https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44672
kalle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vinzent.boerner at gmx dot de
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63855
tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61324
--- Comment #2 from tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 63855 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #84 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
FYI, merge from trunk revision 217978 as sh-lra revision 217980 to
apply the lra remat changes on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63899
--- Comment #2 from Richard PALO ---
I can't seem to recreate this now, although I'm not that sure it had to do with
an issue involving the compiler on illumos where the native libm 'complex.h'
was being erroneously fixed up causing precompiler p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
Bug 55142 depends on bug 49721, which changed state.
Bug 49721 Summary: convert_memory_address_addr_space may generate invalid new
insns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63975
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63972
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
At least for sh4, it would have a historical reason. In the old
time, -m4-nofpu confused many users (including me). From its name,
those users expected th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Sat Nov 22 23:41:26 2014
New Revision: 217975
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217975&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-22 Andrew Pinski
PR target/63971
* gcc.targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
Bug ID: 64029
Summary: const int (&in)[]{1,2,3,4,5}; results in internal
compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
The original testcase in comment #0 is still not optimized at the gimple level
due to extra casts. If I use unsigned instead of int, the testcase is
optimized at the gimple level.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
Bug 26022 depends on bug 24437, which changed state.
Bug 24437 Summary: OBJ_TYPE_REF handling in fold_stmt should be moved to fold
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24437
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63982
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63981
Bug 63981 depends on bug 63982, which changed state.
Bug 63982 Summary: [5 Regression] Almost all of the devirt testcases fail with
-mabi=ilp32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63982
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63598
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63694
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63694
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Nov 22 20:53:36 2014
New Revision: 217972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/63694
* libiberty/configure.ac: Check for strtol,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64026
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64024
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64026
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
I opened PR 64028.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64028
Bug ID: 64028
Summary: [5 Regression] r211599 caused many vectorizer test
failures with -fPIC
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-unknown-darwin |powerpc-apple-darwin9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
Reproducer:
$ cat t.h
#ifdef __has_attribute
#if __has_attribute(availability)
/* use better attributes if possible */
#endif
#endif
gcc-trunk-bust$ ./gcc/xgcc -Bgcc t.h -E >t.i
gcc-trunk-bust$ more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2014-11-07 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #79 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Nov 22 16:07:25 2014
New Revision: 217970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2014-11-22 Oleg Endo
PR target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Nov 22 16:07:25 2014
New Revision: 217970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2014-11-22 Oleg Endo
PR target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
this might be a hint:
c.f.
$ diff -W200 -y --suppress-common-lines s-oscons-tmplt.i
/GCC/ml/gcc-trunk-apple/gcc/ada/rts/s-oscons-tmplt.i
# 102 "/GCC/ml/gcc-trunk-bust/./gcc/include-fixed/limits.h" 3 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #78 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Nov 22 15:50:10 2014
New Revision: 217969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/63783
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh_treg_combi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #23 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Nov 22 15:50:10 2014
New Revision: 217969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/63783
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh_treg_combi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61528
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
If I mark f as static or inline (so the optimizer changes f to take its
argument by value), I get with g++-5:
w2.c: In function 'int main()':
w2.c:11:7: warning: '' is used uninitialized in this function
[-Wun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #22 from Michael Karcher ---
OK, in that case I retract my objections and I think the patch is fine. I am
sorry for that mistake.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64022
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
So at stage #3 building libada, we see that s-oscons.{adb,h} are empty.
Looking at the error log :
ln: rts/system.ads: File exists
In file included from /usr/include/sys/time.h:78:0,
from /G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #21 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #20)
> Of course. The instructions involving src_reg in make_not_reg_insn dealing
> with src_reg are completely quoted here:
>
> + // On SH we can do only SImode and D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63986
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Nov 22 15:06:34 2014
New Revision: 217968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/63986
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_is_l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #77 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Nov 22 15:06:34 2014
New Revision: 217968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/63986
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_is_l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I configured for sh4-linux, foolishly thinking that sh4-nofpu would
work with that as well. Why not build all "regular" multilibs for
every "regular" config? Maybe keep sh5, sh2a separate, I dunno (I
n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse ---
The .uninit dump for the original testcase now looks like:
double foo(A) (struct A a)
{
double SR.1;
:
return SR.1_2(D);
}
which the uninit pass would warn about, except that SR.1 is marked
TREE_NO_W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60770
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64026
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> Is this
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-6.c (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-6.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60770
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Sat Nov 22 14:28:19 2014
New Revision: 217967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-22 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/60770
* tree-sra.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64026
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> HJ, is it possible to run a regression hunt between these two revisions?
