https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65961
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 2 07:50:19 2015
New Revision: 224013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224013root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-02 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66374
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65366
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vogt at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66345
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jun 2 09:17:49 2015
New Revision: 224017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224017root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66345
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Ah, forget it, the addresses are okay; I'll dig deeper into the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56926
İsmail cartman Dönmez ismail at donmez dot ws changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ismail at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew from comment #7)
IMHO
So no GCC bug, just wrongly assuming pointers can't become null pointers if
they were not null pointers.
Nevertheless, that is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66345
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jun 2 09:13:29 2015
New Revision: 224016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224016root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66345
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66345
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65225
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66348
--- Comment #6 from Sebastiano Vigna sebastiano.vigna at unimi dot it ---
I forgot an important aspect: with -fsanitize=undefined the optimization bug
does not show up. The instrumentation perturbs the code enough to make it go
away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #3)
[ There's a problem with the matching. The rs in ..rrr were supposed to
match the PTR_PTR_PTR arguments. But that's not the case, since we need to
add a dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66374
Mikhail Maltsev miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
--- Comment #10 from Andrew wad at infinet dot ru ---
(In reply to Christian Prochaska from comment #0)
test.c:
void func()
{
unsigned int i;
unsigned int *ptr = (unsigned int*)0xf000;
for (i = 0; i 1024; i++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66348
--- Comment #5 from Sebastiano Vigna sebastiano.vigna at unimi dot it ---
Fantastic tool! I didn't know about it.
But it doesn't fire. There is no undefined behaviour in that code--it's just
that the optimizer at -O1 does something wrong.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65366
--- Comment #2 from jkratoch at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jkratoch
Date: Tue Jun 2 07:37:22 2015
New Revision: 224012
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224012root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR other/65366
* gdbhooks.py: Use int(...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66372
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=65419
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Andrew wad at infinet dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wad at infinet dot ru
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66370
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Funny, the backtrace claims that 0x80001de7 ist main.main+23 (#0 of the
backtrace), but it actually is main.main-1 (#7).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jun 2 18:45:50 2015
New Revision: 224041
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224041root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/66220: Fix false positive from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66384
Bug ID: 66384
Summary: Compiler fails with message compilation abandoned
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66385
--- Comment #1 from Mianzhi Wang wangmianzhi1 at linuxmail dot org ---
The bug is bypassed by -fno-frontend-optimize, same as in the case of 66050 and
66386.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 06:41:53PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Thus, there is something about the arrayness of x in
the original testcase that matters.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66386
Bug ID: 66386
Summary: ICE: FORALL reading multiple elements from one array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66386
--- Comment #1 from Mianzhi Wang wangmianzhi1 at linuxmail dot org ---
The bug is bypassed by -fno-frontend-optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
--- Comment #5 from James Almer jamrial at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 35683
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35683action=edit
Preprocessed source as generated by -freport-bug, third test case, gcc 5.1.1
svn 223417
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 2 17:50:23 2015
New Revision: 224039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224039root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/66319
* configure.ac:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65966
--- Comment #3 from Lewis Hyatt lhyatt at gmail dot com ---
Hello-
I thought it would make sense to ping this one again a month later, I am afraid
I may have confused matters by mixing two separate issues in one report...
Definitely the second
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Almer from comment #5)
Created attachment 35683 [details]
Preprocessed source as generated by -freport-bug, third test case, gcc 5.1.1
svn 223417
How
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
--- Comment #7 from James Almer jamrial at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
(In reply to James Almer from comment #5)
Created attachment 35683 [details]
Preprocessed source as generated by -freport-bug,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66385
Bug ID: 66385
Summary: ICE: FORALL writing multiple elements of one array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
Adam Conrad adconrad at 0c3 dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adconrad at 0c3 dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3)
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
Defaulting -mlra might be reasonable for gcc 6.
For gcc 5, I thought the patch for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66342
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66363
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, ipa-inline's transform pass does fixup_cfg and other things that are not
really optional, so perhaps we should not support disabling it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66351
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hello,
the following patch should fix the miscompilation:
Index: ipa-polymorphic-call.c
===
--- ipa-polymorphic-call.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02876.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66325
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
The ICE backtrace is:
930408-1.c:6:1: error: type variant differs by TYPE_PACKED.
} s;
^
enumeral_type 0x7f7dbda115e8 foo asm_written unsigned packed type_0 QI
Hmm, actually I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66258
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson wilson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wilson
Date: Wed Jun 3 00:46:19 2015
New Revision: 224054
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224054root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/66258
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66258
Jim Wilson wilson at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66380
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 11:37:27PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
OK. Digging a little deeper. The problem is in
module.c (load_equiv).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66258
--- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson wilson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch doesn't completely fix grub, because grub is trying to compile FP
code with +nofp, which can't work without a soft-float ABI, which we don't
have. So grub gets an error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 07:04:21PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #2 from Steve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65768
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
There could be some negative side effects with the patch above, because it
forces the R0 usage quite early (at RTL expansion).
