http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60327
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60327
Bug ID: 60327
Summary: [4.9 Regression] xalanbmk and dealII ICE in
ipa-inline-analysis.c:3555
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60325
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
4.7 and lower is expected to show this behavior due to the bug that c++ is
not properly implemented as c = (char)((int)c + 1) and thus we think that
overflow is undefined.
4.8 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su su at cs dot ucdavis.edu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
Hmm, I can't reproduce this with 4.8 or trunk but with 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7.
Richard, it still fails for me. Did you use LTO?
$ gcc-trunk -v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #10 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
A further small remark, when the explicit interface for obs1_int is
turned to a subroutine, everything works perfectly. I am homing in on
this as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #3)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
Hmm, I can't reproduce this with 4.8 or trunk but with 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7.
Richard, it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
Matthijs Kooijman matthijs at stdin dot nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijs at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60326
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60292
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
The PR is fixed by the patch in comment 2 without regression, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-02/msg01688.html.
Thanks for the quick fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||60243
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60292
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
The PR is fixed by the patch in comment 2 without regression, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-02/msg01688.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60317
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This whole thing updating keys and such should use a proper lattice of
per-cgraph and per-edge node sizes/times which can be updated with a
less ad-hoc algorithm than the current
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60317
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
This whole thing updating keys and such should use a proper lattice of
per-cgraph and per-edge node sizes/times which can be updated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This whole thing updating keys and such should use a proper lattice of
per-cgraph and per-edge node sizes/times which can be updated with a
less ad-hoc algorithm than the current
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60266
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Feb 24 12:39:52 2014
New Revision: 208067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208067root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-24 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60266
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
When calling do_estimate_edge_size to compute the effect on caller size when
inlining an edge we call estimate_node_size_and_time which eventually recurses
down to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, ok - it is supposed to only account for the extra call edges in the
inlined
bodies. The actual issue seems to be
Deciding on inlining of small functions. Starting with size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Btw, the smaller testcase (E4 case commented) shows exactly the same behavior,
we just seem to be exponential so only adding E4 makes it really bad.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59894
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #0)
PR 59893 considers a different path using LTO to inline at link time the
definition from libsupc++.
Note that doing both at the same time:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that we seem to fail to update BB predicates for switch stmts.
size:0.00, time:0.00, predicate:(true)
size:3.00, time:2.00, predicate:(not inlined)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
--- Comment #5 from Zhendong Su su at cs dot ucdavis.edu ---
Did you separately compile the two files at -O0 and link at -Os, like below?
$ gcc-trunk -flto -O0 -c foo.c
$ gcc-trunk -flto -O0 -c main.c
$ gcc-trunk -flto -Os foo.o main.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50677
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
Combine generates
Trying 6, 7 - 8:
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (mem/v:SI (reg/v/f:DI 85 [ i ]) [2 *i_2(D)+0 S4 A32])
(plus:SI (mem/v:SI (reg/v/f:DI 85 [ i ]) [2 *i_2(D)+0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I don't think you simply want a better fix for 54583, because for the testcase
in #Comment 13 the new conditional setting TREE_NO_WARNING isn't used.
Otherwise, I think it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #15)
I don't think you simply want a better fix for 54583, because for the
testcase in #Comment 13 the new conditional setting TREE_NO_WARNING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50677
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
Why doesn't combine include (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))?
It has nothing to do with the clobber.
Inside combine_instructions there is a call to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Yes, I know that. What I'm saying is that other code may want to see that
TREE_NO_WARNING honored, the issue doesn't have much to do with 54583 per se.
In my personal opinion
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60312
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60312
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 24 18:47:20 2014
New Revision: 208092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208092root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60312
* parser.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60146
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60328
Bug ID: 60328
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE/Rejection with
specialization in variadic template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60329
Bug ID: 60329
Summary: Fix Typo
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60330
Bug ID: 60330
Summary: Licensed an unlicensed file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60331
Bug ID: 60331
Summary: ICE with OpenMP #pragma omp declare reduction in
template class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60332
Bug ID: 60332
Summary: [c++1y] ICE with auto in function-pointer cast
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, lto
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
--- Comment #15 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fabien
Date: Mon Feb 24 20:27:34 2014
New Revision: 208093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208093root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-24 Fabien Chene fab...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60312
Adam Butcher abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abutcher at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60312
--- Comment #4 from Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this might have fixed PR c++/60311 too.
Alas not, that one still crashes for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60295
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
lto_wpa_write_files has
for (i = 0; i n_sets; i++)
{
...
stream_out (temp_filename, part-encoder, i == n_sets - 1);
...
}
n_sets is 32 when bootstrapping GCC. With parallel build, we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60312
--- Comment #5 from Adam Butcher abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually strike that, my [local] changes relating to PR c++/60065
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01437.html) seem to have changed
the behavior.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60333
Bug ID: 60333
Summary: type_traits make_signed, make_unsigned missing support
for long long enumerations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60295
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60295
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
lto_wpa_write_files has
for (i = 0; i n_sets; i++)
{
...
stream_out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60146
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 24 22:17:43 2014
New Revision: 208094
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208094root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60146
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60146
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE|[4.8 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60328
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60295
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
I think this is better variant
$ svn diff ~/trunk/gcc/lto/lto.c
Index: /aux/hubicka/trunk/gcc/lto/lto.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51239
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reagentoo at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60295
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Feb 24 22:58:44 2014
New Revision: 208097
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208097root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR lto/60295
* lto.c (stream_out): Avoid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60334
Bug ID: 60334
Summary: Segmentation fault on character pointer assignments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60335
Bug ID: 60335
Summary: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60065
--- Comment #3 from Adam Butcher abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: abutcher
Date: Tue Feb 25 03:47:24 2014
New Revision: 208106
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208106root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/60065.
PR c++/60065
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60328
--- Comment #2 from reagentoo at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #1)
GCC 4.9 implements the tentative resolution of DR 1430.
http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1430
*** This bug has been marked
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #34 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
OK. Then I suggest two immediate things to do.
1. Fix the documentation for cc0 targets to indicate that the setter/user no
longer have to be consecutive, particularly in the presence
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60292
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Feb 25 06:35:09 2014
New Revision: 208109
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208109root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/60292
* sel-sched.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60155
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60311
--- Comment #1 from Adam Butcher abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: abutcher
Date: Tue Feb 25 06:44:53 2014
New Revision: 208111
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208111root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/60311.
PR c++/60311
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60305
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60292
Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
66 matches
Mail list logo