Is this
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-6.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64027
--- Comment #1 from Peter A. Bigot ---
The following program:
int request();
int release();
unsigned char execute (unsigned char arg);
unsigned char safe_execute (unsigned char arg)
{
int rc;
unsigned char rs = 0;
rc = request();
if (0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64027
Bug ID: 64027
Summary: inefficient handling of msp430 byte operands
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64026
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-linux-gnu
CC|
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ubizjak at gmail dot com
This is a recent regression. Comparing versions 5.0.0 20141120 (experimental)
[trunk revision 217836] [1] with 5.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #20 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 22-Nov-14, at 2:31 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is that with r217946 or later?
No. My latest build is r217898.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
FWIW, gcc and g++ pass empty struct differently on x86.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64025
Bug ID: 64025
Summary: Several testsuite execution failures with -O2 -flto
-fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63917
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64024
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
gdb says:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x009ca6cf in is_gimple_variable (t=0x0) at
/home/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/gimple-expr.h:83
83return (TREE_CODE (t) == VAR_DECL
(gdb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64024
Bug ID: 64024
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-6.c ICEs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63991
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
It looks like -fpack-struct cannot be used when -fstrict-volatile-bitfields is
in effect, i.e. on ARM EABI. As for unaligned volatile fields on
strict-alignment
targets, they clearly ask for trouble. Simply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47500
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |4.8.4
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47500
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Nov 22 11:29:27 2014
New Revision: 217963
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217963&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-11-20 Vincent Celier
PR a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47500
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Nov 22 11:28:56 2014
New Revision: 217962
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217962&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-11-20 Vincent Celier
PR a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||63773
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #20 from Michael Karcher ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
> > The or-then-SImode-compare optimization has an adverse effect on the test
> > coverage, it seems. In both cases, GET_MODE(src_reg) and GET_MODE(dst_reg)
> > are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63852
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin14 |x86_64-apple-darwin1*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61649
--- Comment #1 from Richard PALO ---
given https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52168,
it seems necessary to update the test_text line with a newline appended
as follows so that check.sh doesn't balk:
>+test_text = "#if (defined(__STD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64023
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
as commented in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773 c#14..17
this is caused by
$(HOST_EXPORTS) being used at stage#N>1 instead of $(POSTSTAGE1_HOST_EXPORTS)
Thus the config test for the bootstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #18)
> As I said, I did not try your patch, but just read the source. The assembly
> you quoted convinces me that there is no problem in the code actually
> produced by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
make_extraction is unable to generate bit-field extractions in more than one
mode. This causes the extractions that it does generate to be wrapped in
subregs when SImode results are wanted.
Ideally, we s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64023
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64023
Bug ID: 64023
Summary: [5 Regression] r216964 breaks bootstrap on darwin when
using gcc as the bootstrap compiler.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #18 from Michael Karcher ---
As I said, I did not try your patch, but just read the source. The assembly you
quoted convinces me that there is no problem in the code actually produced by
your patch, which is great. This is caused by t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64022
Bug ID: 64022
Summary: [F2003][IEEE] ieee_support_flag does not handle
kind=10 and kind=16 REAL variables
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
--- Comment #1 from Richard Henderson ---
Oh, that should read "fail after the merge of the new libffi".
Current libffi happens to have nothing interesting in the stack
slot that's incorrectly popped, and to happens not to fail. Not
so with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
Bug ID: 64021
Summary: Empty struct vs libffi
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61602
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
> and a patch from somewhere else that seems related:
>
> http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded/plain/recipes/gcc/gcc-4.5/sh4-
> multilib.patch
Perhaps I don't
81 matches
Mail list logo
