[Bug target/90712] [10 regression] gcc.dg/rtl/aarch64/subs_adds_sp.c fails with ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90712 --- Comment #1 from Sam Tebbs --- Author: samtebbs Date: Fri Jul 5 13:16:55 2019 New Revision: 273138 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273138=gcc=rev Log: [PATCH][GCC][AARCH64] PR target/90712 Fix gcc.dg/rtl/aarch64/subs_adds_sp.c

[Bug target/90678] [10 Regression] ICE in aarch64_return_address_signing_enabled, at config/aarch64/aarch64.c:4865 since r271735

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90678 --- Comment #4 from Sam Tebbs --- Thanks Martin, fixed by r271780. I can commit your reduced testcase if you would like.

[Bug rtl-optimization/87763] [9 Regression] aarch64 target testcases fail after r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763 --- Comment #10 from Sam Tebbs --- Author: samtebbs Date: Fri Jan 4 16:26:38 2019 New Revision: 267579 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267579=gcc=rev Log: [PATCH][GCC][Aarch64] Change expected bfxil count in

[Bug c++/87935] [9 regression] new failures on arm since r265788

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87935 Sam Tebbs changed: What|Removed |Added CC||samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/88560] [9 Regression] armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c and related regressions after r266385

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560 --- Comment #4 from Sam Tebbs --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #3) > Is the revision number (r260385) really correct? Sorry it was r266385, fixed that now.

[Bug c++/87504] inconsistent diagnostic style between C and C++ for binary operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504 Sam Tebbs changed: What|Removed |Added CC||samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug middle-end/88560] armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c and related regressions after r260385

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560 --- Comment #1 from Sam Tebbs --- Created attachment 45267 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45267=edit Code generated for armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c without r260385

[Bug middle-end/88560] New: armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c and related regressions after r260385

Priority: P3 Component: middle-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 45266 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45266=edit Code generated for armv8_2-fp16-move-

[Bug rtl-optimization/87763] [9 Regression] aarch64 target testcases fail after r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763 samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/83443] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-18.c (test for warnings, line 119)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83443 samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/88044] [9 regression] gfortran.dg/transfer_intrinsic_3.f90 hangs after r266171

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044 --- Comment #7 from samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org --- I can confirm this test fails on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf when invoking with "-mcpu=cortex-a5 -mfpu=vfpv3-d16-fp16", as Christophe wrote. Please see the attached log.

[Bug tree-optimization/88044] [9 regression] gfortran.dg/transfer_intrinsic_3.f90 hangs after r266171

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044 samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug testsuite/88454] [9 regression] test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/split-path-5.c fails after r266971

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88454 --- Comment #4 from samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org --- The split-path-11.c failure isn't happening on aarch64 and arm as of r267031 but the split-path-11.c failure still is.

[Bug testsuite/88454] [9 regression] test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/split-path-5.c fails after r266971

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88454 samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/88351] New: void post_dec_flags(int) and void set_init_local_zero(int) in gcc/fortran/options.c defined but not used

Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 45151 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi

[Bug target/85628] Make better use of BFI (BFXIL)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85628 --- Comment #3 from samtebbs at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: samtebbs Date: Fri Sep 14 15:16:17 2018 New Revision: 264315 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264315=gcc=rev Log: [Aarch64] Added pattern to match zero extended bfxil gcc/ 2018-07