Re: [PATCH] Disable guality tests for powerpc*-linux*

Richard Biener writes: > Hell, even slapping a xfail powerpc*-*-* on all current ppc FAILs > would be better > than simply disabling all of guality for ppc. FWIW, I agree. While working on the debug early project, I found at least two legitimate bugs affecting all

[PATCH] Prevent loops from being optimized away

Sometimes people write loops that they do not want optimized away, even when the compiler can replace those loops by a simple expression (or nothing). For such people, this patch adds a compiler option. Bootstrapped on powerpc64-linux; regression check still in progress (with Init(1) to actually

[Bug c++/69564] [5/6 Regression] lto and/or C++ make scimark2 LU slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #26

Re: How to identify the version of the LLVM AddressSanitizer integrated to GCC 4.9.3 and after

Thanks a lot for the prompt feedback Maxim, All clear now! On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > On 31/03/16 18:20, Gayan Pathirage wrote: >> >> Hi Maxim, >> >> Thanks a lot for the information. I find it very useful for my future >> tests. >> >>

[Bug target/70490] __atomic_load_n(const __int128 *, ...) generates CMPXCHG16B with no warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70490 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

On 03/31/2016 10:30 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't

[Bug c++/70492] Libiberty Demangler segfaults (2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70492 --- Comment #1 from Marcel Böhme --- This error was found during fuzzing with a more efficient version of AFL. Patch and reviews available here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg0.html

Fix for PR70492

Hi, This fixes the invalid write of size 8 detailed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70492 Handle the special case when consume_count returns -1 due to an integer overflow when parsing the length of the virtual table qualifier in cplus-dem.c:2994 (gnu_special). Index:

[Bug c++/70492] New: Libiberty Demangler segfaults (2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70492 Bug ID: 70492 Summary: Libiberty Demangler segfaults (2) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/70491] slow compilation initializing a VLA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70491 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-time-hog Blocks|

[Bug c++/70491] New: slow compilation initializing a VLA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70491 Bug ID: 70491 Summary: slow compilation initializing a VLA Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/70490] __atomic_load_n(const __int128 *, ...) generates CMPXCHG16B with no warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70490 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |target --- Comment #1 from Andrew

[Bug c/70490] New: __atomic_load_n(const __int128 *, ...) generates CMPXCHG16B with no warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70490 Bug ID: 70490 Summary: __atomic_load_n(const __int128 *, ...) generates CMPXCHG16B with no warning Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug rtl-optimization/59393] [4.9/5/6 regression] mips16 code size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #7

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix new -Wparentheses warnings encountered during bootstrap

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 04:53:45PM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: > This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the > subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap: > > /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void > scan_sharing_clauses(tree, omp_context*,

Re: [PATCH 2/4][AArch64] Increase the loop peeling limit

On 03/16/16 14:48, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 02/03/16 13:46, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 01/08/16 16:55, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 12/16/2015 02:11 PM, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 12/16/2015 05:24 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 15/12/15 23:34, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 12/14/2015 05:26

Re: stray quotation marks warning enhancement or extension

On 31 March 2016 at 21:10, Daniel Gutson wrote: > Hi, > > many times we copy code snippets from sources that change the > Unicode quotation marks ( “ ” ) rather than " ". For example > > const std::string a_string(“Hello”); > > That line looks innocent but causes gcc to say > >

Re: [AArch64] Add precision choices for the reciprocal square root approximation

On 03/18/16 18:00, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 03/18/16 17:20, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: Evandro Menezes wrote: On 03/18/16 10:21, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: Hi Evandro, For example, though this approximation is improves the performance noticeably for DF on A57, for SF, not so

Re: [AArch64] Emit division using the Newton series

On 03/23/16 11:24, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 03/17/16 15:09, Evandro Menezes wrote: This patch implements FP division by an approximation using the Newton series. With this patch, DF division is sped up by over 100% and SF division, zilch, both on A57 and on M1. gcc/ *

[Bug fortran/68566] ICE on using unusable array in reshape (double free or corruption)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68566 --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle --- The following additional patchlet does the trick. Still need to regression test. diff --git a/gcc/fortran/array.c b/gcc/fortran/array.c index 2fc9dfaf..8fef30ce 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/array.c +++

