Re: [PATCH] PR78879

> How specifically does this fix the problem. I suspect you're just > papering over the bug by changing the order of thread processing. > > You'll note that when a thread is canceled we call the > paths.unordered_remove without incrementing i. AFAICT you're just > changing order in which

[Bug lto/78908] [6/7 Regression] lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_read_decls, at lto/lto.c:1814

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78908 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/78879] -fprofile-generate causes undefined reference to `____ilog2_NaN'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78879 --- Comment #11 from Yuan Pengfei --- It seems that if a variable has two or more constant values, gcc does not treat it as a constant and b_c_p returns 0. Is that correct? If so, I might have figured out where the problem is. With

[Bug bootstrap/78893] gcc-6.3.0 build fails on genattrtab on CentOS 7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78893 --- Comment #3 from William Bader --- Thanks! Increasing the allocated memory fixed the problem, and the gcc build completed. Regards, William $ /usr/bin/free -h totalusedfree shared buff/cache available

Re: [Patch ,gcc/MIPS] add an build-time/runtime option to disable madd.fmt

> 在 2016年12月23日，10:47，Paul Hua 写道： > > On aarch64 target the result are 1.332268e-17. > On x86 with fma target the result are also 1.332268e-17. > > so, I don't think the Loongson's madd.fmt/msub.fmt is incorrect. OMG. Will this behavior make some app wrong working

Re: [Patch ,gcc/MIPS] add an build-time/runtime option to disable madd.fmt

On aarch64 target the result are 1.332268e-17. On x86 with fma target the result are also 1.332268e-17. so, I don't think the Loongson's madd.fmt/msub.fmt is incorrect. We should do something for usage of fused madd, the all things has been tested an fedora21 remix for loongson(1). 1, gcc：add

[Bug debug/78909] New: local variables unavailable in constructor under Oracle dbx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78909 Bug ID: 78909 Summary: local variables unavailable in constructor under Oracle dbx Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/58114] allow turning the warning about deleting a pointer of incomplete type into an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58114 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Chris Wilson from comment #6) > I disagree with the assessment of this bug as a duplicate of bug 43452. That > bug was resolved by the creation of the -Wdelete-incomplete option, upon > which

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 40407 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40407=edit gcc7-pr78901-1.patch Untested fix. With this snprintf in -std=c++11 and above will be actually noexcept even if

[Bug middle-end/78879] -fprofile-generate causes undefined reference to `____ilog2_NaN'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78879 Yuan Pengfei changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

New Spanish PO file for 'gcc' (version 6.2.0)

Hello, gentle maintainer. This is a message from the Translation Project robot. A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted by the Spanish team of translators. The file is available at: http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/es.po (This file, 'gcc-6.2.0.es.po', has

RE: [PATCH, testsuite] MIPS: Cleanup the forcing of assembly output in error tests.

> -Original Message- > From: Toma Tabacu [mailto:toma.tab...@imgtec.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:56 AM > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Matthew Fortune ; Moore, > Catherine > Subject: [PATCH, testsuite] MIPS:

Go patch committed: Fix spurious redefinition error

This patch to the Go frontend by Than McIntosh changes Struct_type::do_mangled_name to incorporate the field names even for hidden symbols. This is needed in cases where a package imports a type "S" that has an anonymous struct, e.g. // imported from some other package type S struct { X

[Bug middle-end/73550] Another wrong -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning in switch statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73550 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug tree-optimization/78496] [7 Regression] Missed opportunities for jump threading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Assignee|unassigned at

gcc-6-20161222 is now available

Snapshot gcc-6-20161222 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20161222/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6

Re: [PATCH, Fortran, alloc_poly, v2] Fix allocation of memory for polymorphic assignment

2016-12-20 17:07 GMT+01:00 Andre Vehreschild : > Hi Janus, > >> 1) After adding that code block in gfc_trans_assignment_1, it seems >> like the comment above is outdated, right? > > Thanks for noting. > >> 2) Wouldn't it be better to move this block, which does the correct >>

[Bug c++/58114] allow turning the warning about deleting a pointer of incomplete type into an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58114 Chris Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug lto/78908] New: lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_read_decls, at lto/lto.c:1814

