https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66118
Bug ID: 66118
Summary: Compiler segmentation fault when compiling
std::function on aix6
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66117
--- Comment #2 from Paul Beeler pbeeler80 at gmail dot com ---
A second shot at a patch:
Included HAVE_isl in gcc/graphite-poly.h
Other files that include graphite-poly.h will have isl_constraint functions
defined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66117
--- Comment #3 from Paul Beeler pbeeler80 at gmail dot com ---
Final patch will work to be the most minimal for changes and HAVE_isl
https://github.com/SaberMod/GCC_SaberMod/commit/114e4e9470260a839d55aad2421fb646af12697b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66041
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue May 12 06:37:43 2015
New Revision: 223031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223031root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue May 12 06:37:43 2015
New Revision: 223031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223031root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #13 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Tue May 12 07:02:09 2015
New Revision: 223032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223032root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Yury Gribov y.gri...@samsung.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59224
li xin lixin.fnst at cn dot fujitsu.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lixin.fnst at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66113
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The reason is that I want to make creation of temporary
variables for arrays more sane.
Currently, temporary arrays are handled using an allocatable array
variable. This obviously
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112
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=66112
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
Created attachment 35522 [details]
gcc5-pr66112.patch
Supposedly just using SWI248 instead of SWI48 iterator should fix this,
though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66127
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
Ideally the front-end folding of expressions-of-constants might avoid
folding-for-optimization such as this (instead just folding cases where
the evaluated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66128
Bug ID: 66128
Summary: ICE for some intrinsics with zero sized array
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66129
Bug ID: 66129
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-*c
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66130
Bug ID: 66130
Summary: invalid use of non-static member function message
could be clearer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I expect to have a proper fix (additional folding in c_fully_fold_internal)
today or tomorrow, depends on how many issues I hit along the way (see e.g.
PR66127). The tzdata issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Tue, 12 May 2015, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Working on this, but it isn't a simple matter of adding pedantic.
Joseph, would testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66128
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
---
Some more examples with other error messages.
This one ...
program p
integer, parameter :: z(0) = 0
print *, count(z 0)
end
yields :
internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #13)
I expect to have a proper fix (additional folding in c_fully_fold_internal)
today or tomorrow, depends on how many issues I hit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66127
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I suppose this particular issue might be even relevant to e.g.
-mcheck-zero-division on MIPS, i.e. everywhere where we're expect to trap on
integer division by zero.
(ubsan's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66127
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think pushing TYPE_CANONICAL is a bug: we do check ODR properties of the
parameter and TYPE_CANONICAL is not guaranteed to be the same. Just remove the
TYPE_CANONICAL wrap here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35534
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35534action=edit
gcc6-pr66066
Untested patch without a test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65897
stanley sstsoft at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #57 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Tue May 12 20:01:47 2015
New Revision: 223096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223096root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Andrew MacLeod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66130
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55375
Eliot dsl at dsl dot pp.ua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dsl at dsl dot pp.ua
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66111
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66111
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue May 12 21:12:55 2015
New Revision: 223099
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223099root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66091
Tom Honermann tom at honermann dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54114
Eliot dsl at dsl dot pp.ua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dsl at dsl dot pp.ua
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Robert Suchanek from comment #10)
Hi Vlad,
I'm pleased with the results so far. In the larger codebase, it behaves as
the original
patch reverted and I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53553
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61940
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akim.demaille at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61940
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59621
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg01167.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed May 13 02:54:50 2015
New Revision: 223107
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223107root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65873
* ipa-inline.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049
--- Comment #4 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
Venkat, are you planning to submit this patch to gcc-patches?
Also, does this mean we can remove the patterns that do arith+shift using
MULT rtxes? (like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65961
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmpf, so we have an operand that is both part of a regular SLP node _and_ is
part
of a SLP node that gets its operand built up from scalars. So obviously
looking at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35522|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, it's parameter b assigned to local decl b.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
Geoff Nixon geoff at geoff dot codes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||geoff at geoff dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
Rohit rohitarulraj at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rohitarulraj at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue May 12 09:46:47 2015
New Revision: 223054
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223054root=gccview=rev
Log:
Don't take address of ap unless necessary
2015-05-12 Tom de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
Bug ID: 66120
Summary: __builtin_add/sub_overflow for int32_t emit poor code
on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
DEFPARAM (PARAM_SRA_MAX_SCALARIZATION_SIZE_SPEED,
sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed,
Maximum size, in storage units,
storage units! But the value seems to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #15 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Thierry Reding from comment #14)
Thanks Yury.
Np, you are welcome.
@Harald: could you close the bug if it works for you?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #17 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Geoff Nixon from comment #16)
what I should use to patch against the release?
Or is there a different set of changes
specific to the 5.1 branch backport?