[Bug c/70250] Compilation hangs without optimization.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70250 --- Comment #2 from brijesh singh --- gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.9/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix C++ side of PR c/70436 (missing -Wparentheses warnings)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 04:54:04PM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: > > I think that covers all the vanilla C++ constructs that this warning has > > to consider. As for C++ extensions, we still fail to warn for > > > > if (a) > > #pragma GCC ivdep > >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix C++ side of PR c/70436 (missing -Wparentheses warnings)

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 04:54:04PM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: > I think that covers all the vanilla C++ constructs that this warning has > to consider. As for C++ extensions, we still fail to warn for > > if (a) > #pragma GCC ivdep > while (1) >if (b) > bar (); >

[Bug c++/70489] New: ICE in cxx_eval_increment_expression initializing a VLA in a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70489 Bug ID: 70489 Summary: ICE in cxx_eval_increment_expression initializing a VLA in a constexpr function Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix new -Wparentheses warnings encountered during bootstrap

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 04:53:45PM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: > @@ -2526,12 +2526,13 @@ struct GTY(()) lang_decl { > >*/ > #define FOR_EACH_CLONE(CLONE, FN)\ > - if (TREE_CODE (FN) == FUNCTION_DECL\ > - &&

[Bug c/70436] [4.9/5/6 Regression] -Wparentheses missing ambiguous else warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- They should be. if (x) #pragma omp for for (...) if (y) ... else ... and #pragma omp simd and #pragma omp taskloop too. For C++, perhaps we could just pass around if_p argument to a few more

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix new -Wparentheses warnings encountered during bootstrap

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 03/31/2016 10:53 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > > This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the > > subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap: > > > > /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void > >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix new -Wparentheses warnings encountered during bootstrap

On 03/31/2016 10:53 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap: /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void scan_sharing_clauses(tree, omp_context*, bool)’:

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix new -Wparentheses warnings encountered during bootstrap

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Patrick Palka wrote: > This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the > subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap: > > /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void > scan_sharing_clauses(tree, omp_context*, bool)’: >

[Bug c++/70488] New: ICE in tree.c:7345 triggered by warning of placement new too small

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70488 Bug ID: 70488 Summary: ICE in tree.c:7345 triggered by warning of placement new too small Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix new -Wparentheses warnings encountered during bootstrap

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Patrick Palka wrote: > This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the > subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap: > > /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void > scan_sharing_clauses(tree, omp_context*, bool)’: >

[PATCH 2/2] Fix C++ side of PR c/70436 (missing -Wparentheses warnings)

-Wparentheses currently warns about an ambiguous "else" in this code if (a) if (b) bar (); else baz (); but it fails to warn if there is an iteration statement between the inner and outer ifs: if (a) for (;;) if (b) bar (); else baz (); To fix this

[PATCH 1/2] Fix new -Wparentheses warnings encountered during bootstrap

This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap: /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void scan_sharing_clauses(tree, omp_context*, bool)’: /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c:2381:6: error: suggest

[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 --- Comment #11 from Nathan Sidwell --- Applied to gcc-5 branch r234653.

[Bug target/70465] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] Poor code for x87 asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465 Vladimir Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 --- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell --- Author: nathan Date: Thu Mar 31 20:51:20 2016 New Revision: 234653 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234653=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70393 * varasm.c (output_constructor_regular_field):

[Bug fortran/68566] ICE on using unusable array in reshape (double free or corruption)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68566 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/70487] New: warn_unused_result attribute doesn't warn when return type is class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70487 Bug ID: 70487 Summary: warn_unused_result attribute doesn't warn when return type is class Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: Patches to fix optimizer bug & C++ exceptions for GCC VAX backend

Hi JBG, Thanks for the interest! Unfortunately, I need a few more days to work on this patch to clean it up and fix a few more bugs, then I'll send out a new version to NetBSD port-vax for testing, with ChangeLog entry. Please consider what I sent out earlier to be a work-in-progress at this

[Bug c++/70486] New: Constexpr array captured in lambda function (used via std::function)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70486 Bug ID: 70486 Summary: Constexpr array captured in lambda function (used via std::function) Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

stray quotation marks warning enhancement or extension

Hi, many times we copy code snippets from sources that change the Unicode quotation marks ( “ ” ) rather than " ". For example const std::string a_string(“Hello”); That line looks innocent but causes gcc to say x.cpp:4:1: error: stray ‘\342’ in program const std::string

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/70096 (wrong code for pointer-to-member-function copy)

