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60159
Jay.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66074
Bug ID: 66074
Summary: gcc_jit_result_get_code returns a void*
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
Le 08/05/2015 13:54, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
Hi Mikael,
at first I tried to fix this issue with the scalarizer, too, but I could not
grasp how the scalarizer was working. Do you have any documentation, how it is
meant to be? I mean, I have read the comments in the code, but those are
Hello,
Attempting to build libiberty on LynxOS-178 fails trying to compile
mkstemps.c with the following error:
mkstemps.c:84:18: error: storage size of 'tv' isn't known
struct timeval tv;
^
This file would normally include sys/time.h to get the type's
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 17:30 -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi folks.
I have divided the patches into 10 pieces. The patches are
interdependent and cannot be applied independently. I am merely
dividing them up to aid the relevant reviewers.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the patchset as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66072
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66073
Bug ID: 66073
Summary: [6 Regression] 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Szabolcs Nagy szabolcs.n...@arm.com writes:
On 08/05/15 15:25, Matthew Fortune wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Szabolcs Nagy
szabolcs.n...@arm.com
wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:59, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Rich Felker dal...@libc.org writes:
On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 8 15:13:55 2015
New Revision: 222914
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222914root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-08 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 66036, which changed state.
Bug 66036 Summary: strided group loads are not vectorized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66058
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:31:39PM +, matthew.thompson at nasa dot gov
wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66058
--- Comment #3 from Matt Thompson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66013
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from
2015-05-07 20:46 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com:
I think it's time to switch to C++11 as the default C++ dialect for GCC 6.
Any thoughts?
Does it mean that gcc 6 will have an official support for C++11,
instead of experimental as gcc 5 has now (See C++ section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66048
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #2)
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
There is a *very* picky assert in mode-switching.c that otherwise allows
various exceptions
Hi Mikael,
?? I don't get you there? What do you mean? Do you think the
alloc_comp_class_3/4.* are not correctly testing the issue? Any idea of how
to test this better? I mean the pr is about this artificial constructs. I
merely struck it in search of a pr about allocatable components.
Hi,
so attached is a quick and dirty solution for the allocatable return value
problem. I personally don't like it. It is making a special case from the
assign a function result to a variable. May be you have a better idea how to do
this in gfortran style.
- Andre
On Fri, 8 May 2015 15:31:46
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66071
Tomas Ukkonen tomas.ukkonen at iki dot fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.2 |5.1.1
---
Hello,
here is a rewrite of the patch, using wide_int, and improving a bit the
result. Same ChangeLog, tested again on x86_64-linux-gnu.
--
Marc GlisseIndex: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp97.c
===
---
On 08/05/15 14:56, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 08/05/15 11:18, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Kyrill Tkachov
kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
GCC has some logic to expand calls to pow (x, 0.75), pow (0.25) and pow (x,
(int)k + 0.5)
using square roots. So, for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66073
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61458
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4)
Hi Jon. Frankly Are you 100% sure (in terms of middle-end/back-end details)
that the maximum alignment supported for a type of less than
On 08/05/15 14:56, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Szabolcs Nagy szabolcs.n...@arm.com wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:59, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Rich Felker dal...@libc.org writes:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:58:02PM +, Matthew Fortune wrote:
There does however appear to be both
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:41:31PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
I.e. as it stands this patch is not OK for backporting to GCC 5
without further discussion.
There is also the perspective that we should be able to aim for
an ABI variant agnostic dynamic linker at some point over the next
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66071
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you run gdb to see where the crash is? This might be a glibc issue by
including only part of pthread library.
On 08/05/15 11:18, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Kyrill Tkachov
kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
GCC has some logic to expand calls to pow (x, 0.75), pow (0.25) and pow (x,
(int)k + 0.5)
using square roots. So, for the above examples it would generate sqrt
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Szabolcs Nagy szabolcs.n...@arm.com wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:59, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Rich Felker dal...@libc.org writes:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:58:02PM +, Matthew Fortune wrote:
There does however appear to be both soft and hard float variants
Patch
Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com writes:
Hi!
