Hi Steve,
I have a couple of questions before I have to hurry off to work:
First, why is
@@ -2253,22 +2253,19 @@ gfc_simplify_dim (gfc_expr *x, gfc_expr *y)
gfc_expr*
gfc_simplify_dot_product (gfc_expr *vector_a, gfc_expr *vector_b)
{
+ /* If vector_a is a zero-sized array, the result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84033
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
On 24/01/18 20:20, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> I've added a new feature to jamais-vu (as of
> 77849e2809ca9a049d5683571e27ebe190977fa8): it can now ignore test
> results that merely changed line number.
>
> For example, if the old .sum file has a:
>
> PASS:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84033
Bug ID: 84033
Summary: powerpc64le -moptimize-swaps bad code with vec_vbpermq
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:34:48 +0100
François Dumont wrote:
> On 24/01/2018 18:53, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:39:59 +0100
> > François Dumont wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose this new debug check. Comparing
This libbacktrace patch fixes the setting of str_size on PE/COFF to
not leave some bytes uninitialized on a 64-bit host. Committed to
mainline.
Ian
2018-01-24 Ian Lance Taylor
* pecoff.c (coff_add): Use coff_read4, not memcpy.
Index: pecoff.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83211
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||rx*-*-* arm*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68239
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84032
Bug ID: 84032
Summary: ICE in optimize_sc, at modulo-sched.c:1064
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68239
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jan 25 02:24:45 2018
New Revision: 257039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257039=gcc=rev
Log:
PR other/68239
* mmap.c (backtrace_free_locked): Don't put
PR 68239 points out that libbacktrace can sometimes take a long time
scanning the list of free memory blocks looking for one that is large
enough. Since the libbacktrace memory allocator does not have to be
perfect in practice, only keep the 16 largest entries on the free
list. Bootstrapped and
All,
The attach patch fixes a regression with dot_product and
zero-sized arrays. I bootstrapped and regression tested
the patch on x86_64-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
2018-01-23 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83998
* simplify.c (gfc_simplify_dot_product): Deal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81550
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81550
--- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Jan 25 01:09:19 2018
New Revision: 257038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257038=gcc=rev
Log:
[gcc/testsuite]
2018-01-24 Michael Meissner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84031
Bug ID: 84031
Summary: structured binding unpacks nameless padding bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83950
--- Comment #3 from Sunil Pandey ---
I shouldn't say it's bug, sorry about that. Just application build regression
from GCC 7 to GCC 8. Looks like creduce reduced this test case too much in this
case.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 05:00:39PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> Replacing 'int' with 'unsigned long' allows the test to succeed once again. I
> have checked this on a big endian power8 (both 32-bit and 64-bit) and on a
> little endian power8 (64-bit only), and it passes in all three
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82846
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #6 from David
These testcases jit-compile functions that return char, but
were erroneously calling them as if they returned int.
This led to errors for certain target configurations (e.g.
reading from %eax (32-bit) in the harness when only %al (8-bit)
had been written to in the jit-compiled function).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82846
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 25 00:45:51 2018
New Revision: 257037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257037=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix jit.dg/test-alignment* (PR jit/82846)
These testcases jit-compile functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is first V2DI in the RTL, which exists just fine (but there is no
such divide insn); then when it is split to two DImode divides, it
just generates div:DI etc., which does not exist for -m32.
So we
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:19:00PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:35:38PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Although, hrm, in your patch you also change "int i" to "long i"; that
> > alone seems to be enough to fix everything? Could you check that please?
>
>
This patch to the Go frontend rationalizes the external symbol names
that appear in assembler code. It changes from the ad hoc mechanisms
used to date to produce a set of names that are at least somewhat more
coherent. They are also more readable, after applying a simple
demangling algorithms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #19 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Jan 24 23:36:29 2018
New Revision: 257032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257032=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix m68k-linux-gnu libgcc build for ColdFire (PR target/68467).
PR target/68467
Hi!
cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr clears TREE_CONSTANT on ADDR_EXPRs that
aren't considered by C++ constant expressions, but that breaks middle-end
which relies on TREE_CONSTANT being set on ADDR_EXPR where the address
is constant.
The following patch just special cases ADDR_EXPR not to clear
Hi!
In constexpr evaluation of array references for arrays with unknown bounds,
we need to diagnose out of bounds accesses, but really don't know the bounds
at compile time, right now GCC will see nelts as error_mark_node + 1 and
will not consider them a constant expression at all.
>From the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52153
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
Snapshot gcc-6-20180124 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20180124/
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
On 01/24/2018 03:24 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> PR target/68467 is libgcc failing to build for m68k-linux-gnu
> configured for ColdFire.
>
> Jeff has an analysis in the PR identifying the problem as resulting
> from the callers of libcalls with 1-byte or 2-byte arguments wanting
> to push just 1 or
PR target/68467 is libgcc failing to build for m68k-linux-gnu
configured for ColdFire.
Jeff has an analysis in the PR identifying the problem as resulting
from the callers of libcalls with 1-byte or 2-byte arguments wanting
to push just 1 or 2 bytes on the stack, while the libcall
implementations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83999
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #3)
> OK for trunk?
