https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #17 from Shiva Chen ---
Hi, Richard
Thanks for the explanation :)
So the transformation (short)abs((int)short_var) -> abs (short_var)
should guard by TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS
because when TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS is true, signed operation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71428
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I cannot upload any attachment to bugzilla (requests just time out), so here it
is as a plain text:
$ cat testcase.c
typedef unsigned short v64u16 __attribute__ ((vector_size (64)));
v64u16
foo (v64u16 p1)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71428
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71428
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 38649
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38649=edit
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71428
Bug ID: 71428
Summary: [7 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-tree-forwprop
(breaks in the .bswap dump)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71413
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Oof, I don't think I'll be able to reproduce an Ada failure on ARM. Can you
narrow the problem down a bit, identifying what the differences are?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71389
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Jun 5 22:55:35 2016
New Revision: 237111
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237111=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/71389
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71389
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71404
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Jerry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71404
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Jun 5 19:58:38 2016
New Revision: 237109
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237109=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-06-05 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/71404
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71413
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-linux-gnueabihf,|arm-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52171
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schwab ---
This breaks ada bootstrap on ia64, causing bootstrap comparison failure.
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/ada/sem_ch13.o differs
make[1]: *** [compare] Error 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71404
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Jun 5 19:49:59 2016
New Revision: 237108
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237108=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-06-05 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/71404
/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160605 (experimental) [trunk revision 237097] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk a.c
a.c:1:33: error: ‘ID1’ undeclared here (not in a function)
signed * * ID0 ( inline ID1 [ + ID1 % 3.14 - ID1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71425
--- Comment #1 from Johannes Schaub ---
(This bug report is due to
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37645347/clang-does-not-infer-template-argument-in-variadic-template-function-with-vararg)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71425
Bug ID: 71425
Summary: GCC does not implement C++/WG21 DR 1399/1388
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71424
Bug ID: 71424
Summary: std::initializer_list
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70923
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #7)
> It does: I just completed a sparc-sun-solaris2.12 bootstrap and the
> failures are gone. Unfortunately, the patch introduced new new
> regression:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69659
--- Comment #11 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Waiting one week for any regressions to occur before closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69659
--- Comment #10 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Sun Jun 5 18:09:27 2016
New Revision: 237107
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237107=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-06-05 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70923
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 38647
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38647=edit
vect-iv-9.c.149t.vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70923
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
[...]
> Does it help?
It does: I just completed a sparc-sun-solaris2.12 bootstrap and the
failures are gone. Unfortunately, the patch introduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69659
--- Comment #9 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Sun Jun 5 17:20:54 2016
New Revision: 237105
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237105=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-06-05 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71423
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
match.pd has transformations like (~X & Y) -> X < Y for types of precision 1.
It looks like those are only valid if the type is unsigned, the comparison
should be reversed (Y < X) if the type is signed. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71423
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71423
Bug ID: 71423
Summary: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67310
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67310
--- Comment #22 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Jun 5 15:52:01 2016
New Revision: 237101
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237101=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-06-01 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67310
--- Comment #21 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Jun 5 15:47:50 2016
New Revision: 237100
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237100=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-06-01 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71420
flashmozzg at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||flashmozzg at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67310
--- Comment #20 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Jun 5 15:45:44 2016
New Revision: 237099
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237099=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-06-01 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71422
Bug ID: 71422
Summary: Total size of static objects is not limited
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49377
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|rmorell at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49377
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Jun 5 15:08:22 2016
New Revision: 237098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237098=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-06-05 Paolo Carlini
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49377
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71421
Bug ID: 71421
Summary: trunk bootstrap is broken
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70923
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
Created attachment 38646
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38646=edit
tentative patch
(you can ignore the expr.c bit, it is just because bootstrap is currently
broken on some platforms)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71420
Bug ID: 71420
Summary: "‘type’ is not a class type" error for address-of
operator overloaded for enum type
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71419
Bug ID: 71419
Summary: cortex-a9 IRQ
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71208
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
JFTR: I have a feeling there's a (non-build-machinery) target-specific bug here
too, one that trigs a binutils bug. In any case, I have to build gcc for
myself to avoid a back-and-forth game of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71208
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Hmmm. I have problems building gcc-6.1.0 for mmix, by the methods that has
worked in the past and to the best of my knowledge are the official ones.
First, from a separate directory, I build and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66960
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Added:
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr68037-1.c
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr68037-2.c
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr68037-3.c
These tests fail on darwin:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71408
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted for review at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00330.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42587
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab ---
The test fails on powerpc, both -m32 and -m64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70390
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Not sure if the GRAPHITE assert is necessary or merely a hint that some
> optimization didn't apply - that is, do we actually generate wrong-code
> if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71418
Bug ID: 71418
Summary: gcc ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu in min_align_of_type, at
stor-layout.c:2402
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71415
--- Comment #1 from Martin Ejdestig ---
Sorry, a copy paste error slipped in. Last print out should be:
std::cout << "error_code operator bool: " << (error_code ? true : false) <<
'\n';
Output is still the same though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
48 matches
Mail list logo