http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52995
--- Comment #3 from Rafael Avila de Espindola rafael.espindola at gmail dot
com 2012-04-19 06:00:59 UTC ---
This just got discussed on the clang list. In the end we implemented what gcc
does. The winning argument was that it is not just the class
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53036
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
07:03:30 UTC ---
grep -F pedantic-errors testsuite/gcc.dg/*.c
Most of those testcases are duplicated or triplicated.
Another alternative could be if -pedantic warnings
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53038
Bug #: 53038
Summary: cfi_restore for cr before cr is actually restored
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53038
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53035
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
Bug #: 53039
Summary: [C++11]including functional breaks
std::is_convertible with template-pack expansion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
--- Comment #1 from Radics Péter mitchnull+gcc at gmail dot com 2012-04-19
07:59:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 27186
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27186
4.8.0 output
test run by sam of #c++ on freenode
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
--- Comment #2 from Radics Péter mitchnull+gcc at gmail dot com 2012-04-19
08:00:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 27187
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27187
4.7.0 output
test run on arch linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45088
Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52579
--- Comment #1 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2012-04-19 08:23:39 UTC ---
i came into conclusion that we need to separate ffi_closure_raw_THISCALL from
ffi_closure_raw_SYSV(not using such as jmp .stubraw), because
ffi_closure_raw_THISCALL is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
08:40:53 UTC ---
One approach is to provide masks.opt to provide those masks without
switch. masks.opt should be used when long-double-switch.opt isn't
used.
How
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44688
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
08:51:57 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 19 08:51:50 2012
New Revision: 186585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186585
Log:
2012-04-19 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44688
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
08:53:37 UTC ---
There are still other prologue/epilogue loops that would need similar handling
on their generation. The vectorizer needs to be re-organized to better
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52790
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-w64-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53032
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44688
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53030
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53031
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53035
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52831
Aurelien Buhrig aurelien.buhrig.gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #28 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
09:29:41 UTC ---
The prophecy in comment #3 finally came true (again) while I was testing the
patch for PR 52941 ;)
The problem is that when reload tries to swap regs from/to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37985
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mitchnull+gcc at gmail dot |hjl.tools
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
Bug #: 53040
Summary: nested functions may trash floating point registers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53033
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
11:29:20 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Apr 19 11:29:13 2012
New Revision: 186588
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186588
Log:
PR target/53033
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53033
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
11:33:08 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Apr 19 11:33:01 2012
New Revision: 186589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186589
Log:
Backport from 2012-04-19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53033
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53041
Bug #: 53041
Summary: Changing of array is leading to changing of another
variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53041
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
12:06:13 UTC ---
This is not a proper bug report, please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
What are you claiming is a bug in GCC?
Your program is dangerous and has undefined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53041
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53036
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-19
12:14:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 27189
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27189
basic patch
The patch detects D as trivial.
Sadly, on this case:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27193
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28525
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53036
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-04-19 12:24:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Sadly, on this case:
struct A {
A()=default;
A(int=2);
};
it says A is trivial whereas I guess the ambiguity
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53036
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37457
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19 12:53:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Here is a preliminary patch which makes gfortran accept the code in comment
#2:
Of course we need to do more. As quoted in comment #0:
Two dummy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19 13:04:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Two dummy arguments are distinguishable if
- one is a procedure and the other is a data object,
Here is a test case for this item:
module m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52868
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-04-19
13:09:07 UTC ---
Experimental patch that fixes the regression:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
index 3c11c0e..9c04516 100644
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
--- Comment #11 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-04-19
13:09:25 UTC ---
Another version of the experimental patch is here -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52868
It fixes bwaves regression on x86 and might not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
--- Comment #8 from wangmianzhi wangmianzhi1 at linuxmail dot org 2012-04-19
13:20:57 UTC ---
if replace the input argument for test2() with pr, the program will
compile but gives seg fault at run time.
于 2012年04月19日 09:04, janus at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53031
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
13:21:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 19 13:21:44 2012
New Revision: 186592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186592
Log:
2012-04-19 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52738
--- Comment #2 from Mateusz Kielar matek09 at gmail dot com 2012-04-19
13:23:17 UTC ---
The only way I see to resolve this issue is to check if pthread_getspecific
returns null in gomp_thread and if yes then allocate new thread struct and use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53042
Bug #: 53042
Summary: AIX bootstrap: cgraph symbol table error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52977
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19 13:29:34
UTC ---
Author: matz
Date: Thu Apr 19 13:29:29 2012
New Revision: 186593
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186593
Log:
PR middle-end/52977
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
--- Comment #9 from wangmianzhi wangmianzhi1 at linuxmail dot org 2012-04-19
13:22:24 UTC ---
if replace the input argument for test2() with pr, the program will compile but
gives seg fault at run time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19 13:36:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Two dummy arguments are distinguishable if
- one is a procedure and the other is a data object,
Here is a test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53042
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53031
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53042
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53042
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
14:09:20 UTC ---
Patch:
Index: gcc/symtab.c
===
--- gcc/symtab.c(revision 186594)
+++ gcc/symtab.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48438
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52997
Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |bernds at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53043
Bug #: 53043
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr45830.c
scan-tree-dump switchconv Expanding as bit test is
preferable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53044
Bug #: 53044
Summary: completely peel loops that do not run a constant time
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-19 14:49:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
HJ, can you help with the search? (mind the -std=c++11)
My regression hunt machine is down. It will take a while to
get it back.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53043
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-19 14:55:54
UTC ---
It may be caused by revision 186576:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-04/msg00527.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51834
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net 2012-04-19
15:06:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(i++, i) + i is undefined. The sequence point only orders i++ and i inside
the
parens, but not the operands of +. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53043
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #95 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-04-19 15:07:27
UTC ---
It is misleading to think that the linker accumulates code in translation unit
order for a C++ program. E.g., that is not what happens for template code or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53043
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44214
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-04-19 15:24:30
UTC ---
Created attachment 27191
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27191
obvious fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53038
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-04-19 15:27:47
UTC ---
testing a fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53038
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
--- Comment #9 from Jonatan GOebel jonatan.goebel at digitel dot com.br
2012-04-19 15:14:27 UTC ---
Hi.