Jason Merrill writes: > OK. The testcase FAILs on Solaris with the native ld: FAIL: g++.dg/template/ptrmem30.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/template/ptrmem30.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/template/ptrmem30.C -std=c++98 (test for

[Bug c/70485] New: Duplicate typedef results in missing debug info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70485 Bug ID: 70485 Summary: Duplicate typedef results in missing debug info Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/70248] constexpr initialization with unspecified equality expression accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70248 --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- Below is a test case (derived from a test discussed in the context of another bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg01644.html) for another example of a constexpr function whose use in a

Re: [PATCH][ARM][4.9 Backport] PR target/69875 Fix atomic_loaddi expansion

On 31 March 2016 at 18:26, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 30/03/16 09:34, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> >> >> On 29/03/16 19:46, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>> >>> On 16 March 2016 at 16:54, Ramana Radhakrishnan >>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 24,

[Bug rtl-optimization/70478] [LRA] S/390: Performance regression - superfluous stack frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478 --- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov --- The difference I see is that LRA chooses alternative "Q,0,Q" and reload chooses "d,0,R". For the "Q,O,Q" LRA reports: 2 Spill pseudo into memory: reject+=3

[Bug c++/70403] A null pointer check removed with -O2 even with -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70403 --- Comment #9 from Hadula, Tomasz --- Created attachment 38148 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38148=edit Reduced testcase I reduced the size of the testcase

[Bug c++/65923] False positive for warning about literal operator suffix and using

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65923 Richard Geary changed: What|Removed |Added CC||richardg.work at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/70462] Unnecessary "base object constructor" for final classes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462 --- Comment #3 from Jörg Richter --- Well, my real problem is related to coverage analysis. Function coverage will show the base object constructor as not called. But my concrete test case is more complex and involves

[Bug c/70436] [4.9/5/6 Regression] -Wparentheses missing ambiguous else warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka --- Should non-standard constructs be considered in this PR? I noticed that we also don't warn on if (a) #pragma GCC ivdep while (1) if (b) bar (); else baz (); and if (a)

[Bug rtl-optimization/70461] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r234527

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Segher Boessenkool: > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > >> On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> >>In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though > >> >>he

[Bug tree-optimization/70484] New: Wrong optimization with aliasing and access via char

id *malloc (__SIZE_TYPE__); extern void abort (void); int main() { void *volatile p = malloc(sizeof(long)); int *pi = p; long *pl = p; *pi = 1; *pl = 0; if (*(char *)pi != 0) abort(); } -- Tested on gcc 6.0.

Re: [PATCH] c++/67376 Comparison with pointer to past-the-end, of array fails inside constant expression

OK, thanks. Jason

Re: [PATCH] c++/67376 Comparison with pointer to past-the-end, of array fails inside constant expression

+ /* Avoid folding references to struct members at offset 0 to + prevent tests like '>firstmember == 0' from getting + eliminated. When ptr is null, although the -> expression + is strictly speaking invalid, GCC retains it as a matter + of QoI. See

patch fixing PR70461

The following patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461 I tried to do minimal changes. It is hard to create a test for the PR as the generated code can be changed in future. So the patch has no test. The patch was bootstrapped and tested on x86-64. Committed as

[Bug rtl-optimization/70461] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r234527

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461 --- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov --- Author: vmakarov Date: Thu Mar 31 17:51:13 2016 New Revision: 234649 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234649=gcc=rev Log: 2016-03-31 Vladimir Makarov PR

Re: [PATCH] c++/67376 Comparison with pointer to past-the-end, of array fails inside constant expression

On 03/30/2016 01:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 03/30/2016 12:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 03/30/2016 09:30 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 03/29/2016 11:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Are we confident that arr[0] won't make it here as POINTER_PLUS_EXPR or some such? I'm as confident as I can be

[Bug target/70465] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] Poor code for x87 asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465 --- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4) > No objections to deferring this to gcc-7. Not surprisingly, my response > when this issue was raised on Red Hat's internal IRC was the same -- nobody > cares

Re: [PATCH, HSA]: Fix PR hsa/70399

On 03/24/2016 03:59 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > Hello. > > Current HSA back-end wrongly handles memory stores. Although, we properly > identify > that an immediate operand needs to respect type of a memory store instruction > it belongs to, > the binary representation of the operand is not

[HSA branch, PATCH] introduce append_phi method

Hello. Following patch introduces just a single helper method, install to HSA branch as r234648. Thanks, Martin >From 6d7c765425de3363a8edef2c25572b8208123fb8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:39:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] HSA: introduce append_phi

Re: Fix for PR70481 Libiberty Demangler

On 03/31/2016 11:29 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 03/31/2016 07:22 PM, Jeff Law wrote: @@ -1237,11 +1237,13 @@ squangle_mop_up (struct work_stuff *work) Thanks. I've just installed this patch, along with suitable tests from 70481 and 67394. What are the rules for modifying libiberty again?