Yes, the
-gnatpg -W -Wall -nostdinc -I- -I. -Iada/gene
rated -Iada -I/build/gcc-multilib/src/gcc-5-20150602/gcc/ada
-I/build/gcc-multilib/src/gcc-5-20150602/gcc/ada/gcc-interface /build/gc
c-multilib/src/gcc-5-20150602/gcc/ada/comperr.adb -o ada/comperr.o
[...]
raised STORAGE_ERROR : stack overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
--- Comment #8 from James Almer jamrial at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to James Almer from comment #7)
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
(In reply to James Almer from comment #5)
Created attachment 35683 [details]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66387
Bug ID: 66387
Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl with lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66387
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
building trunk libgo with -fstack-protector-strong yields:
$ go version
fatal error: unexpected signal during runtime execution
[signal 0xb code=0x1 addr=0x3]
goroutine 16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65768
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Tue Jun 2 22:53:15 2015
New Revision: 224048
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224048root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-06-03 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59048
Ondrej Bilka neleai at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neleai at seznam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66380
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Jun 2 23:02:05 2015
New Revision: 224049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224049root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-02 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #40 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The issue array reference not recognized as IV is resolved now. From gimple
optimizer's view, there is still another issue in which loop header is bloated
because of lose of signness information.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66388
Bug ID: 66388
Summary: Test gcc.target/i386/pr49781-1.c failed because of
recent scev overflow patches.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65843
Sebastien Alaiwan sebastien.alaiwan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66374
Sebastien Alaiwan sebastien.alaiwan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66389
Bug ID: 66389
Summary: sh2eb-linux-* is not recognized by configure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61683
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 2 10:28:14 2015
New Revision: 224022
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224022root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-06-02 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
--- Comment #3 from Marcus Kool marcus.kool at urlfilterdb dot com ---
The intrinsic returns int, and from the above tree dump, the compiler
won't even consider to combine the sign-extension with vpmovmskb.
That is the core of the issue: the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hum.
bb 5:
# prephitmp_22 = PHI 0(4), c.2_15(10)
...
e_12 = (char) prephitmp_22;
_13 = (int) e_12;
...
c.2_15 = _13 + -11;
Simulating statement (from ssa_edges):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Indeed as we just feed the initial condition to chrec_convert it happily just
fold_convert()s the zero to signed char and then back to int ...
So
res =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66378
Bug ID: 66378
Summary: libgo syscall.Sendfile() does not honor/use offset
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
URL: https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1460530
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 2 10:19:18 2015
New Revision: 224020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224020root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48052
* cfgloop.h (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Jun 2 11:48:56 2015
New Revision: 224028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224028root=gccview=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/65742, PR middle-end/66332]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65742
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Jun 2 11:48:56 2015
New Revision: 224028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224028root=gccview=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/65742, PR middle-end/66332]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66162
--- Comment #6 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
That's not the problem., just avoid using -gnatc on the runtime.
Eric,
In PR64866 comment 2, Arno said Visibility in the Ada runtime do not follow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66381
Bug ID: 66381
Summary: ice in dfs_enumerate_from with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Bootstrapped / tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions...
testing a more complete fix (applying this to all cases in
follow_ssa_edge_binary)
now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66380
Bug ID: 66380
Summary: ICE for intrinsic reshape with insufficient number of
array elements
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66349
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
--- Comment #4 from Marcus Kool marcus.kool at urlfilterdb dot com ---
The intrinsic returns int, and from the above tree dump, the compiler
won't even consider to combine the sign-extension with vpmovmskb.
So, why not:
unsigned int v;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #8 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
The initial stack frame of a goroutine is set up by the makecontext function,
which is part of the C library. Ideally makecontext should arrange matters
such that a backtrace stops at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35678
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35678action=edit
patch
What I am testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66381
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66342
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
Bug ID: 66377
Summary: [F95] Wrong-code with equivalenced array in module
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
I have looked briefly at this. The compiler actually generates the following:
vpmovmskb %ymm0, %edx # 16avx2_pmovmskb [length = 4]
testl %edx, %edx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61683
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
When dumping the complete backtrace, gdb produces a warning. Maybe the
libgo/runtime code does not properly set up the initial stack frame of the
thread?
(gdb) set backtrace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|law at gcc dot gnu.org |spop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Thomas Schwinge tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66371
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, so even with PR63916 rudimentary fixed we hit the issue that in
_9 = D.3665[_11].org;
MEM[(struct vec_ *)_9] = 1.0e+0;
MEM[(struct vec_ *)_9 + 4B] = _8;
...
_24 =
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