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78908 Bug ID: 78908 Summary: lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_read_decls, at lto/lto.c:1814 Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/78907] internal compiler error segmentation fault with recursive constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78907 --- Comment #2 from hr.jonas.hansen at gmail dot com --- This is not an issue with g++ 5.2.1, did the default stack size change? There is actually no need for using 65536 even -fconstexpr-depth=26000 will ensure the crash, on my computer. How do

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool --- Ah, "high byte" registers are never a separate register in the i386 backend, I see. combine would need to combine four insns to arrive at your current pattern, but it doesn't try because it thinks they

[Bug c++/78907] internal compiler error segmentation fault with recursive constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78907 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Actually, it seems similarly declared strlen, strchr or sprintf are all nothrow, so there might be some bug with handling C99 builtins in C++.

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak --- A better testcase: --cut here-- struct S1 { char pad1; unsigned char val; short pad2; }; struct S1 test (struct S1 a, struct S1 b) { a.val += b.val; return a; } --cut here-- compiles with -O2 to:

[Bug c++/78907] New: internal compiler error segmentation fault with recursive constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78907 Bug ID: 78907 Summary: internal compiler error segmentation fault with recursive constexpr Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/78496] [7 Regression] Missed opportunities for jump threading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 40405 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40405=edit Prototype patch for addqi_ext_[1,2] patterns The prototype patch compiles the testcase to: movl%edi, %edx

[Bug tree-optimization/78856] [6/7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78856 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So what appears to be happening is we have two loops, one natural, and an inner irreducible loop. We have a potential jump thread that starts on outside the outer loop and targets a block that is in the

[PATCH 3/3] [i386] Use re-aligned stack pointer for aligned SSE movs

This adds an optional `align' parameter to choose_baseaddr allowing the caller to request an address that is aligned to some boundary. Then ix86_emit_save_regs_using_mov and ix86_emit_restore_regs_using_mov are modified so that optimally aligned memory is used when such a base register is

[PATCH 1/3] [i386] Move stack frame re-alignment to before SSE saves.

This step adds new fields to struct ix86_frame to track where we started the stack re-alignment and what we need to allocate prior to re-alignment. In ix86_compute_frame_layout, we do the stack frame re-alignment computation prior to computing the SSE save area so that it we have an aligned SSE

[PATCH 2/3] [i386] Keep stack pointer valid after after re-alignment.

This stage adds the fields sp_realigned and sp_realigned_offset to struct machine_frame_state and adds the concept of the stack pointer being re-aligned rather than invalid. The inline functions sp_valid_at and fp_valid_at are added to test if a given location relative to the CFA can be accessed

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3) > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2) > > No, unfortunately the above is not a valid x86 insn. x86 has two-operand > > instructions, so output has to

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 Bug 51119 depends on bug 66189, which changed state. Bug 66189 Summary: Block loops for inline matmul https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66189 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/66189] Block loops for inline matmul

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66189 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/37131] inline matmul for small matrix sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131 Bug 37131 depends on bug 66189, which changed state. Bug 66189 Summary: Block loops for inline matmul https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66189 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/78239] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in char_len_param_value, at fortran/decl.c:926, with -fimplicit-none

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78239 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/78906] ICE with a member variable template whose type is a decltype of a member variable template of a class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78906 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Dec 22 20:29:07 2016 New Revision: 243897 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243897=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/78906 - ICE with member variable template * pt.c

[Bug fortran/78239] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in char_len_param_value, at fortran/decl.c:926, with -fimplicit-none

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78239 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Thu Dec 22 20:27:52 2016 New Revision: 243895 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243895=gcc=rev Log: 2016-12-22 Thomas Koenig Backport from trunk

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/42329, P0522 and other template template parm issues

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > The last patch implements paper P0522, which resolves DR150 to clarify > that default arguments do make a template suitable as an argument to a > template template-parameter based on a new rule that the > template-parameter

C++ PATCH for c++/78906 (ICE with member template variable)

If we're adding the enclosing template args, we also need to switch to looking at the most general template. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit 35fe583ade362f018f095435980424f1244ab92f Author: Jason Merrill Date: Thu Dec 22 13:27:26 2016 -0500

Use aligned SSE movs for re-aligned MS ABI pro/epilogues

According to the Microsoft 64-bit ABI specification, registers RDI, RSI and XMM6-15 are non-volatile and the stack alignment is 16 bytes. In practice, the Windows implementation appears to not be so picky about the 16-byte alignment requirement, probably because it never to save SSE registers

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2) > No, unfortunately the above is not a valid x86 insn. x86 has two-operand > instructions, so output has to match one of the operands. But these are pseudos.

