https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61969
Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61969
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
The problem is when returning a struct from func_52:
const struct S0 func_52 (uint32_t p_53)
{
const struct S0 l_55 = { 4, 40290, 10, 4 };
return l_55;
}
The main code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61969
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
func_52 disappears during/after nrv:
in 173t.nrv:
;; Function func_52 (func_52, funcdef_no=86, decl_uid=2858, cgraph_uid=54,
symbol_order=1152)
func_52 (uint32_t p_53)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #40 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've tried to see what is going on with reload loop on movsf_ie
for gcc.c-torture/compile/20050113-1.c -O1 -m4 -ml.
It looks that the problem starts at reloading
(insn 15 10 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #41 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33601
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33601action=edit
A trial patch for reload-loop problem
My first trial is to define a special
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61605
Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63393
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
A conforming implementation is always allowed to provide extensions. The
difference between hosted and freestanding implementations is in the set of
library facilities that are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61605
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61605
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
It was supposed to be enabled with
Date: Fri May 30 11:39:49 2014 +
-fuse-caller-save - Enable for i386
2014-05-30 Tom de Vries t...@codesourcery.com
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63384
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
It loops (forever?) on this in sched2:
Scheduling on fences: (uid:28;seqno:7;)
Fence 28[2] has not changed
Scheduling on fences: (uid:28;seqno:7;)
Fence 28[2] has not changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63396
Bug ID: 63396
Summary: signed integer overflows in loop-iv.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63396
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61942
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61944
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 61944 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61905
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gbenson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63397
Bug ID: 63397
Summary: signed integer overflows in ira.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
Piotr Dziwinski piotrdz at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotrdz at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63394
--- Comment #2 from Bruce Dale Bruce at Daihls dot com ---
gcc -v reports:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/armv6hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi/4.8.2/lto-wrapper
Target: armv6hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi
Configured
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 28-Sep-14, at 1:30 AM, zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com wrote:
I double checked the function optimize_range_tests_diff. Overall, I
think it
does the right thing. X86 and ARM work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60804
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ak at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60804
--- Comment #10 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced test case. It's probably invalid cilk, but gcc shouldn't ICE:
fn1() {
if (_Cilk_spawn func_2())
;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37173
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #2)
Long overdue
But now changed as the current wording (seemingly as of F2008):
For an intrinsic assignment statement where the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 28-Sep-14, at 10:34 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
This is what I see on the trunk, but 4.9 is wrong. Possibly, there is
a transformation
after optimize_range_tests_diff where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 28-Sep-14, at 1:30 AM, zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com wrote:
X86 and ARM work correctly.
I suspect this is because both have need_64bit_hwint=yes in
config.gcc.
--
John David Anglin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37173
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
In the same document I also see
7.2.1.2 Intrinsic assignment statement
1 An intrinsic assignment statement is an assignment statement that is not a
defined assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61898
--- Comment #1 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I agree such a warning would make sense.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63398
Bug ID: 63398
Summary: Cilk errors out incorrectly for spawn inside statement
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63384
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
It loops forever in this loop in sel_sched_region_2
while (fences)
{
int min_seqno, max_seqno;
ilist_t scheduled_insns = NULL;
ilist_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61848
--- Comment #16 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
Can Alan's patch be submitted please?
I always need to apply it now before compiling a kernel.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61848
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61848
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61848
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #19 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #18)
WE can try some internal benchmarks with this change too.
That would be very welcome. Tracer used to be quite useful pass in old days,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61848
--- Comment #20 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
So the only problem was the missing test case, which you supplied?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63390
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Adding a loop to the example above shows that function address loads are
hoisted already out of loops, but constant loads are not.
void foo (unsigned int, int);
void test (unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63395
--- Comment #11 from bernardwidynski at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for the information.
I looked at the .s assembly files.
32-bit Cygwin uses the fmul instruction.
64-bit Cygwin uses the mulsd instruction.
I tried -mpc64 on 32-bit Cygwin but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61898
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63399
Bug ID: 63399
Summary: Segmentation Fault on pow() function call when all
parameters constant, ARM v61 Processor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63400
Bug ID: 63400
Summary: [C++11]precision of std::high_resolution_clock
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #42 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #41)
Created attachment 33601 [details]
A trial patch for reload-loop problem
My first trial is to define a special movsf_ie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47674
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63401
Bug ID: 63401
Summary: optimize attribute overwrites other options
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63401
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63390
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
.L4:
mov.l @r9,r4 constant load
shlrr4
tst r4,r4
bt .L2
mov.l .L12,r5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63402
Bug ID: 63402
Summary: ICE when using log10l() with -m96bit-long-double
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #10 from Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #8)
On 28-Sep-14, at 10:34 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
This is what I see on the trunk, but 4.9 is wrong. Possibly, there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #43 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #42)
PR 54699 comes into my mind when seeing the movsf_ie patterns ... having
another movsf_ie pattern is discomforting. But if it makes it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #44 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Sep 29 01:24:33 2014
New Revision: 215676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215676root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/55212
* config/sh/sh-protos.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #45 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Sep 29 01:27:03 2014
New Revision: 215677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215677root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/55212
* config/sh/sh.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 28-Sep-14, at 9:17 PM, zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com wrote:
Can you show more detail dumps with -fdump-tree-reassoc1-details?
Attached is 4.9 dump with more details.
Dave
--
John David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 28-Sep-14, at 9:17 PM, zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com wrote:
Can you show more detail dumps with -fdump-tree-reassoc1-details?
Same for trunk.
Dave
--
John David Anglin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63403
Bug ID: 63403
Summary: [5.0 Regression] ICE: in relative_time_benefit at
ipa-inline.c:869
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63403
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is in stage2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #13 from Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com ---
For 4.9, some function optimizes the code as:
Optimizing range tests x_2 -[-2147483648, -2147483648] and -[0, 0]
into (x_2 2147483647) != 0
For trunk,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
Bug ID: 63404
Summary: gcc 5 miscompiles linux block layer
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
Created attachment 33607
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33607action=edit
not quite yet runnable test case
In the real execution blk_flush_complete_seq always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63247
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 29 05:20:52 2014
New Revision: 215678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215678root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/63247
* omp-low.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63247
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 29 05:24:44 2014
New Revision: 215679
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215679root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/63247
* omp-low.c
64 matches
Mail list logo
