On 20 February 2015 at 11:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/19/2015 09:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
H, Passing the additional option in user code would be one thing,
but what about library code? E.g., using memcpy (either explicitly or
implicitly for a structure copy)?
The memcpy
On 02/20/2015 10:30 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I doubt that such a thing is ever going to be safe. The idea that a
null pointer points to nothing is so hard-baked into the design of C
that you can't get away from it. Also, almost every C programmer and
especially library writer knows that a
On 02/19/2015 09:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
H, Passing the additional option in user code would be one thing,
but what about library code? E.g., using memcpy (either explicitly or
implicitly for a structure copy)?
The memcpy problem isn't restricted to embedded architectures.
;; Crude Advanced SIMD approximation.
(define_insn_reservation cortex_53_advsimd 4
(and (eq_attr tune cortexa53)
(eq_attr:q is_neon_type yes))
cortex_a53_simd0)
Does it mean that all AdvSIMD instructions
2015-02-20 3:48 GMT+03:00 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com:
The section Pointer Bounds Checker builtins in extend.texi is on my list
for being in need of copy-editing, but reading through the existing text, I
am quite confused. In several places it refers to turning the Pointer
Bounds
On 18/02/15 19:21, Jeff Prothero wrote:
BTW, I'd also be curious to know what is regarded as engineering
best practice for writing a value to address zero when this is
architecturally required by the hardware platform at hand.
Obviously one can do various things to obscure the process
On 02/20/2015 12:43 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20 February 2015 at 11:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/19/2015 09:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
H, Passing the additional option in user code would be one thing,
but what about library code? E.g., using memcpy (either explicitly or
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:06:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/19/2015 09:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
H, Passing the additional option in user code would be one thing,
but what about library code? E.g., using memcpy (either explicitly or
implicitly for a structure copy)?
On 02/20/2015 11:06 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/19/2015 09:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
H, Passing the additional option in user code would be one thing,
but what about library code? E.g., using memcpy (either explicitly or
implicitly for a structure copy)?
The memcpy problem
Hi,
I have spent quite some time trying to build an x32 gcc to debug a PR
this week before I finally found the configure switch that made
everything work. In order to share this possibly valuable knowledge,
I have created a wiki mini-page detailing how I managed to get it
finally working:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi,
I have spent quite some time trying to build an x32 gcc to debug a PR
this week before I finally found the configure switch that made
everything work. In order to share this possibly valuable knowledge,
I have created
I have a question about *unfused* fma instructions. MIPS has processors
with both fused and unfused multiple and add instructions and for fused
madd's it is clear what to do; define 'fma' instructions in the md file
and let convert_mult_to_fma decide whether or not to use them.
But for non-fused
We are pleased to announce the release of GNU MPC 1.0.3 Fagus silvatica.
GNU MPC is a C library for the arithmetic of complex numbers with
arbitrarily high precision and correct rounding of the result.
This release contains two bug fixes backported from the trunk:
- Fixed mpc_pow, see
On 02/20/2015 01:12 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-02-20 3:48 GMT+03:00 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com:
The section Pointer Bounds Checker builtins in extend.texi is on my list
for being in need of copy-editing, but reading through the existing text, I
am quite confused. In several
On 02/20/15 05:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:06:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/19/2015 09:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
H, Passing the additional option in user code would be one thing,
but what about library code? E.g., using memcpy (either explicitly or
On 02/20/15 04:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20 February 2015 at 11:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/19/2015 09:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
H, Passing the additional option in user code would be one thing,
but what about library code? E.g., using memcpy (either explicitly or
implicitly
On 02/20/15 10:09, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/20/2015 06:01 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
But that's always true -- this isn't any different than aliasing,
arithmetic overflow, etc. The standards define the contract between the
compiler/library implementors and the developers. Once the contract is
On 02/20/15 04:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/20/2015 10:30 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I doubt that such a thing is ever going to be safe. The idea that a
null pointer points to nothing is so hard-baked into the design of C
that you can't get away from it. Also, almost every C programmer and
On 02/20/15 04:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/19/2015 09:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
H, Passing the additional option in user code would be one thing,
but what about library code? E.g., using memcpy (either explicitly or
implicitly for a structure copy)?
The memcpy problem isn't
On 02/20/2015 06:01 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
But that's always true -- this isn't any different than aliasing,
arithmetic overflow, etc. The standards define the contract between the
compiler/library implementors and the developers. Once the contract is
broken, all bets are off.
What I don't
On 02/19/15 14:56, Chris Johns wrote:
On 20/02/2015 8:23 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 2/19/2015 2:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:21:56AM -0800, Jeff Prothero wrote:
Starting with gcc 4.9, -O2 implicitly invokes
On Feb 20, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/20/15 04:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
...
I'm inclined to agree.
Most developers aren't aware of the preconditions on memcpy, but GCC
optimizes aggressively based on those preconditions, so we have a
large and
On Feb 20, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
...
