https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 35352
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35352action=edit
Cumulated patch for PR61831 and 65792
Can you post a testcase for the remaining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59678
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #16 from
The second release candidate for GCC 5.1 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5.0.1-RC-20150418
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 11.
Because the release candidate uses 5.0.1 as its version (5.1.0 is
reserved for the GA 5.1 release only, see
On 16/04/15 00:00, Kugan wrote:
On 16/04/15 08:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 08:27:24AM +1000, Kugan wrote:
+if (CODE == LSHIFTRT)
+ {
+emit_insn (gen_aarch64_lshr_sisd_or_int_mode3 (operands[0],
operands[1], operands[2]));
That is way too long
On 15/04/15 16:22, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch goes through the arm backend and replaces expressions of the
form
a = lo a = hi with IN_RANGE (a, lo, hi) which is that tiny bit smaller
and easier to read in my opinion. I guess there's also a chance it might
make
things
On 15/04/15 13:51, Yvan Roux wrote:
Hi,
On 14 April 2015 at 17:36, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/14/2015 04:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:08:24AM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote:
--- a/gcc/lra-constraints.c
+++ b/gcc/lra-constraints.c
@@ -1656,8
Hi all,
this patch fixes a deep copy issue, when allocatable components of an entity
were not allocated. Before the patch the deep copy was run without
checking if the component is actually allocated and the program crashed because
a null pointer was dereferenced. Furthermore, was the code to
On 15/04/15 08:48, Kugan wrote:
As mentioned in PR65768, ARM gcc generates suboptimal code for constant
Uses in loop. Part of the reason is that ARM back-end is splitting
constants during expansion of RTL, making it hard for the RTL
optimization passes to optimize it. Zhenqiang posted a patch
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 03:07:16PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
You need to ensure that your scratch register cannot overlap op1, since
the scratch is written before op1 is read.
- (clobber (match_scratch:QI 3 =X,w,X))]
+ (clobber (match_scratch:QI 3 =X,w,X))]
incremental diff should
On 17/04/15 16:48, Alan Lawrence wrote:
From https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64134, testcase
#define vector __attribute__((vector_size(16)))
float a; float b;
vector float fb(void) { return (vector float){ 0,0,b,a};}
currently produces (correct, but suboptimal):
fb:
In November 2009 I asked about these, and there was some good discussion
following ( https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-11/threads.html#8 );
at one point it just makes sense to remove things that were already
considered old back in a decade ago.
Committed.
Gerald
Index: index.html
On Apr 18, 2015, at 8:21 PM, Richard Earnshaw richard.earns...@foss.arm.com
wrote:
On 18/04/15 16:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 03:07:16PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
You need to ensure that your scratch register cannot overlap op1, since
the scratch is written
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #9 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net ---
Created attachment 35354
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35354action=edit
GCC extension for 5.0, v2
And the corresponding new extension.
On a x86_64 linux box I successfully built a gcc RC-20150418 toolchain
including binutils-2.25 and avr-libc r2473(svn).
I noticed some warnings in the logs:
../../../source/gcc-5.0.1-RC-20150418/gcc/vec.h:1048: warning: invalid
access to non-static data member âvecipa_polymorphic_call_context
Hello,
here is a fix for PR65792 where a structure constructor used as actual
argument was not fully initialized.
The test looks like the following...
type :: string_t
character(LEN=1), dimension(:), allocatable :: chars
end type string_t
type :: string_container_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65799
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801
Bug ID: 65801
Summary: Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11
narrowing rules
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34735|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65802
Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at
On 18/04/15 16:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 03:07:16PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
You need to ensure that your scratch register cannot overlap op1, since
the scratch is written before op1 is read.
- (clobber (match_scratch:QI 3 =X,w,X))]
+ (clobber
On 2015-04-17 22:06, Adam Butcher wrote:
On 2015-04-17 20:58, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/09/2015 11:31 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
+ /* For generic lambdas, resolve default captured 'this' now. */
This isn't quite right. We don't want to capture 'this' any time we
see a member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65799
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65802
Bug ID: 65802
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in redirect_eh_edge_1, at
tree-eh.c:2335
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #5 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem at mailcity dot com ---
Created attachment 35355
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35355action=edit
Sources and Makefile (run make to reproduce)
GCC 5.0.1 RC2 is also affected:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 09:29:07AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 6:38 AM, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote:
From: Trevor Saunders tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org
Hi,
Last stage 1 I introduced a second form of hash_table that stored elements
of
value_type in
Started with the latter. By the way, what is the policy concerning
getting write access to the wiki?
You are expected to ask one of the existing editors who's
willing to vouch for you to add you to the EditorGroup:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/EditorGroup
Martin
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
Oops, I must have been thinking of __STDC_VERSION__ when writing that.
Fixed, thanks.
Here is a small set of tweaks on top of this (no material changes).
Applied.
Gerald
Index: porting_to.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65803
Bug ID: 65803
Summary: blackfin: internal compiler error: segment fault linux
kernel
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61135
lc289dafd7ybme05se at softbank dot ne.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35356
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35356action=edit
First attempt that appears to work
Well, this seems to work so far, no regressions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61135
--- Comment #7 from lc289dafd7ybme05se at softbank dot ne.jp ---
仮想継承の時もエラーになるみたいですね。
Hi
with nios2-rtems on gcc 4.9.2, we are getting undefineds
for some atomic primitives. Are these implemented or is
some magic bit of configurery missing for nios-rtems?
__sync_fetch_and_add_4 is missing on a simple C++ IO streams
sanity test.
Thanks
-- Joel Sherrill
Ask me about RTEMS: a
On 04/18/2015 07:35 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
with nios2-rtems on gcc 4.9.2, we are getting undefineds
for some atomic primitives. Are these implemented or is
some magic bit of configurery missing for nios-rtems?
__sync_fetch_and_add_4 is missing on a simple C++ IO streams
sanity test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65804
Bug ID: 65804
Summary: blackfin: Not support global frame pointer with
-fno-omit-frame-pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65800
Bug ID: 65800
Summary: gengtype aborts when run with -d (debug dump)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
The patch fixes the PR, but causes
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_19.f03 -O0 execution test
...
False alarm! The failures are due to a conflict with another patch.
The patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65800
--- Comment #1 from Mikhail Maltsev maltsevm at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 35350
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35350action=edit
Fix
Just in case, I also regtested it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
The patch seems to fix also pr49324.
Can you post a testcase for the remaining bug there?
I have lost sight of what is missing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57957
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52921
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57957
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
That one seems to be memory-clean with current trunk. FIXED?
Confirmed for gcc 5 and trunk (6.0). The test in comment 0 succeeds with 4.9.2,
but not the one in comment 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52921
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
No error here using the following program; FIXED?
I cannot reproduce the problem with 4.8.4 and more recent versions.
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:22:13 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
How to get 'volatile struct sv' GCC 'tree' type for:
volatile struct sv { volatile struct sv *p; };
I have found out how it can work, even with no change on the GCC side:
Instead of current:
plugin_build_record_type:
46 matches
Mail list logo