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/70449 (ICE when printing a filename of unknown location)

On 03/31/2016 08:14 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:51:26PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 30 March 2016 at 23:42, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 30/03/16 17:14, Marek Polacek wrote: This test ICEs since the addition of the assert in pp_string

[Bug hsa/70399] HSA: Wrong emission of st_align(4)_u8 HSAIL insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70399 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug hsa/70391] HSA back-end produces wrong alignment load/store instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70391 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: Fix for PR70481 Libiberty Demangler

On 03/31/2016 07:22 PM, Jeff Law wrote: @@ -1237,11 +1237,13 @@ squangle_mop_up (struct work_stuff *work) Thanks. I've just installed this patch, along with suitable tests from 70481 and 67394. What are the rules for modifying libiberty again? Do we have to patch binutils/gdb at the same

[Bug hsa/70399] HSA: Wrong emission of st_align(4)_u8 HSAIL insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70399 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu Mar 31 17:28:29 2016 New Revision: 234647 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234647=gcc=rev Log: Fix PR hsa/70399 PR hsa/70399 * hsa-brig.c

[Bug libstdc++/70483] New: string_view::compare and coparision operators are not constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70483 Bug ID: 70483 Summary: string_view::compare and coparision operators are not constexpr Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/67394] crash due to null pointer deref in demangle_signature()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67394 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/70481] [Regression] Libiberty Demangler segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brian.carpenter at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/70481] [Regression] Libiberty Demangler segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

Re: Fix for PR70481 Libiberty Demangler

On 03/31/2016 08:55 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote: Hi, This fixes the use-after-free detailed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481 There is a variable ksize storing the amount of allocated memory for the array ktypevec. ksize being zero (0) indicates that some memory must be

Re: [PATCH 2/2] HSA: handle alignment of string builtins (PR hsa/70391)

On 03/31/2016 04:58 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:43:17PM +0100, Martin Liska wrote: >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> 2016-03-23 Martin Liska >> >> PR hsa/70391 >> * hsa-gen.c (hsa_function_representation::update_cfg): New >> function. >>

[Bug hsa/70391] HSA back-end produces wrong alignment load/store instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70391 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu Mar 31 17:10:48 2016 New Revision: 234644 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234644=gcc=rev Log: HSA: handle alignment of string builtins (PR hsa/70391) PR hsa/70391

[Bug hsa/70391] HSA back-end produces wrong alignment load/store instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70391 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu Mar 31 17:10:15 2016 New Revision: 234643 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234643=gcc=rev Log: HSA: support alignment for hsa_symbols (PR hsa/70391) PR hsa/70391

Re: [PATCH 1/2] HSA: support alignment for hsa_symbols (PR hsa/70391)

On 03/31/2016 04:40 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > Let's say "efficient memory copy instructions." It is of curse > possible to use slower ones. > > Thanks, > > Martin Thanks for review, I'm attaching the version of the patch I'm going to install. Martin >From

Re: [c++/68475] ICE with fno-exceptions

OK. Jason

Re: [c++/68475] ICE with fno-exceptions

On 03/30/16 09:44, Jason Merrill wrote: Hmm, I think the use of the flag there was meant to allow leaving the exception specification off in some declarations. I'm open to getting stricter, but I'd prefer to make it a pedwarn when !flag_exceptions rather than an error, in which case we still

Re: [PATCH PR69489/01]Improve tree ifcvt by storing/tracking DR against its innermost loop bahavior if possible

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> Sorry, Should have replied to gcc-patches list. >> >> Thanks, >> bin >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: "Bin.Cheng"

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

* Segher Boessenkool: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: >> On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >>In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though >> >>he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't >> >>flag the

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though > >>he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't > >>flag the warning/error about a control

Re: [Patch AArch64] Fix PR target/63874

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:11:49PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > Hi, > > In this PR we have a situation where we aren't really detecting > weak references vs weak definitions. If one has a weak definition > that binds locally there's no reason not to put out PC relative >