Regardless, the right thing to do is to disable elimination of NULL pointer
checks on targets where page 0 is mapped and thus a reference to *0 may not
fault. In my mind this is an attribute of both the processor (see H8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see another issue. When we stream in OPTIMIZATION_NODE/TARGET_OPTIONS_NODE,
we don't use build_optimization_node/build_target_option_node and thus we don't
merge identical nodes
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 05:52:26AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Mark Wielaard m...@redhat.com wrote:
Now it becomes a monthly topic:
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2015-01/msg00089.html
Thanks, I hadn't seen that before. Alan Modra makes some good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Any progress on this?
If not, I'm considering doing:
--- libsanitizer/asan/asan_globals.cc.jj2014-11-14 00:10:34.0 +0100
+++ libsanitizer/asan/asan_globals.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
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=63888
--- Comment #32 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
Or (probably less intrusive) add detect_odr_violation=0 to ASAN_OPTIONS
config/bootstrap-asan.mk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Feb 20 11:15:56 2015
New Revision: 220849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220849root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2015-02-20 trunk r220847.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64969
Harald van Dijk harald at gigawatt dot nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Stubbs ams at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm trying to look at this problem, but so far all my builds are failing.
Probably I have some local cruft.
In the meantime, the workaround is to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64347
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60588
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60588
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cameron at
If a statement appears where a declaration is expected, then an
appropriate error message is given, but the tree is malformed
leading to a later crash if -gnatQ is used.
The following should compile with -gnatQ without giving a
compilation abandoned message:
1. procedure AssignInD is
Make Non_Preemptive_FIFO_Within_Priorities a standard dispatching policy
name as defined in RM D.2.4(2/2).
Create the language-defined library package Ada.Dispatching.Non_Preemptive,
as defined in RM D.2.4(2.2/3). This package is marked as unimplemented
because no target environment supports it.
Within the compiler class-wide aspects use a leading-underscore internal
identifier. If the placement of the aspect is illegal, the error message
must mention the original form of the aspect.
Compiling class_a.ads must yield:
class_a.ads:5:10:
aspect Type_Invariant_Class only allowed
If the type of the operand of a type conversion is defined as an
access to a class-wide interface type, and the target interface
type is defined in a package visible at the point of declaration
of the access type through a limited-with clause, then the compiler
may silently skip generating code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #15 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com ---
Got an access to AIX machine, planning to look at it next week
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Feb 20 10:30:24 2015
New Revision: 220847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220847root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/64452
* config/avr/avr.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65131
--- Comment #7 from Francois Fayard fayard at insideloop dot io ---
I agree. Thanks for your comments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34815
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34815action=edit
gcc5-pr63892.patch
This untested patch fixes the issue too, though if the #c4 patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Feb 20 10:46:05 2015
New Revision: 220848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220848root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2015-02-20 trunk r220847.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
I would like to port following patches to 4.8 branch:
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
2014-11-05 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com
Backport from mainline
2015-01-22 Wei Mi w...@google.com
PR rtl-optimization/64557
* dse.c
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 19-02-15 14:07, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:44:46PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
I'd call it a bug though, and we do have internal fns in
generic already thus the issue is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That is not sufficient. The bug affects all programs, not just gcc when
bootstrapping it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64158
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||macro at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65088
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See bug 23684.
As discussed last year, we've converted the GNAT main documentation
(gnat_rm.texi and gnat_ugn.texi) to reST/sphinx, so the master doc
can now be found under gcc/ada/doc.
We're keeping automatically generated .texi files for now under gcc/ada
so that people only having texinfo tools can still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64135
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 08:52:40PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Another change that's required is (something like) the following. For ptx,
we need to know whether to output something as a .func (callable from ptx
code) or a .kernel (callable from the host). That means we need to mark the
kernel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62116
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
When the compiler is invoked with several --RTS= switches, with different
values designated the same runtime directory, the compiler reports an
error that RTS cannot be specified several times. This patch fixes
this problem.
The test for this is to invoke the compiler with two switches --RTS=, one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65131
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-08/msg00221.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65132
Bug ID: 65132
Summary: diagnostics: missing: bitfield member cannot have an
in-class initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65134
Bug ID: 65134
Summary: gccgo ignores the attribute constructor in a
subdirectory
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65131
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
---
Hi!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:09:29 +0100, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:55:32PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 02/17/2015 06:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What exact testcase are you trying to fix with this patch, and how do you
think offloading of code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65131
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45779
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65131
--- Comment #3 from Francois Fayard fayard at insideloop dot io ---
Thanks for the info. It would be nice to reflect that in max_size().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65133
Bug ID: 65133
Summary: [C++11] Result type deduction proceeds even though
argument deduction fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
Hi Bernd!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:28:46 +0100, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
issue when trying to
get at the libgcc for the nvptx accel compiler after it's been
installed. The libgcc Makefile puts it in the wrong place -
gcc/nvptx-none/accel/nvptx-none instead of
Hi,
this patch reverses the abort logic in pr30957-1.c, such that it aborts on
failure rather than on success.
