[PATCH, lower-subreg] Fix 70355

The ICE comes fixing up a debug_insn, and the debug info incoming to the pass seems reasonable. Just recognizing that this situation is possible and not asserting appears to work. Ok? r~ * lower-subreg.c (simplify_subreg_concatn): Reject paradoxical subregs. diff --git

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

On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These > failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for > POWER, which is working fine. > Verified to remove hundreds of failure

Re: [PATCH ARM v2] PR69770 -mlong-calls does not affect calls to __gnu_mcount_nc generated by -pg

On 25/03/16 08:02, Charles Baylis wrote: > When compiling with -mlong-calls and -pg, calls to the __gnu_mcount_nc > function are not generated as long calls. > > This is the sequel to this patch > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00881.html > > This patch fixes the following

[patch commited FT32] Add -nodiv option

The attached patches add an "-mnodiv" option to FT32, preventing use of the divide and modulo instructions. This required additional software div/mod implemtations in FT32's libgcc. 2016-03-28 James Bowman * config/ft32/ft32.opt (mnodiv): New. *

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

Hi, For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality for POWER, which is working fine. At this point the value of these tests to us seems questionable. Fixing these is such low priority that it is unlikely we

[Bug target/70355] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in simplify_subreg_concatn, at lower-subreg.c:617 with -funroll-loops -mavx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70355 --- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson --- Created attachment 38113 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38113=edit proposed patch Testing the following, which works on the reduced test case. As a missed-optimization, we really

[Bug rtl-optimization/70432] New: Move operation across function call to reduce save / restore

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70432 Bug ID: 70432 Summary: Move operation across function call to reduce save / restore Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

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

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 here's the complete diff for both the C++ exception fix and the bad condition codes optimizer bug. It should be good enough to check

Re: [ARM] Add support for overflow add, sub, and neg operations

An updated patch that resolves the issues with thumb2 support and adds test cases as requested. Looking to check this into GCC 7 stage1 when it opens. 2016-02-24 Michael Collison * config/arm/arm-modes.def: Add new condition code mode CC_V to represent the

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

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 reaching the end of a non-void function, due to the presence of the "-w"

Bad CC0 optimizer in VAX backend (was Re: Patches to fix GCC’s C++ exception handling on NetBSD/VAX)

I have some bad news and some good news. The bad news is that there has been a nasty optimizer bug lurking in the VAX backend for GCC for many years, which has to do with over-optimistic removal of necessary tst/cmp instructions under certain circumstances. This manifests at -O or higher and

[Bug libgcc/66382] POWER8 Vector optimized implementation of __float128 (IEEE754 128-bit Binary Floating Point)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66382 --- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner --- I do not think it is worthwhile to expand the IEEE 128-bit software emulation routines at the point of call in ISA 2.07 (power8). This is due to the fact that a lot of processing goes on in the emulation

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

I think let's defer the fix for c++/60760 (i.e. the nullptr_p bits) until stage 1, when it can be combined with the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR fix, and put the rest of this patch in now. I can split up the patch into two and post the subset without the fix for c++/60760, though I don't expect to be done

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 --- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #7) > until the C++ committee decides something about whether __func__ can be > shared. Actually, C++11 already says "It is unspecified whether such a variable has

RFA: PATCH to tree-inline.c:remap_decls for c++/70353 (ICE with __func__ and constexpr)

The constexpr evaluation code uses the inlining code to remap the constexpr function body for evaluation so that recursion works properly. In this testcase __func__ is declared as a static local variable, so rather than remap it, remap_decls tries to add it to the local_decls list for the

[Bug bootstrap/70422] [6 regression] Bootstrap comparison failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422 --- Comment #7 from Jim Wilson --- The function alloc_entries calls fancy_abort with __func__, causing the string to get into the output. This function is inlined into the hash_table expand function, which is then in turn inlined into other

[Bug c++/70353] [5/6 regression] ICE on __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ in a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353 --- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor --- I was just about commit the following patch for the failure (false positive) in the test. Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog === ---

[Bug target/64971] [5/6 Regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/pr37433.c ICEs with -mabi=ilp32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971 --- Comment #8 from Richard Henderson --- Created attachment 38112 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38112=edit proposed patch Andrew's approach to force the SYMBOL_REF to DImode is certainly one way to approach it; another