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1) > === > Trying 10, 9 -> 11: > Failed to match this instruction: > (parallel [ > (set (reg:QI 88 [ _2 ]) > (plus:QI (subreg:QI

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 CC|

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 40404 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40404=edit gcc7-pr78901.patch There are multiple issues, this patch hopefully fixes just one of them - the case when the call

[Bug tree-optimization/78856] [6/7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78856 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I can't prove it yet, but I suspect this is another case where transformations have collapsed loops and invalidated the cached iteration information.

[Bug fortran/78881] [F03] reading from string with DTIO procedure does not work properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881 --- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle --- (In reply to janus from comment #2) > (In reply to janus from comment #0) > > It seems like the first character is being swallowed somewhere ... > > Moreover the EOF is supposed to be an EOR? I will start

[Bug target/71216] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] Incorrect PPC assembly due to inserted .machine pseudo-op

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71216 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Rin Okuyama from comment #9) > > > However, I have a question on this fix. How about the case where > > > "-Wa,-mXXX" option is given without "-mcpu=YYY" option specified? > > > > That

Re: [PATCH v2,rs6000] PR78056: Finish fixing build failure on Power7

Hi Kelvin, On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 04:57:12PM -0700, Kelvin Nilsen wrote: > 2016-12-16 Kelvin Nilsen > > PR target/78056 > * gcc.target/powerpc/pr78056-1.c: New test. > * gcc.target/powerpc/pr78056-2.c: New test. > * gcc.target/powerpc/pr78056-3.c:

[Bug tree-optimization/78899] [7 Regression] Vestorized loop with optmized mask stores motion is completely deleted after r242520.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78899 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #40402|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- Here's a smaller test case: $ cat t.C && gcc -O1 -S -Wall t.C extern "C" int snprintf (char *, __SIZE_TYPE__, const char *, ...); int foo () { try { return snprintf (0, 0, ""); } catch (...) { } }

[Bug c++/78906] ICE with a member variable template whose type is a decltype of a member variable template of a class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78906 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

Re: [testsuite,committed] Fix prototype of memset in a test case.

Georg-Johann Lay writes: > One test case used unsigned long for the 3rd parameter of memset, which > should be size_t. This made the test crash for targets where correct > parameter passing depends on correct prototypes. > > Fixed and committed as obvious. Catching up on

[Bug tree-optimization/78856] [6/7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78856 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Mostly to record my thoughts... Loop unrolling inserts a __builtin_unreachable as part of unrolling one of the loops. DOM3 looks at the first 10 or so blocks determines they all have a statically

[Bug c++/78906] ICE with a member variable template whose type is a decltype of a member variable template of a class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78906 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/78906] New: ICE with a member variable template whose type is a decltype of a member variable template of a class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78906 Bug ID: 78906 Summary: ICE with a member variable template whose type is a decltype of a member variable template of a class template Product: gcc Version: 7.0

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 --- Comment #4 from Matt Clarkson --- That's OK. I'm not particularly looking for the macro to be backported to 4.9. Just as we move forward the new macro is available. If not it's not the end of the world I can always maintain the snippet

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #5) > This is what creduce finally came up with: Thanks for the test case. The ICE goes away if the snprintf declaration is declared throw() or attribute

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #5

[Bug libstdc++/78905] New: Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 Bug ID: 78905 Summary: Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 --- Comment #2 from Matt Clarkson --- Because wehen I compile with clang against the libstdc++ the problem will still occur and __GNUC__ will not be defined. This happens on any distro where GCC is the default but ships clang as an alternative

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Why don't you use: __GNUC__ >=5 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 9) instead for checking GCC version?