For 5.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed by
Index: toplev.c
===
--- toplev.c(revision 223044)
+++ toplev.c(working copy)
@@ -1311,6 +1311,9 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66121
Bug ID: 66121
Summary: internal compiler error: in strip_typedefs, at
cp/tree.c:1369
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65133
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Confirmed fixed for 5.1.0. I'm adding a testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65133
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's DCE leaving loops broken and not marking them for fixup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64691
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 35526
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35526action=edit
tset-case to reproduce and assembly file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
Bug ID: 66119
Summary: Regression in optimization of avx-code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy gcc.hall at gmail dot com ---
Comment on attachment 35522
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35522
gcc5-pr66112.patch
Done, PR66120
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And we indeed rely on SRA to copy propagate aggregates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394
--- Comment #31 from Steffen Hau steffen at hauihau dot de ---
Just a short update.
With LTO enabled, configure thinks I have a buggy GCC:
checking if gcc has a visibility bug with class-level attributes (GCC bug
26905)... yes
configure:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #7 from James Greenhalgh jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
DEFPARAM (PARAM_SRA_MAX_SCALARIZATION_SIZE_SPEED,
sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed,
Maximum size, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #14 from Thierry Reding thierry.reding at gmail dot com ---
Thanks Yury.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy gcc.hall at gmail dot com ---
Related FYI,
Few instructions on ARM set the overflow flag. Two that do are 32-bit add and
subtract. For these two, GCC could just emit adds followed by bvs
Instead it produces:-
bl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue May 12 09:15:09 2015
New Revision: 223049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223049root=gccview=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix PR 65955: Do not take REGNO on non-REG operand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64691
Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
Created attachment 35524 [details]
gcc6-pr66112-2.patch
And i386 mulvhi4 and umulvhi4 support. For umulvhi4, I haven't found
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66047
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
$ ./cc1 -quiet x.c -O
x.c: In function ‘test’:
x.c:2:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
test (int foo)
^
0xd7129c crash_signal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
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=66123
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Index: tree-ssa-dom.c
===
--- tree-ssa-dom.c (revision 223044)
+++ tree-ssa-dom.c (working copy)
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
--- Comment #2 from Denis Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail dot com ---
Tested with gcc-4.9.2. The attached testcase doesn't exhibit the bug, but
compiling the same kernel tree, with the same .config, and then running
nm --size-sort vmlinux |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66000
Eric Gallager egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66102
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=37021
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 12 11:55:40 2015
New Revision: 223059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223059root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66091
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot com ---
Confirmed. Fixed in r223061.
When a function declaration started with a non-function declarator, the
requires-clause wasn't being attached to the right declarator object so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm*-*gnueabi |arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66084
--- Comment #4 from vfdff zhongyunde at huawei dot com ---
ok, it is ok based on gcc 4.9.2, thanks.
$GCC492/gcc ticket_1634.c -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #18 from Geoff Nixon geoff at geoff dot codes ---
Ok thanks, for other idiots like myself who can't seem to figure out how to get
viewvc to generate a diff for a specific rev, a -p1 patch is:
svn diff -c 223032
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
Bug ID: 66122
Summary: Bad uninlining decisions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
Bug ID: 66123
Summary: Array of labels as values + ternary operator + pointer
arithmetic = internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
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=66123
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Not those, but addvmode4 and subvmode4 instead (perhaps {,u}mulvmode4 if
the ISA detects multiplication overflows, also there is negvmode3).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
--- Comment #3 from Denis Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail dot com ---
Created attachment 35530
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35530action=edit
Preprocessed example exhibiting a bug on gcc -4.9.2
This is a preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
--- Comment #1 from Denis Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail dot com ---
Created attachment 35528
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35528action=edit
Preprocessed example exhibiting a bug
This is a preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Or rather
Index: tree-ssa-dom.c
===
--- tree-ssa-dom.c (revision 223044)
+++ tree-ssa-dom.c (working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed May 13 05:39:14 2015
New Revision: 223113
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223113root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-13 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35533
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35533action=edit
Suggested fix
I've been testing following patch for 5.1.0 branch. I'm wondering if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
The code in comment 0 does not abort at run time up to revision r222352
(2015-04-23), but does so at r222398 (2015-04-24), likely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65133
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 12 09:03:04 2015
New Revision: 223047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223047root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35524
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35524action=edit
gcc6-pr66112-2.patch
And i386 mulvhi4 and umulvhi4 support. For umulvhi4, I haven't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikestump at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Confirmed. We expand from
bb 2:
a$data_13 = MEM[(struct Vec2 *)a];
a$32$data_14 = MEM[(struct Vec2 *)a + 32B];
b = b;
v2_15 = MEM[(struct Vec2 *)b];
v2$32_16 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #8 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can we consider moving this to -pedantic as suggested by Richard in comment #4?
Full compiler builds are broken because of this.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59224
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to li xin from comment #8)
It will lead to the lsb test caes
/libstdcxx-t2c/tests/LanguageSupport/LanguageSupport FAIL.
So I want to know the right return value of
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
