https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64477
Bug ID: 64477
Summary: x86 sse unnecessary GPR spill
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63552
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64476
Bug ID: 64476
Summary: std::uninitialized_copy tests assignability the wrong
way, resulting in performance pessimization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64461
--- Comment #5 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #4)
The easiest fix is to disable the three trunc patterns for the coldfire.
This isn't my area of expertise. That's why I focused in on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51192
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54747
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14554
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36828
--- Comment #4 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Based on the last comment, should this PR be closed. It has been five years.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14538
Bug 14538 depends on bug 14436, which changed state.
Bug 14436 Summary: ICE building libgcc.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14436
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949
--- Comment #7 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I ran GCC tests against the patch found one failure.
int
adds_shift_ext ( long long a, int b, int c)
{
long long d = (a + ((long long)b 3));
if (d == 0)
return a + c;
else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64474
Bug ID: 64474
Summary: transfer(c_null_ptr, ...) causes an internal error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
||senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atme
||l.com
--- Comment #5 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj senthil_kumar.selvaraj at atmel dot
com ---
Not reproducible with the latest trunk build (gcc version 5.0.0 20150102)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64468
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64472
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60507
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
patnel97269-gfortran at yahoo dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64475
Bug ID: 64475
Summary: [5.0 Regression] FAIL:
28_regex/algorithms/regex_match/ecma/char/backref.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64422
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Jan 2 21:12:54 2015
New Revision: 219149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219149root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-02 Bernd Edlinger
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47540
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64475
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The fix has already been posted and approved:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2015-01/msg1.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64475
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes it fails everywhere, but this one is nothing to do with me :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64422
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Folding (x%y)y (with unsigned) would help as well. VRP already handles the
case where y is a constant.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64475
--- Comment #1 from Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fails on AArch32 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64461
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Doing a git bisect showed this to be the commit that broke things. Clearly not
m68k specific but triggered it.
commit 91ae0791cbebaac673e42e53c8b7f000241a0ca1
Author: dj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64474
--- Comment #2 from Arjen Markus arjen.markus895 at gmail dot com ---
Hi Janus,
thanks for looking into this. Personally, I have no problem moving to
version 4.9. It's just that I ran into the problem.
Regards,
Arjen
2015-01-02 16:28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63552
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
For the commented-out line I get:
call co_reduce(a,x%ppc)
1 2
Fehler: A argument at (1) has type INTEGER(4) but the function passed as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64475
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Fri Jan 2 22:33:04 2015
New Revision: 219151
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219151root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64475
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64461
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Multiple BSPs trigger this on various files which is not a surprise seeing as
it is generating an illegal memory to memory move. But in case it helps, this
is the list of CPU CFLAGS of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46586
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53314
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14436
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64461
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
It is using truncsiqi2, but that pattern hasn't been adjusted for coldfire.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64461
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
The easiest fix is to disable the three trunc patterns for the coldfire.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #5)
but I cant see why a potential deadlock in an exception
handler is not a bug?
Actually here is what glibc says about malloc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61135
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64470
Bug ID: 64470
Summary: “floating constant exceeds range” warning for
constants that should fit
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57562
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60507
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Jan 2 11:24:32 2015
New Revision: 219141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219141root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-02 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/60507
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64471
Bug ID: 64471
Summary: 403 Forbidden on GCC 5 page
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64455
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
Reduced to avoid using type_traits:
templatetypename Type
constexpr bool IsType = true;
template bool b, class T struct Test
{
};
template class T
struct Testtrue, T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64472
Bug ID: 64472
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/inline-7.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64470
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64472
--- Comment #1 from Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Only fails for -fPIC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64473
Bug ID: 64473
Summary: libstdc++-v3 tests fail to link on AArch64 tiny memory
model.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64474
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64438
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 2 16:50:45 2015
New Revision: 219146
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219146root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64438
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57562
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Jan 2 16:31:52 2015
New Revision: 219144
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219144root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-02 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/57562
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64468
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 2 16:50:51 2015
New Revision: 219147
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219147root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64468
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64470
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
The definition of DBL_MAX_EXP (and thereby GCC's __DBL_MAX_EXP__) in C11
is maximum integer such that FLT_RADIX raised to one less than that power
is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64438
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57562
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64472
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
I think is expected since a may be overridden when compiled with
-fPIC. We can either make a static or mark it as hidden.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64468
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Bug ID: 64478
Summary: Ada Exception handlers call signal-unsafe malloc/free
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
I found this initially with TSAN:
RUN c52104x
^M
,.,. C52104X ACATS 2.5 15-01-03 04:12:21^M
C52104X CHECK THAT IN ARRAY ASSIGNMENTS AND IN SLICE ASSIGNMENTS,^M
, cannot be static (RM
4.9(34))
$ ./xgcc --version
xgcc (GCC) 5.0.0 20150102 (experimental) [trunk revision
ae61c50:a5fe274:4df12aa29efd9950b5bcbe15c207e61e11c16435]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48918
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52120
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
but I cant see why a potential deadlock in an exception
handler is not a bug?
64 matches
Mail list logo