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c++/55004] [meta-bug] constexpr issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004 Bug 55004 depends on bug 70353, which changed state. Bug 70353 Summary: [5/6 regression] ICE on __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ in a constexpr function https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353 What|Removed

[Bug c++/70353] [5/6 regression] ICE on __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ in a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c++/70353] [5/6 regression] ICE on __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ in a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353 --- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Mar 28 20:16:21 2016 New Revision: 234511 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234511=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70422 PR c++/64266 PR c++/70353 * decl.c,

[Bug bootstrap/70422] [6 regression] Bootstrap comparison failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Mar 28 20:16:21 2016 New Revision: 234511 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234511=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70422 PR c++/64266 PR c++/70353 * decl.c,

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Mar 28 20:16:21 2016 New Revision: 234511 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234511=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70422 PR c++/64266 PR c++/70353 * decl.c,

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

Sorry, Should have replied to gcc-patches list. Thanks, bin -- Forwarded message -- From: "Bin.Cheng" Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:55:04 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH PR69489/01]Improve tree ifcvt by storing/tracking DR against its innermost loop bahavior if

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

> 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 reaching the end of a non-void > function, due to the presence of the "-w" option. He points out that > clang++

[Bug c++/70431] New: [C++11] Out of line defaulted copy constructor of a union does not compile.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70431 Bug ID: 70431 Summary: [C++11] Out of line defaulted copy constructor of a union does not compile. Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

Re: Compute all gimple statements in which a var is used

On March 28, 2016 7:23:26 PM GMT+02:00, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana wrote: >Hello, > >In order to compute all the statements where a variable is used, is it >enough to rely on the SSA analysis? I tried to do something like this: > >FOR_EACH_LOCAL_DECL (cfun, i,

[Bug fortran/70235] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Incorrect output with PF format

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235 --- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #22) > Created attachment 38107 [details] > New patch with test. > > With the patch we now get for y=6431.25 > > ru,-8pf18.2 y= 0.01 > > IMO

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

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 reaching the end of a non-void function, due to the presence of the "-w" option. He points out that clang++ wtill flags

Re: [PATCH] Add security_sensitive attribute to clean function stack and regs.

(Ping and changelog fix) On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Marcos Díaz wrote: > Hi, >the attached patch adds a new attribute 'security_sensitive' for functions. > The idea was discussed in PR middle-end/69976. > This attribute makes gcc to emit clean up

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

On 03/23/2016 09:10 PM, Alan Modra wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:04:39PM +0100, Olivier Hainque wrote: The reason why 894 is not accounted in the base ref computation is because it is part of the epilogue sequence, and init_alias_analysis has: /* Walk the insns adding values to the

[Bug target/70421] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with v16si vector and useless cast at -O -mavx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421 --- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Untested fix: > --- gcc/config/i386/i386.c(revision 234449) > +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c(working copy) > @@ -46930,7 +46930,7 @@ half: > { >

Compute all gimple statements in which a var is used

Hello, In order to compute all the statements where a variable is used, is it enough to rely on the SSA analysis? I tried to do something like this: FOR_EACH_LOCAL_DECL (cfun, i, var) { for (unsigned int i = 0; i < num_ssa_names; i++) { if (ssa_name(i) && SSA_NAME_VAR

[Bug c++/70430] Incorrect result for logical "and" operation with mixed vector and scalar

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70430 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/64177] Various cilk+ testsuite failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64177 iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org,

Re: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

Hi Thomas! Do you plan to commit this patch? :) On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 09:24:40 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/29/14 08:26, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:58:31 +, "Tannenbaum, Barry M" > > wrote: > >>In a nutshell, add the following code to

Re: [Patch, Fortran, pr70397, gcc-5, v1] [5/6 Regression] ice while allocating ultimate polymorphic

Hi Paul, thanks for the quick review. Committed to gcc-5-branch as r234507. The patch for trunk needs more polishing than expected. I hope to present it soon. Regards, Andre On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 19:19:11 +0200 Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > Hi Andre, > >