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:20:30 +0100, Richard Sandiford
richard.sandif...@arm.com wrote:
This patch [...] by replacing most of genrecog [...]
OK to commit?
Looks good to me FWIW. Probably counts as obvious.
Thanks,
Richard
On 05/08/2015 07:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 17:30 -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi folks.
I have divided the patches into 10 pieces. The patches are
interdependent and cannot be applied independently. I am merely
dividing them up to aid the relevant reviewers.
As I've
Hi,
this patch fixes PR66013.
I.
Consider this test-case, with a va_list passed from f2 to f2_1:
...
#include stdarg.h
inline int __attribute__((always_inline))
f2_1 (va_list ap)
{
return va_arg (ap, int);
}
int
f2 (int i, ...)
{
int res;
va_list ap;
va_start (ap, i);
res = f2_1
On 08/05/15 15:46, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Szabolcs Nagy szabolcs.n...@arm.com writes:
if you think that's ok, i can now submit the patch with %{msoft-float:-
sf} added to all abi variants.
That's fine. Go ahead.
the patch for the record.
Changelog:
2015-05-08 Gregor Richards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66071
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58909
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tomas.ukkonen
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
here is a rewrite of the patch, using wide_int, and improving a bit the
result. Same ChangeLog, tested again on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Please use /* */ for comments.
Otherwise ok!
Thanks,
Richard.
--
Marc Glisse
Le 08/05/2015 12:54, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
Hi Mikael,
thanks for the review. I still have some questions/remarks before commiting:
@@ -5898,8 +5900,21 @@ gfc_generate_function_code (gfc_namespace * ns)
if (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (fndecl)) != void_type_node)
{
+ bool
Hi all,
please find attached a patch for 66035. An ICE occurred when in a structure
constructor an allocatable component of type class was initialized with an
existing class object. This was caused by
- the size of the memory to allocate for the component was miscalculated,
- the vptr was not
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
This peephole transforms
lis a,HI ; ori a,a,LO
cmpw c,a,b ; beq c,...
to
xoris a,b,HI1
cmpwi c,a,LO1 ; beq c,...
when a and c are dead after this. But it forgets to check that a and b
are not
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:25:11PM +, Matthew Fortune wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Szabolcs Nagy szabolcs.n...@arm.com
wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:59, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Rich Felker dal...@libc.org writes:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at
Currently the vectorizer forces unrolling for grouped loads that
have DR_STEP not constant, forcing the elements loaded with strided
load support. The following patch enhances that machinery to deal
with SLP used groups that have non-constant DR_STEP, avoiding the
excessive unrolling (and
On 05/07/2015 06:20 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
This is a separate issue which really shouldn't have anything to do with
this, but is there a specific reason why:
void good1(int x, int y)
{
_Bool pf;
asm(cmpl %2,%1
: =@ccp (pf)
: r (x), g (y));
if (pf)
beta();
On 05/08/2015 09:23 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 05/07/2015 06:20 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
This is a separate issue which really shouldn't have anything to do with
this, but is there a specific reason why:
void good1(int x, int y)
{
_Bool pf;
asm(cmpl %2,%1
: =@ccp (pf)
: aarch64-*-*
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/adds1.c scan-assembler adds\tw[0-9]+, w[0-9]+,
w[0-9]+, lsl 3
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/adds1.c scan-assembler adds\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+,
x[0-9]+, lsl 3
--- gcc-20150507/Build/adds1.s 2015-05-08 18:01:52.723445982 +0200
+++ gcc-20150508/Build/adds1.s 2015-05-08
On Fri, 8 May 2015, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
One example where there is an incompatibility is missing:
Formerly it had code that emulated the missing flex by
creating a dummy lex.yy.c from the hopefully installed
pre-compiled flex output file. But the version from the
trunk does nothing,
1 - 100 of 284 matches
Mail list logo
