http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56354
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54276
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-02-16
09:24:11 UTC ---
... and 4.7.3 too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56330
--- Comment #7 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16
09:30:10 UTC ---
FWIW, I have posted the patch for this to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00795.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56330
--- Comment #8 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16
09:33:01 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Sat Feb 16 09:32:56 2013
New Revision: 196102
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196102
Log:
[asan] Fix for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16
09:44:31 UTC ---
While we are at it, we could also revert the dse.c and cselib.c hunks of the
blockage patch, which weren't strictly necessary. Jakub was really
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56330
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16
11:36:37 UTC ---
Another case taken from CSiBE / bzip2, where reusing the intermediate shift
result would be better:
void uInt64_from_UInt32s ( UInt64* n, UInt32 lo32,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56355
Bug #: 56355
Summary: abs and multiplication
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-02-16 11:57:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I'm not opposed to this behavior, but I think it would be a language change.
Thanks Jason. I just see now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56355
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16 12:07:28
UTC ---
Actually, for g/h with double, using __builtin_fabs instead of std::abs does
it, so it is just the usual lack of combine at the tree level. But there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Starke daniel.f.starke at freenet dot de
2013-02-16 12:41:42 UTC ---
I just tried out to bootstrap r196092 on mingw32. There is still one more cast
patch missing to make it work for that target.
diff -uart
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56332
--- Comment #6 from devurandom at gmx dot net 2013-02-16 13:15:27 UTC ---
Ok...
I assumed that in the cpu-vendor-os triplet the os part contains the reference
to the c library and/or kernel, while vendor refers to the distribution that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56332
--- Comment #7 from devurandom at gmx dot net 2013-02-16 13:20:49 UTC ---
P.S: Is relaxing the match to accept mingw*, because the library and compiler
are called mingw(-w64), an option? That shouldn't hurt anyone and not make
anything more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16
13:45:48 UTC ---
I just tried out to bootstrap r196092 on mingw32. There is still one more cast
patch missing to make it work for that target.
diff -uart
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56110
--- Comment #1 from Tilman Sauerbeck til...@code-monkey.de 2013-02-16
16:49:34 UTC ---
Changing the literal in the test function so that it fits in 8 bits makes gcc
go with the TST instruction instead of AND+CMP:
unsigned f2 (unsigned x,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56356
Bug #: 56356
Summary: DJGPP compiler crashing
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56357
Bug #: 56357
Summary: [4.8 Regression] missing symbol references for libgomp
when using -flto -fopenmp on mingw32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073
Jake Stine jake.stine at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56358
Bug #: 56358
Summary: [C++11] Erroneous interaction of typedef and inherited
constructor declarations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
--- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-17
00:33:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I'm getting back to this because I think that we should reinstate the original
patch, now that the blockage patch has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56359
Bug #: 56359
Summary: [4.8 regression] Bogus error: no matching function
for call to ...
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360
Bug #: 56360
Summary: Loop invariant motion can introduce speculative store
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2013-02-17 04:21:28
UTC ---
The speculative store can be disabled via --param allow-store-data-races=0.
So perhaps the question is: shouldn't that be set by -std=gnu++11?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-17
04:55:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
The speculative store can be disabled via --param allow-store-data-races=0.
So perhaps the question is: shouldn't that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-17
04:58:05 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/gcc4.8 describes what is left. bitfields
is a big issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2013-02-17 05:15:01
UTC ---
Bitfields are an issue but I thought that speculative stores were fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-17
05:46:09 UTC ---
7. Add flag for multi-threaded vs single threaded.
is still left and that is what needs to turn on --param
allow-store-data-races=0 .
30 matches
Mail list logo