[Bug fortran/70397] [5/6 Regression] ice while allocating ultimate polymorphic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70397 --- Comment #2 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vehre Date: Mon Mar 28 16:29:14 2016 New Revision: 234507 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234507=gcc=rev Log: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: 2016-03-28 Andre Vehreschild

Re: Spurious register spill with volatile function argument

* Paul Koning: >> On Mar 28, 2016, at 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> ... >> The problem is that “reading” is either not defined, or the existing >> flatly contradicts existing practice. >> >> For example, if p is a pointer to a struct, will the expression >m >> read

[Bug target/70107] ICE: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3546 with -mcpu=power8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70107 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- You need to add "-std=c++11 -fpermissive" to gcc < 6. Trunk seems to be fixed, but gcc-5 and gcc-4.9 still ICE.

[Bug target/70107] ICE: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3546 with -mcpu=power8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70107 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Also, on latest GCC 5 and GCC 4.9, the front end objects: wschmidt@genoa:~/src$ $GCC_INSTALL/bin/g++ -w -c -mcpu=power8 pr70107.ii pr70107.ii:3:46: error: expected type-specifier before 'decltype' auto

[Bug target/70107] ICE: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3546 with -mcpu=power8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70107 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- Could not confirm with trunk r234476 on powerpc64le dated 2016-03-24. Can you please retry with something at least that recent?

[Bug c++/70430] New: Incorrect result for logical "and" operation with mixed vector and scalar

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70430 Bug ID: 70430 Summary: Incorrect result for logical "and" operation with mixed vector and scalar Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

Re: Spurious register spill with volatile function argument

> On Mar 28, 2016, at 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > ... > The problem is that “reading” is either not defined, or the existing > flatly contradicts existing practice. > > For example, if p is a pointer to a struct, will the expression >m > read *p? Presumably the

[Bug target/70416] [SH]: error: 'asm' operand requires impossible reload when building ruby2.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416 --- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #16) > > Wow, great to hear :). I'm now testing this patch on sh-elf...

[Bug target/70416] [SH]: error: 'asm' operand requires impossible reload when building ruby2.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416 --- Comment #16 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15) > (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #14) > > > > Maybe at that stage in the reload code it will end up using the last *addsi3 > > pattern and not try

[Bug target/70429] Wrong code with -O1.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70429 Kirill Yukhin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/69515] partial specialization of variable templates is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69515 --- Comment #2 from Tom Honermann --- (In reply to Tom Honermann from comment #1) Actually, the test case in comment 1 seems to be a different issue; its failure is a regression introduced in r234231 via bug 70095. As of r234231 (and up

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/70353 (core issue 1962)

> Le 28 mars 2016 à 15:11, Jason Merrill a écrit : > > On 03/28/2016 09:02 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> >>> Le 28 mars 2016 à 14:55, Jason Merrill a écrit : >>> >>> OK, thanks. >>> >>> Jason >> >> Does it mean that I should commit the patch? > >

[Bug bootstrap/70422] [6 regression] Bootstrap comparison failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #4) > The broken targets all define flag_section_anchors at -O1 and up. Probably the -O1 matters because it implies -fmerge-constants.

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/70353 (core issue 1962)

On 03/28/2016 09:02 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: Le 28 mars 2016 à 14:55, Jason Merrill a écrit : OK, thanks. Jason Does it mean that I should commit the patch? Please. Jason

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/70353 (core issue 1962)

> Le 28 mars 2016 à 14:55, Jason Merrill a écrit : > > OK, thanks. > > Jason Does it mean that I should commit the patch? Dominique

regression in C++ parsing performance between 4.9.3 and 5.3.1

The attached shell script will generate a larger version of the following: constexpr bool static_str_equal(const char* x, const char* y) { return (*x == 0 || *y == 0) ? (*x == *y) : ((*x == *y) && static_str_equal(x + 1, y + 1)); } int main(void) { static_assert(

[Bug c++/70095] [C++14] Link error on partially specialized variable template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70095 Tom Honermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tom at honermann dot net --- Comment #2

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/70353 (core issue 1962)

OK, thanks. Jason

[PATCH] Fix in-tree gmp/mpfr/mpc generation (PR 67728)