[C++] Remove unused delete

In looking at PR55635, I got confused as to why changes to finish_destructor_body didn't affect the generated code. Then I realized that the delete call and in-charge stuff being emitted there was entirely inactive. We now generate the deleting dtor in build_delete_destructor_body

Re: [PATCH][ARM][4.9 Backport] PR target/69875 Fix atomic_loaddi expansion

On 30/03/16 09:34, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 29/03/16 19:46, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 16 March 2016 at 16:54, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, This is the GCC 4.9 backport

[Bug target/69890] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/chkp-* on x86_64-apple-darwin15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Created attachment 38145 [details] > patch > > Attached patch seems to work OK on Linux and removes all string.h includes > from chkp-str* tests. I believe this should resolve all related issues >

Re: [PATCH GCC]Reduce compilation time for IVOPT by skipping cost computation in use group

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:27 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bin Cheng

[Bug target/62254] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc-4.9 ICEs on linux kernel zlib for armv3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254 --- Comment #17 from Julien Margetts --- The following test case still fails with the patch applied (originally bug 70362) arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv3m -c -o c_compat_x_tst.o gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-4_x.c The assert in

[Bug target/70465] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] Poor code for x87 asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- No objections to deferring this to gcc-7. Not surprisingly, my response when this issue was raised on Red Hat's internal IRC was the same -- nobody cares about x87 math anymore ;-) IMHO it's really just a

Re: Patches to fix optimizer bug & C++ exceptions for GCC VAX backend

On 03/31/2016 08:30 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: Hi Jake! On Mon, 2016-03-28 16:34:56 -0700, Jake Hamby wrote: Amazingly enough, my patch worked well enough that my NetBSD VAX kernel built with GCC 5.3 is no longer crashing. I feel pretty good about what I have so far so

[Bug tree-optimization/70482] New: Opimization opportunity to vectorize basic block for -mavx target.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70482 Bug ID: 70482 Summary: Opimization opportunity to vectorize basic block for -mavx target. Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/70362] Segmentation fault compiling scalar-by-value-4_x.c for ARM arch < 4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362 Julien Margetts changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- Should it be fixed on gcc-5-branch too?

[Bug rtl-optimization/70467] Useless "and [esp],-1" emitted on AND with uint64_t variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

Re: How to identify the version of the LLVM AddressSanitizer integrated to GCC 4.9.3 and after

On 31/03/16 18:20, Gayan Pathirage wrote: Hi Maxim, Thanks a lot for the information. I find it very useful for my future tests. Also I found this page maintained by ASAN developers https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerClangVsGCC which lists some of the differences. Yes,

Re: [Patch ARM] Delete ASM_OUTPUT_DEF and fall back to default .set directive

On 31/03/16 16:41, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > Hi, > > gcc.dg/torture/pr69951.c has been failing for arm*-*-linux* targets, as > we put out "b = a" as a way of defining a symbol alias, which trips an > assembler warning if the left hand side is an instruction name (such as 'b' > for branch, see

[Patch ARM] Delete ASM_OUTPUT_DEF and fall back to default .set directive

Hi, gcc.dg/torture/pr69951.c has been failing for arm*-*-linux* targets, as we put out "b = a" as a way of defining a symbol alias, which trips an assembler warning if the left hand side is an instruction name (such as 'b' for branch, see [1] for context). We don't want to do this, a simple

[Bug target/70442] [6 Regression] gcc ICE at -O2 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "extract_insn"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70442 Ilya Enkovich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/70442] [6 Regression] gcc ICE at -O2 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "extract_insn"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70442 --- Comment #3 from Ilya Enkovich --- Author: ienkovich Date: Thu Mar 31 15:37:12 2016 New Revision: 234637 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234637=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ PR target/70442 * config/i386/i386.c

Re: [PATCH, PR target/70442] STV: suppport undefined registers for reg copies

On 31 Mar 13:47, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:25:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >> This patch adds support for undefined register copies. > >> This is simply done by calling scalar_chain::convert_op

[Bug c++/70481] [Regression] Libiberty Demangler segfaults

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481 --- Comment #2 from Marcel Böhme --- These are two distinct bugs. During fuzzing the btypevec bug appears more often. But it seemed less critical since only NULL is written to the freed memory: work -> btypevec[ret] = NULL; On the other hand,

  1   2   3   >