OK for stage4?
Thanks,
- Tom
2015-02-20 Tom de Vries t...@codesourcery.com
* gcc.dg/pr30957-1.c (main): Abort on failure.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr30957-1.c | 6
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:09:29 +0100, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:55:32PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 02/17/2015 06:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What exact testcase are you trying to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65131
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It seems like a waste of time. The internals of the standard library are not
the right place to dissuade people from their mistaken beliefs. Simply trying
to allocate such an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63958
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The r216224 change apparently applies cleanly to the current sources, does it
fix all the sparc*-linux build issues? My SPARC box is long time dead...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65126
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Maxim Kuvyrkov from comment #3)
Hi Tom,
I can't reproduce this. I'm trying make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=vect.exp
on a native x86_64 bootstrap.
What is required to trigger this?
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:25:54AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
this patch reverses the abort logic in pr30957-1.c, such that it aborts on
failure rather than on success.
That sounds really weird. From the description it looks like it is a known bug
that we don't return -0.0.
If 0.0 is the right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65131
--- Comment #5 from Francois Fayard fayard at insideloop dot io ---
They are so many people out there who claim that using an unsigned integer
(std::size_t) as an array index was a good choice because you can allocate
larger arrays than with the
Hi!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:51:02 +0100, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:48:17AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Like this?
Yes.
commit 56c0312469f583ba3fa9fa2777981742ab6d6c75
Author: Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com
Date: Thu Feb 19 11:41:23
Prior to this change, -fno-inline was stopping all the inlining
unconditionally, even when requested with a pragma Inline_Always.
This was inconsistent with the behavior of the always_inline gcc attribute,
and this change fixes this.
It also removes an internal shortcircuit which was preventing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65127
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65135
Bug ID: 65135
Summary: Performance regression in pic mode after r220674.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
This fixes an assertion failure in gigi triggered by an order-of-elaboration
issue for the type of a parameter of a subprogram which is both the renaming
of another subprogram and marked Inline. In this case the compiler was using
expansion (aka front-end inlining) but this doesn't always play
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65126
Maxim Kuvyrkov mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65136
Bug ID: 65136
Summary: VRP inserts unnecessary constant copy in the loop
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65135
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 34814
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34814action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Need to compile with -O2 -m32 -fPIE -pie options.
Hi!
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:47:13 +0100, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 08:52:40PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Another change that's required is (something like) the following. For ptx,
we need to know whether to output something as a .func (callable from ptx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #58 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The Firefox issue from comment #49 is fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34817
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34817action=edit
Fixed IPA ICF hooks
Hello Jakub.
Your patch in #c4 is correct, assert is caused due to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63483
--- Comment #23 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Feb 20 12:04:21 2015
New Revision: 220854
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220854root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-01-22 Wei Mi w...@google.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64557
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Feb 20 12:04:21 2015
New Revision: 220854
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220854root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-01-22 Wei Mi w...@google.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65135
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65136
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65134
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
It's pretty ugly, but a workaround is to drop something like this into sub.go:
var AlwaysFalse bool
func init() {
if AlwaysFalse {
C.init()
}
}
The idea is to force in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65136
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
On 20-02-15 10:42, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:25:54AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
this patch reverses the abort logic in pr30957-1.c, such that it aborts on
failure rather than on success.
That sounds really weird. From the description it looks like it is a known bug
that
Hi!
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:17:08 +0100, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
looking across the ODR violation messages in libreoffice and Chromium I found
some false positives and some confused messages. This patch fixes them. In
partiuclar
- I introduced nasty vtable corruption when breaking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for cooperation, I'm going to bootstrap and run regression tests on
x86_64-linux-pc and I'm going to clone these tests too.
Martin
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 01:36:15PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 20-02-15 10:42, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:25:54AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
this patch reverses the abort logic in pr30957-1.c, such that it aborts on
failure rather than on success.
That sounds really
On 18/02/15 10:35 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hello
I am still studying hashtable performances and especially how to
reduce overhead compared to tr1 implementation. Most of the overhead
is coming from the additional modulo operations required with the new
data model. Having a closer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64557
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 02:59:51PM +0300, Marat Zakirov wrote:
Here is simple patch that moves asan phase just behind sanopt for all
O0/O1/O2/O3 modes which gives +7% on x86 SPEC2006 (ref dataset).
Regression testing and sanitized GCC bootstrapping were successfully done.
This isn't a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, looks reasonable. That will hopefully render my #c5 patch undeeded.
Can you please bootstrap/regtest it on x86_64-linux (well, I can do that too
now). Don't have access to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65136
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34818
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34818action=edit
V499
And let's copy and adjust the sibcall-{3,4}.c testcases so that they aren't ICF
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