Hi, as described in the tracker we have bootstrap problems with in-tree gmp-6.1.0 on certain targets, and also a linker issue with check-mpc due to the changed mpfr library path. These are triggered by overriding CFLAGS and LDFLAGS in in-tree builds. It did not happen with the gmp/mpfr/mpc

[Bug target/70416] [SH]: error: 'asm' operand requires impossible reload when building ruby2.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416 --- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #14) > > Maybe at that stage in the reload code it will end up using the last *addsi3 > pattern and not try to look for a new pattern in the .md when it wants to > change

[Bug rtl-optimization/70134] combine misses jump optimization on powerpc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70134 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/70429] Wrong code with -O1.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70429 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---

Re: Spurious register spill with volatile function argument

* Andrew Haley: > "volatile" doesn't really mean very much, formally speaking. Sure, the > standard says "accesses to volatile objects are evaluated > strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine," but nowhere > is it specified exactly what constitutes an access. Reading or modifying

[Bug target/70406] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2287 (unrecognizable insn) with -mtune=pentium2 -mavx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70406 Kirill Yukhin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [Patch, Fortran] STOP issue with coarrays

Thanks for the quick feedback. The patch has been committed on trunk as rev. 234502 and on gcc-5-branch as rev. 234503 . In attachment three simple test cases; coarray_stop_str.f90 fails because of a syntax error in the check string. I guess the problem is due to the presence of the "STOPPED"

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:45:03PM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote: > > The normal -m32 compiler here generates code like > > > > lwz 11,0(1) > > > > and try as I might I cannot get it to fail. Maybe because the GPR11 > > setup here involves a load? > > You need to have had r11 last used to

[Bug target/70429] Wrong code with -O1.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70429 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,

Re: rs6000 stack_tie mishap again

> On Mar 28, 2016, at 05:01 , Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > > The normal -m32 compiler here generates code like > > lwz 11,0(1) > > and try as I might I cannot get it to fail. Maybe because the GPR11 > setup here involves a load? You need to have had r11

[Bug target/70429] Wrong code with -O1.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70429 Ilya Enkovich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[PATCH, libgomp] Fix deadlock in acc_set_device_type

Hi Jakub, there's a path for deadlock on acc_device_lock when going through the acc_set_device_type() OpenACC library function. Basically, the gomp_init_targets_once() function should not be called with that held. The attached patch moves it appropriately. Also in this patch, there are several

Re: Proposed Patch for Bug 69687

Hi Bernd: I submitted the filled disclaimer form on March 4th. Now, a representative of FSF mentioned that the copyright assignment is ready on their end. Can someone please go ahead and review the patch? Best regards, - Marcel > On 4 Mar 2016, at 1:43 AM, Bernd Schmidt

Re: Spurious register spill with volatile function argument

On 27/03/16 06:57, Michael Clark wrote: > GCC, Clang folk, any ideas on why there is a stack spill for a > volatile register argument passed in esi? Does volatile force the > argument to have storage allocated on the stack? Is this a corner > case in the C standard? This argument in the x86_64

Re: Constexpr in intrinsics?

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: On Sunday 27 March 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: Would it be possible to add constexpr to the intrinsics headers? For instance _mm_set_XX and _mm_setzero intrinsics. Already suggested here:

[Bug c++/69515] partial specialization of variable templates is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69515 Tom Honermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tom at honermann dot net --- Comment #1

[Bug target/70429] New: Wrong code with -O1.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70429 Bug ID: 70429 Summary: Wrong code with -O1. Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee:

[Bug target/70406] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2287 (unrecognizable insn) with -mtune=pentium2 -mavx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70406 --- Comment #5 from Kirill Yukhin --- Author: kyukhin Date: Mon Mar 28 08:01:56 2016 New Revision: 234501 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234501=gcc=rev Log: PR target/70406. gcc/ * config/i386/i386.md (define_split, andn): Fix

[Bug target/70406] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2287 (unrecognizable insn) with -mtune=pentium2 -mavx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70406 --- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin --- Author: kyukhin Date: Mon Mar 28 07:59:44 2016 New Revision: 234500 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234500=gcc=rev Log: PR target/70406 gcc/ * config/i386/i386.md (define_split, andn): Fix