https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61594
--- Comment #6 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We can keep it open, but my guess is that it would need some volunteer to
actively drive the backporting process. I.e., with a patch and testing. Given
that TM is experimental, I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64755
--- Comment #5 from Alejandro Rivero Pérez nubcrack at yahoo dot es ---
Yes, my bad, with no-strict-aliasing the code compiles OK and generate the
desire output. After read more info about strict-aliasing that definitely is
the problem, thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64761
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
Bug ID: 64796
Summary: effective target bswap64 globally caches
target-specific use of lp64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
Bug ID: 64797
Summary: 22_locale/conversions/string/2.cc FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #19 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
It's probably not correct to simply transfer range info from *idx to
iv-base.
Instead SCEV analysis needs to track the range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64799
Bug ID: 64799
Summary: [5 regression] libffi.special/unwindtest.cc FAILs on
Solaris/SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #19 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64730
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64764
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 26 14:50:03 2015
New Revision: 220111
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220111root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-26 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #12 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
Ick - that will also paper over good warnings so I'd rather not do that.
I'm also worried about possible good warnings removal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've never received comments on my alternative patch. Either that one, which I
prefer since it's cleaner) or the previous one (ugly and target-specific),
needs
to be applied to have AIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64739
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
Bug ID: 64798
Summary: [5 regression] g++.old-deja/g++.eh/badalloc1.C FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64802
Bug ID: 64802
Summary: [ARM] Selecting an -mcpu or -march that supports only
one of ARM/Thumb should default to the ISA that *is*
supported
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52482
--- Comment #11 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for confirming. However, that fails before libitm, for which you should
file a separate bug report. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64592
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34573
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34573action=edit
gcc5-pr64612.patch
Lightly tested patch to do that (tested just on x86_64-linux).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64795
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 34569
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34569action=edit
patch to disable warnings for array references generated by cunroll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61594
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64421
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63439
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.preudhomme at arm dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64787
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64754
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 26 12:47:20 2015
New Revision: 220108
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220108root=gccview=rev
Log:
Initialize ruid in new_var_info
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64754
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64799
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
Bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 34576
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34576action=edit
pr64307.c.050i.whole-program for --enable-checking=release build
Can you attach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64795
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64801
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You are right, the problem is hidden in cooperation between IPA inliner and
ICF.
If I run the test w/o ICF, inliner sets NULL to the fsp_detect FUNCTION_DECL:
#0 0x0074541e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
May I please Dominique to put 'debug_tree(arg);' after following statement:
error (invalid argument to gimple call);
And send the stderr output?
Thanks,
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
May I please Dominique to put 'debug_tree(arg);' after following statement:
error (invalid argument to gimple call);
And send the stderr output?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
May I please Dominique to put 'debug_tree(arg);' after following statement:
error (invalid argument to gimple call);
And send the stderr output?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64801
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Sorry for the duplicate comments 5 and 6. Bugzilla is very slow and I got a
confusing message about gateway timed out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
Bug ID: 64798
Summary: [5 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 34578
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34578action=edit
pr64307.c.052i.icf for --enable-checking=release build
Can you attach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
Does malloc return 8-byte aligned memory? Is __alignof__
It does,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64230
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jan 26 15:56:03 2015
New Revision: 220125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220125root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-26 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/64230
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62258
M. Hanselmann public at hansmi dot ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||public at hansmi
(x) C(L, x)
#define M(a) goto L(__LINE__); __LINE__; L(__LINE__):
M(a
);
produces (gcc -E; 5.0.0 20150126)
goto L5; 5; L4:
In gcc-4.7 the result was (after '#' lines removal)
goto L5 ; 5 ; L5 : ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #24 from Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #23)
partially agree.
at least for the single use case given by Seb, I think tree ivopt should do it.