Ok, thanks.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 08:19:58PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> (Jakub, This is all hidden behind the -fcoarray option. To my mind
> this is safe for release.)
Ok from RM POV.
Jakub
On 01/24/2018 12:11 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> pr83994 is a code generation bug in the stack-clash support that affects
>> openssl (we've turned on stack-clash-protection by default for the F28
>> builds).
>>
>> The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
But I assume that's your transcription error. In the test case the arguments
are vector long long.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
That looks completely invalid, the args should be vector long long, not long
long.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:35:38PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:27:55AM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> >
> > As Segher and I were discussing over private IRC, the root cause of this
> > bug is
> > the compiler no long generates the BDNZ instruction for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83994
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83994
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jan 24 21:57:16 2018
New Revision: 257031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257031=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/83994
* i386.c (get_probe_interval): Move to earlier
Hi All,
Here is a patch for popcount builtin detection similar to LLVM. I
would like to queue this for review for next stage 1.
1. This is done part of loop-distribution and effective for -O3 and above.
2. This does not distribute loop to detect popcount (like
memcpy/memmove). I dont think that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83743
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
The following patch fixes both PR56010 and PR83743. PR56010 is fixed by
adding an extra altname field to the RS6000_CPU table which matches the
cases where the Linux kernel's AT_PLATFORM name differs from the name GCC
expects. If we match on the altname, then we return the canonical name.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I observed that gfortran 7.2 and 8.0 generate different debug info for
> dynamical array.
> Attributes DW_AT_data_location and DW_AT_allocated are different. There
> is an extra "DW_OP_plus_uconst: 8" generated by gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82846
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #7 from Bill Long ---
Thanks - very helpful information. I'll try to find out what version of gcc
was used to build their library.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84024
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83055
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
On January 24, 2018 at 1:29:12 PM, Steve Kargl
(s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) wrote:
Yes, thanks, Paul. Unfortunately, I've run out of time.
Damian, GCC is in stage 3, we need to wait for approval
from the release manager (aka Jakub) before committing
the patch.
Will do.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:25:51PM -0800, Damian Rouson wrote:
> Thank you, Paul. I think Alessandro has commit rights.
> If so, then I’ll ask him to make the requested edits and commit it.
>
> Damian
>
Yes, thanks, Paul. Unfortunately, I've run out of time.
Damian, GCC is in stage 3, we need
Thank you, Paul. I think Alessandro has commit rights. If so, then I’ll ask
him to make the requested edits and commit it.
Damian
On January 24, 2018 at 12:19:58 PM, Paul Richard Thomas
(paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi All,
Given the delay relative to the start of stage 3, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #4 from Will Schmidt ---
I'm having a moment of doubt on the validity of the testcases involved here.
vector long long a = vec_div(long long b, long long c);
Any chance that is invalid for -m32 ? I don't see a whole lot of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that I got a
Internal Error: stash_internal_unit(): Stack Size Exceeded
when using mismatched gfortran 7.2.0 and omp_lib.mod.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84030
Bug ID: 84030
Summary: Name lookup in presence of namespace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #5 from Bill Long ---
I tried on my Mac laptop (gcc version 6.3.0) and it also works there. Evidently
not a representative test. The differences I see between that environment and
the original customer's is that they are running
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84010
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson ---
For better rematerialization, I wonder if it wouldn't be better
to represent this as
(set (reg:P tmp)
(const:P (unspec [(symbol_ref "xxx")] UNSPEC_TLSIE)))
prior to reload, and split to
I added some documentation to fortran/intrinsic.texi. In
processing the gfortran.f90, I discovered this warning.
makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500 --split-size=500 \
-I ../../gcc/gcc/doc/include -I ../../gcc/gcc/fortran \
-o doc/gfortran.info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> What happens with 16 threads?
% gfc -fopenmp pr83948.f90
% setenv OMP_NUM_THREADS 16
% ./a.out
Table element number = 995 Same pole re-projecting area source:
Beginnng of new record:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #3 from Bill Long ---
What happens with 16 threads?
cc
Target: powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../../gcc-7-branch/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --with-cpu=power7
--disable-multilib --with-long-double-128
--prefix=/home/willschm/gcc/install/gcc-7-branch --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.2.1 2018
On 24/01/2018 18:53, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:39:59 +0100
François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I'd like to propose this new debug check. Comparing with non-eos
istreambuf_iterator sounds like an obvious coding mistake.
I propose it despite the
Jeff Law writes:
> On 11/22/2017 11:12 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Sandiford writes:
>>> This patch adds support for the SVE bitwise reduction instructions
>>> (ANDV, ORV and EORV). It's a fairly mechanical extension of existing
>>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83999
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Jakub,
I have made the changes to the types of the dtype elements that you
suggested. It led to a cast being needed in
trans-intrinsic.c(gfc_conv_intrinsic_rank) but, apart from
Hi All,
Given the delay relative to the start of stage 3, I thought that I had
better deal with this asap:
+ /* TODO: this works on any derived type when
+ it should only work with team_type. */
+ if (team->ts.type != BT_DERIVED)
Why don't you give the team_type derived type
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:35:38PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:27:55AM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> >
> > As Segher and I were discussing over private IRC, the root cause of this
> > bug is
> > the compiler no long generates the BDNZ instruction for
Szabolcs Nagy writes:
> Fix test failures with -mcmodel=tiny when adr is generated instead of adrp.