The problem actually happen when using -Os and -frename-registers.
Also the source code may note help, because it randomly happens on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-19 15:47:14
UTC ---
Given
typedef unsigned long long __u64 __attribute__((aligned(4)));
all most all __u64 will be aligned at 4. The only case we may
do something about is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #3 from H. Peter Anvin hpa at zytor dot com 2012-04-19 15:51:35
UTC ---
Logically, about half of u64's will be properly aligned at the moment... Linus'
request is that we flag the currently misaligned __[su]64's as __compat_[su]64
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-19 16:00:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Logically, about half of u64's will be properly aligned at the moment...
Linus'
No necessarily. For
u64 x;
int y;
u64 z;
both x and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53042
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-04-19 16:03:09 UTC
---
Thanks for working on this. The patch is pre-approved if it passes testing.
The new symtab verifier is just old cgraph verifier and only change is that
we now do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #5 from H. Peter Anvin hpa at zytor dot com 2012-04-19 16:05:29
UTC ---
On 04/19/2012 09:00 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
request is that we flag the currently misaligned __[su]64's as
__compat_[su]64
and make __[su]64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-19 16:53:18
UTC ---
For a global or local 64bit variable, x, inside kernel,
why should it be 4 byte aligned if it isn't part of system
call interface?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #7 from H. Peter Anvin hpa at zytor dot com 2012-04-19 16:57:14
UTC ---
The __u64/__s64 types are used for interfaces only. The kernel itself is
x86-64 and uses aligned types for internal uses.
The mismatch between i386 and x86-64
, -8.394, -93.3, 7.9, 84.94 };
int i;
for (i = 0; i 8; i++)
foo0.d[i] = bar[i].d;
return 0;
}
-- cut here--
segfaults when compiled with -O2,
xgcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20120419 (experimental) [trunk revision 186596]
Loop termination is missing from asm dump:
.L2:
movsd %xmm0, foo0(%rax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-19 17:07:20
UTC ---
Shouldn't
typedef unsigned long long __u64 __attribute__((aligned(4)));
only be used in system call interface?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #9 from H. Peter Anvin hpa at zytor dot com 2012-04-19 17:11:00
UTC ---
Yes.
The point is: WE WANT TO MIGRATE THE SYSTEM CALL INTERFACE TO AN ALIGNED
__[us]64 INTERFACE, mostly so that new interfaces are properly aligned from the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27184|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-19 17:20:42
UTC ---
Isn't checking alignment of x in:
typedef unsigned long long __u64
__attribute__((aligned(4),warn_if_not_aligned(8)));
struct foo
{
int i1;
int i2;
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
Bug #: 53046
Summary: [4.8 Regression] New libstdc++ test failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53047
Bug #: 53047
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 482.sphinx3 in SPEC CPU 2006
miscompiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53048
Bug #: 53048
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 256.bzip2 in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52880
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
17:42:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 27193
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27193
gcc48-pr52880.patch
This patch works for me on this testcase, not sure if it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #11 from H. Peter Anvin hpa at zytor dot com 2012-04-19 17:42:28
UTC ---
Sorry, that should be sufficient. I'm not awake today, it seems.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53049
Bug #: 53049
Summary: expand/TER unappropriate moving unspec volatile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53049
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
18:32:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 27194
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27194
C source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53049
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
18:34:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27195
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27195
.150r.expand dump
Notice the
Replacing Expressions
val_2 replace with --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53049
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53042
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19 18:57:38
UTC ---
Both Richi and Honza's patches independently progress past the failure point.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45088
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
19:09:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
what about 4.7 branch?
The fix was on the trunk before 4.7 branched, so yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53049
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
19:18:37 UTC ---
I think there is an already closed bug about this issue and we decided last
time, it is not something which we want to implement an unspec volatile or an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53049
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-19
19:31:12 UTC ---
In tree-ssa-ter.c:is_replaceable_p() there is:
/* Leave any stmt with volatile operands alone as well. */
if (gimple_has_volatile_ops (stmt))
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