(I verified clang do ivopt correctly for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #23 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Now I am less convinced that it's a tree ivopt issue. Tree optimizer has no
knowledge about stack frame information for local array variables. With the
original test, on 32-bits targets, tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #16 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The alternative patch works on AIX. I thought that it was going to be
installed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64803
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 34577
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34577action=edit
pr64307.c.050i.whole-program for --enable-checking=release build
Can you attach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Honza/Martin, any progress on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #13 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com ---
Ranges have to be used for maxiter computations to have consistent analysis in
complete unroll and vrp. Following patch allows to refine maxiter estimation
using ranges and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64230
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jan 26 18:53:42 2015
New Revision: 220130
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220130root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-26 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15184
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #9 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com ---
Nice solution for this problem would be to have a better estimation of maximum
loop iterations number. Currently array size and index step are used to get
the maximum ignoring
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34571
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34571action=edit
segregate derived type namespaces from regular namespaces
To convince yourself that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64766
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64800
Bug ID: 64800
Summary: Bad opcode produced for coldfire mcf5307 processor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
It's probably not correct to simply transfer range info from *idx to
iv-base.
Instead SCEV analysis needs to track the range of CHREC_LEFT when it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64801
Bug ID: 64801
Summary: [5 Regression] kernel build failure due to ICF
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64800
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64795
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jan 26 18:49:21 2015
New Revision: 220128
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220128root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/64795
* config/i386/i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64806
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Allan Jensen from comment #3)
I refer to this:
/* Handle arch= if specified. For priority, set it to be 1 more than
the best instruction set the processor can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64806
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 26 19:31:55 2015
New Revision: 220131
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220131root=gccview=rev
Log:
Revert the last P_POPCNT order change
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64806
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64806
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Allan Jensen from comment #1)
The logic is supposed to be that any arch that includes an extension is
prioritized above that extension, and with POPCNT being part of SSE4a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64730
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #14 from Damian Rouson damian at sourceryinstitute dot org ---
Correction: the backport I was discussing with Andre was for a different bug.
Nonetheless, I'm reasonably certain that the fix for this bug would benefit the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #13 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #12)
GCC on AIX. One can use gcc111 in the GCC Compiler Farm.
Thanks! I've sent a request for an access to gcc111 but got no response
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64230
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64808
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #12 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear All,
As I just said on #gfortran, the previous explanation is wrong. The
problem is that, for the mold= case with no default initializer,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64806
--- Comment #3 from Allan Jensen linux at carewolf dot com ---
I refer to this:
/* Handle arch= if specified. For priority, set it to be 1 more than
the best instruction set the processor can handle. For instance, if
there is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64795
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jan 26 20:12:26 2015
New Revision: 220132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220132root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-01-26 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #13 from Damian Rouson damian at sourceryinstitute dot org ---
Paul,
In case it matters, I reported a duplicate of this bug that I isolated from
code in an open-source NASA project (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pfunit/).
NASA has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 34581 [details]
gcc5-pr64776.patch
Untested fix.
The patch fixes the ICE and regtest cleanly (at least with
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=ipa.exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64708
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
[david@c64 install]$ ll $(find -name libgccjit.so*)
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 david david 78637910 Jan 26 12:59
./libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/5.0.0/libgccjit.so
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 david
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you look at libffi's config.log if it is clear why the test failed then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64800
--- Comment #2 from angelo angelo70 at gmail dot com ---
You mean the issue is into m68k-linux-as or what ?
The function i disassembled is inside memory.c. So i am calling m68k-linux-gcc,
wich generate object code and finally opcodes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
For some reason, the hash values are different in the vtable and the
TYPE IS. I had always worried that that we would have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64807
Bug ID: 64807
Summary: [5 Regression] Wrong-code because of wide-int division
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64806
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #10 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Hi Mikael,
Yes, you will see from my comment on the PR that I had come to the
same conclusion. However, rather than take PR62044 as a place
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64806
Bug ID: 64806
Summary: [5 Regression] FAIL: FAIL: g++.dg/ext/mv1.C
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64808
Bug ID: 64808
Summary: static_cast double to int on linux 32
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64805
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64806
Allan Jensen linux at carewolf dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linux at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64363
--- Comment #3 from Christian Otterstad christian.otterstad at gmail dot com
---
Great, it seems this corrected the issue, but a new problem that didn't appear
to exist before seems to have been introduced. I created a new bug issue for
it. Bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63504
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For 2) a short testcase is:
__uint128_t
foo (void)
{
__uint128_t a = -1;
__uint128_t b = a - 0x8000ULL;
return a / b;
}
(even on x86_64 native).
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