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/peel_ind_1.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve
> scan-assembler \\tadrp\\tx[0-9]+, x\\n
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/peel_ind_2.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve
>
The following patch fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84014
The patch was tested on powerpc64 and bootstrapped on x86-64.
Committed as rev. 257029.
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 257028)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84014
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Jan 24 19:45:55 2018
New Revision: 257029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257029=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-01-24 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/84014
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
--- Comment #13 from Pedro Alves ---
Fix is now in GDB's master, 8.1, and 8.0 branches.
On Sat, 2017-12-16 at 12:06 +0100, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
> On 15/12/17 15:29, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 10:16 +0100, Paulo Matos wrote:
> > >
> > > On 14/12/17 12:39, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > It looks like you're capturing the textual output from "jv
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83845
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
FWIW, I now have patches that fix all the big-endian SVE failures. Hope to
post them later this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83889
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83979
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 43233
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43233=edit
WIP that fixes PR, but causes other regressions
I am attaching a proof of concept hack that fixes this PR by moving
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84029
Bug ID: 84029
Summary: Partially inline strcmp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
n Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:38:10PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
>
> --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at
Hi!
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:27:55AM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
>
> As Segher and I were discussing over private IRC, the root cause of this bug
> is
> the compiler no long generates the BDNZ instruction for a count down loop,
> instead it decrements the index in a GPR and does a
* Jakub Jelinek:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:04:55PM +0100, Manuel Rigger wrote:
>> In a second step, we also considered internal builtins and found that the
>> vararg handling builtins (__builtin_va_start, __builtin_va_end,
>> __builtin_va_arg, and __builtin_va_copy) are relied upon by many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84014
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting. The problem occurs when only one subreg (obj) of
register (allocno) is used in a function. I'll work on a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
On January 24, 2018 6:51:54 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Biener
wrote:
>On January 24, 2018 6:40:25 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
> wrote:
>>On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 06:36:02PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>> > I think there's already a set of attributes that prevent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84028
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Target|
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:39:59 +0100
François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'd like to propose this new debug check. Comparing with non-eos
> istreambuf_iterator sounds like an obvious coding mistake.
>
> I propose it despite the stage 1 as it is just a new debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84028
Bug ID: 84028
Summary: [nvptx] nested-function-1.f90 hangs at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
On January 24, 2018 6:40:25 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 06:36:02PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> > I think there's already a set of attributes that prevent cloning
>and
>> > or are adjusted by the IPA param machinery. The Martins or Honza
>> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82968
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82007
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Should I backport this to 7?
IMO yes.
Prompted by PR target/83838 (Many gcc.target/i386/indirect-thunk*.c
tests FAIL), which is caused by this snippet in i386/sol2.h
/* Only recent versions of Solaris 11 ld properly support hidden .gnu.linkonce
sections, so don't use them. */
#ifndef USE_GLD
#define USE_HIDDEN_LINKONCE 0
#endif
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 06:36:02PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > I think there's already a set of attributes that prevent cloning and
> > or are adjusted by the IPA param machinery. The Martins or Honza
> > should know better.
>
> I am not sure I understand the problem but if
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
On Wed, Jan 24 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
> On January 24, 2018 5:16:45 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
> wrote:
>>On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 05:08:10PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> >The "omp declare simd" attribute refers to argument numbers of the
>>> >functions, so trying to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #19 from James Clarke ---
Thanks for the fix; is this a candidate for backporting to the gcc-7 branch? If
not we can just carry it in Debian, but it would be nicer to have it upstream.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
--- Comment #12 from Pedro Alves ---
GDB fix posted here:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-01/msg00482.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83939
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83692
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems like in C++17 the condition in
if (m_x.value() != 1)
throw 0;
gets evaluated to 1 instead of 0, so we try to evaluate the "throw 0" but that
can't be evaluated to a constant value. Maybe some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83980
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:54:13AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> +/* Check whether BLOCK, a lexical block, is nested within OUTER, or is
> + OUTER itself. If BOTHWAYS, check not only that BLOCK can reach
> + OUTER through BLOCK_SUPERCONTEXT links, but also that there is a
> + path from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83823
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:52:18AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> --- a/include/dwarf2.h
> +++ b/include/dwarf2.h
> @@ -298,6 +298,14 @@ enum dwarf_location_list_entry_type
> DW_LLE_start_end = 0x07,
> DW_LLE_start_length = 0x08,
>
> +/*
>
On Wednesday 24 January 2018 06:29 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>>> + /* Avoid register indexing for 128-bit stores when the
>>> + AARCH64_EXTRA_TUNE_SLOW_REGOFFSET_QUADWORD_STORE option is set. */
>>> + if (!optimize_size
>>> + && type == ADDR_QUERY_STR
>>> + &&
1 - 100 of 245 matches
Mail list logo