Re: GCC libatomic ABI specification draft

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 03:28:56PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > However, there still seems to be a problem, but this time related to > alignment issues. We do have the 16-byte atomic instructions, but they > only work on 16-byte aligned data. This is a problem in particular > since the default

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7) > > I also think warning on malloc(0) can be useful. GCC 7 has -Walloc-zero > > that warns on all zero-size allocations. Unfortunately, it's not in -Wall > > or

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 22, 2016 5:36:56 PM GMT+01:00, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 > >Martin Sebor changed: > >

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > Warning on malloc with an unused return value sounds like a good idea to me > (in fact, it seems that all allocation functions to be declared with >

Re: [PATCH v2] combine: Improve change_zero_ext, call simplify_set afterwards.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 04:18:34PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > >>>If you don't have instruction scheduling subregs of mem are allowed (and > >>>are counted as registers). Combine asks recog, and it think this is > >>>fine. > >>> > >>>Why does reload use r31 here? Why does it think that is

Re: [PATCH] Speed-up use-after-scope (re-writing to SSA) (version 2)

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 06:03:50PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > Done by hash_map. Ok. > > 3) I think you just want to do copy_node, plus roughly what > >copy_decl_for_dup_finish does (and set DECL_ARTIFICIAL and > >DECL_IGNORED_P) - except that you don't have copy_body_data > >so you

[Bug translation/78745] Truncated messages in po file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78745 --- Comment #4 from Frederic Marchal --- More multi-line descriptions in gcc/config/i386/i386.opt at line 567, 577, 844.

[Bug middle-end/71474] PRED_LOOP_IV_COMPARE wrongly calculates number of iterations of a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71474 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [v3 PATCH] Implement 2801, Default-constructibility of unique_ptr.

On 20/12/16 22:52 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote: diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/unique_ptr.h b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/unique_ptr.h index 56e6ec0..63dff37 100644 --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/unique_ptr.h +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/unique_ptr.h @@ -175,10 +175,14 @@

[Bug middle-end/78879] -fprofile-generate causes undefined reference to `____ilog2_NaN'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78879 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/78239] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in char_len_param_value, at fortran/decl.c:926, with -fimplicit-none

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78239 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Thu Dec 22 17:05:13 2016 New Revision: 243891 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243891=gcc=rev Log: 2016-12-22 Thomas Koenig Backport from trunk

Re: [PATCH] Speed-up use-after-scope (re-writing to SSA) (version 2)

On 12/21/2016 09:52 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:26:41PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: >> Ok, llvm folks are unwilling to accept the new API function, thus I've >> decided to come up >> with approach suggested by Jakub. Briefly, when expanding ASAN_POISON >> internal

Re: [v3 PATCH] Implement LWG 2842, in_place_t check for optional::optional(U&&) should decay U.

On 19/12/16 16:07 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote: Tested on Linux-x64. The perfect forwarder needs to sfinae out of the way of the in_place_t signature, and the in_place_t signature needs to check is_constructible. I also did some housekeeping to get rid of the int-pack constraints, because in

[Bug c/77754] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error : tree code 'call_expr' is not supported in LTO streams

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77754 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Perhaps doing it in grokdeclarator where build_function_type is called, if initialized == false? But it is unclear to me where all the side-effects can hide. E.g. int fn3(); void fn4(int (*)[fn3 ()][fn3

Re: [PATCH] PR78879

On 12/21/2016 11:08 PM, Yuan, Pengfei wrote: Hi, The following patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78879 There are some other invocations of unordered_remove in tree-ssa-threadupdate.c, which may also need to be replaced with ordered_remove. Regards, Yuan, Pengfei

Re: [Patch ,gcc/MIPS] add an build-time/runtime option to disable madd.fmt

> 在 2016年12月23日，00:18，Richard Sandiford 写道： > > Yunqiang Su writes: >>> 在 2016年12月22日，23:48，Yunqiang Su 写道： >>> 在 2016年12月22日，23:31，Richard Sandiford 写道：

