https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Unfortunately from me it wend down from about 18% to 15%, so still a
regression. One quantiative parameter I can measure is increase of number of
functions in the resulting binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
Jack Howarth howarthjw at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarthjw at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63444
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-10-05 00:00:00 |2015-3-29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65563
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65445
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #7 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
A regression hunt of dejagnu master revealed that the offending commit causing
this bug was...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01492.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65563
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
I cannot reproduce this on trunk (5.0) and I get nothing with
-fsanitize=address
accept the error message. This is on x86-64-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64181
--- Comment #1 from Roger Orr rogero at howzatt dot demon.co.uk ---
The optimization is also broken in the 5.0 head (5.0.0.20150328)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52962
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65610
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Haven't debugged that part yet.
Looking at decl_maybe_in_construction_p, we'd probably need to treat functions
with DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN being ctor or dtor.
I can look into this on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65429
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
I wonder if the patches in comment 1 or at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00143.html are not papering over the
real issue. I have modified the FX' test as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65596
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 28 13:27:58 2015
New Revision: 221753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221753root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-28 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65596
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 28 14:08:18 2015
New Revision: 221754
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221754root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-28 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65596
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 28 14:22:53 2015
New Revision: 221755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221755root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-28 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65429
--- Comment #3 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
With the patch one can avoid a segmentation fault but I don't know very well
the internals of gfortran.
So, I've no idea if and how one can obtain the length without array elements;
some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65615
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65596
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 28 14:25:29 2015
New Revision: 221756
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221756root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-28 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509
Mitsuru Kariya kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65052
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I committed a different one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509
--- Comment #14 from Mitsuru Kariya kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com ---
The rev.221737 seems to be able to compile the sample code above, but cannot
compile another sample code like below.
= sample code =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #6 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
This same bug has also been reported on dejagnu mailing list at...
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2015-02/msg0.html
and claimed to be pinpointed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Mar 28 17:27:22 2015
New Revision: 221757
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221757root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65500
* inclhack.def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65596
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65563
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65567
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01490.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Although there is support for long doubles on this target, it lacks the
long double math functions added in c99. So, it doesn't have fabsl.
There is a libcall implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65610
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Perhaps one possibility would be even for -g0 preserve those specific BLOCKs
(those satisfying
Yep, we should do that. Who is removing them?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65610
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Perhaps one possibility would be even for -g0 preserve those specific BLOCKs
(those satisfying
if (BLOCK_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (block)
TREE_CODE (BLOCK_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (block))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42328
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42328
--- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Mar 28 10:28:14 2015
New Revision: 221751
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221751root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-28 Paolo Carlini
34 matches
Mail list logo