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[PATCH][x86_64] Enable AVX512 VPOPCNTD/VPOPCNTQ instructions

Hi, this patch enables AVX512 VPOPCNTD/VPOPCNTQ instructions recently added in Instruction Set Extensions (https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/c5/15/architecture-instruction-set-extensions-programming-reference.pdf). gcc/ * common/config/i386/i386-common.c

Re: [Patch ,gcc/MIPS] add an build-time/runtime option to disable madd.fmt

Yunqiang Su writes: >> 在 2016年12月22日，23:48，Yunqiang Su 写道： >> >>> >>> 在 2016年12月22日，23:31，Richard Sandiford >>> 写道： >>> >>> Matthew Fortune writes: Sandra Loosemore

[Bug c/77754] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error : tree code 'call_expr' is not supported in LTO streams

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77754 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Though, it seems they can be hiding pretty much everywhere: int fn3(); void (**fn5) (int[][fn3 ()]); void fn1 () { int a[10][fn3 ()]; (**fn5) (a); } ICEs with -O2 -flto, so does: int fn3(); typedef void

Re: Reorganise machmode.h headers

Jeff Law writes: > On 11/16/2016 09:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Later patches will make machmode.h rely on wide-int.h and the >> new poly-int.h, so it needs to appear later in the coretypes.h >> include list. >> >> Previously machmode.h included insn-modes.h, which as well

Re: [PATCH,rs6000] Fix PR11488 for rs6000 target

Pat Haugen writes: > This patch attempts to fix problems with the first scheduling pass > creating too much register pressure. It does this by enabling the target > hook to compute the pressure classes for rs6000 target since the first > thing I observed while

[Bug tree-optimization/78899] [7 Regression] Vestorized loop with optmized mask stores motion is completely deleted after r242520.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78899 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---

Re: [Patch ,gcc/MIPS] add an build-time/runtime option to disable madd.fmt

> 在 2016年12月22日，23:48，Yunqiang Su 写道： > >> >> 在 2016年12月22日，23:31，Richard Sandiford 写道： >> >> Matthew Fortune writes: >>> Sandra Loosemore writes: On 12/21/2016 11:54 AM, Yunqiang

[Bug tree-optimization/78899] [7 Regression] Vestorized loop with optmized mask stores motion is completely deleted after r242520.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78899 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #40399|0 |1 is obsolete|

Re: [Patch ,gcc/MIPS] add an build-time/runtime option to disable madd.fmt

> 在 2016年12月22日，23:31，Richard Sandiford 写道： > > Matthew Fortune writes: >> Sandra Loosemore writes: >>> On 12/21/2016 11:54 AM, Yunqiang Su wrote: By this patch, I add a build-time option `

[Bug c/78903] __attribute__((section(".ram"))) ignored with -Os or -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78903 --- Comment #2 from chrysn at fsfe dot org --- I don't care about the function being inlined in general, I just don't want it inlined into different sections -- that's why I'd consider noinline a workaround. Anyhow, if that is the definite

Re: [Patch ,gcc/MIPS] add an build-time/runtime option to disable madd.fmt

Matthew Fortune writes: > Sandra Loosemore writes: >> On 12/21/2016 11:54 AM, Yunqiang Su wrote: >> > By this patch, I add a build-time option ` --with-unfused-madd4=yes/no', >> > and runtime option -m(no-)unfused-madd4, >> > to disable

Re: C++ PATCH for c++/42329, P0522 and other template template parm issues

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > The fourth patch fixes 42329, where we were failing to bind a template > template-parameter to a base class of the argument type. We need to make sure that the argument is a class before we try this. Tested

[Bug fortran/66681] [Coarray] Wrong result in assigning this_image() to a complex coarray

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681 --- Comment #9 from Damian Rouson --- I wonder if this is related to pr78892

[Bug c++/78898] [7 Regression] ICE: in get_template_base, at cp/pt.c:19665

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78898 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/42329] Deduction of template template argument via base class fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42329 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Dec 22 15:19:54 2016 New Revision: 243890 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243890=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/78898 - ICE on constructor with TTP PR c++/42329 *

  1   2   >