https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63462
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=63462
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36312
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wkoszek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63462
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61386
--- Comment #2 from Akim Demaille akim.demaille at gmail dot com ---
Well, I never hacked in GCC. I can try, time permitting...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63461
--- Comment #6 from Akos Kiss akiss at inf dot u-szeged.hu ---
Thanks for the feedback!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63429
Martin Liška mliska at suse dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63465
Bug ID: 63465
Summary: Demangler crash (GDB PR 17455)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61386
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Akim Demaille from comment #2)
Well, I never hacked in GCC. I can try, time permitting...
Never too late to try. This one should be easy if you know how to use a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54303
Clément Péron peron.clem at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peron.clem at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63347
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Larmour jifl-bugzilla at jifvik dot org ---
I have just double-checked, and my gcc 4.8.3 definitely doesn't generate the
'tstl', but it looks like you're bang on right about how gcc was configured: I
configured it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63380
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63381
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63440
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63439
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||armv7-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63434
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patches should be sent to gcc-patches@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #9 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Mon Oct 6 12:25:14 2014
New Revision: 215929
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215929root=gccview=rev
Log:
/libstdc++-v3/
2014-10-06 Yvan Roux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63209
--- Comment #3 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Mon Oct 6 12:40:10 2014
New Revision: 215932
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215932root=gccview=rev
Log:
/gcc/
2014-10-06 Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63439
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 33652
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33652action=edit
vect-33.c.116t.vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Comment 7 confirms my guess that there is a rounding problem on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62265
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com ---
I believe this was fixed by the following commit:
r214848 | uros | 2014-09-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63440
--- Comment #2 from R. Diez rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de ---
Yes, I would enable -fmerge-constants with -Og.
I would do it even for -O0. Merging constants should be safe, and it saves
precious program space when generating debug builds for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61759
--- Comment #4 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
In 4.9.1, it's not :2792 but :2793 ---
vcl/osx/a11yselectionwrapper.cxx:31:61: internal compiler error: in
objc_eh_runtime_type, at objc/objc-next-runtime-abi-01.c:2793
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62022
Bug 62022 depends on bug 62023, which changed state.
Bug 62023 Summary: [5 regression] 30_threads/condition_variable_any/50862.cc
FAILs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62023
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62023
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62022
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63409
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* |x86_64-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63459
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think a method call always has this != NULL so you'd infer this != NULL
after the call with a ASSERT_EXPR.
With the pattern stuff you can't really write any call with some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63450
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63454
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63448
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60406
--- Comment #14 from Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
I'm not really happy with Dominik's patch because 1) it doesn't work when
configuring with --enable-sjlj-exceptions;
Why is that important?
2) the current code almost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60406
--- Comment #15 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
The testcase recover.go continues to fail on both ppc64 LE BE with the new
patch https://codereview.appspot.com/153950043.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59987
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 6 15:55:53 2014
New Revision: 215952
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215952root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-06 Rüdiger Sonderfeld
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59987
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55250
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 6 16:13:41 2014
New Revision: 215954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215954root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-10-06 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55250
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 55250, which changed state.
Bug 55250 Summary: [C++0x] enum declarations within constexpr function are
allowed, constexpr declarations are not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55250
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63409
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška mliska at suse dot cz ---
Yeah, sorry for wrong dg argument. There's new version that should work
correctly. If not regression will be seen, I will commit the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63409
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška mliska at suse dot cz ---
Created attachment 33653
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33653action=edit
Fix patch2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60406
--- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
I'm not really happy with Dominik's patch because 1) it doesn't work when
configuring with --enable-sjlj-exceptions;
Why is that important?
It's not very important but it's still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59717
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63466
Bug ID: 63466
Summary: sstream is very slow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33654
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33654action=edit
gcc5-pr63464.patch
Untested patch to avoid the subtraction of info.range_min from index.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63467
Bug ID: 63467
Summary: should have asm statement that does not prevent
vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63467
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Try asm volatile (:::); instead. Asms without any ::: are considered
clobbering memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63467
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
It's the same with asm( :::);
At least the vectorizer bombs out on any asm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63418
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63420
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63467
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok doing this works:
asm(:+r(t)::);
But it looks like it should not vectorize due to the number of iterations
happening for that asm has changed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63420
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you explain where in the documentation you find it though?
I can't find any wording like that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63467
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63467
--- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
For the marker case it's enough if it just stays in the same position in the
basic block and does get duplicated if the BB gets too.
That's somewhat special semantics, that is why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63467
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63466
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
To be a bit less unfair, you could pull the declarations of the 3 variables out
of the loop. Even if optimizations are possible, I doubt we can go anywhere
near the C perf...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63466
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
Looking at the profile there's plenty of room for optimization. e.g. not using
getc/ungetc, but directly accessing the buffer, or maybe even some kind of
template specialization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63448
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63435
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
There are three problems in 4.9 and earlier
- the aliases are produced incorrectly because AIX's as alias keyword does
not do what is expected
(it does kind of syntactic replacement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Hi,
this patch implements the lowring. Each call with warn attribute triggers code
in cgraphunit that inserts call to bulitin_warning/error that is output at
expansion time.
Do we have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at redhat dot com ---
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 10:22:21PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
this patch implements the lowring. Each call with warn attribute triggers
code
in cgraphunit that inserts call to
--disable-libssp --enable-checking
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20141006 (experimental) [trunk revision 215958] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. ~/ice.i -O3 -mfpu=neon -march=armv7-a -mfloat-abi=softfp
/home/ryan/ice.i: In function 'bar':
/home/ryan/ice.i:52:1: internal compiler error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36312
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Hi,
I am testing this variant of the patch.
For gcc-4.9 branch it may make sense to enable the new patch for LTO only.
Index: internal-fn.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at redhat dot com ---
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:55:23PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
I am testing this variant of the patch.
For gcc-4.9 branch it may make sense to enable the new patch for LTO only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63347
Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:55:23PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
I am testing this variant of the patch.
For gcc-4.9 branch it may make sense to enable the new patch for LTO only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63469
Bug ID: 63469
Summary: Automatic reallocation of allocatable scalar length
even when substring implicitly specified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at redhat dot com ---
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:18:24AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:55:23PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
I am testing this variant of the patch.
For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
%K in the format string, assuming the call has locus with the right block,
should do that. At least with -g, without -g or with LTO it will be less
accurate.
Yep, for that I need a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49766
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53934
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 49766 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #53 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #52)
Created attachment 33632 [details]
Reduced case of error: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1335 with -m4
-ml -O2
.ira dump of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #54 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33657
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33657action=edit
A possible workaround
The patch is trying to fix the result of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63454
--- Comment #3 from Ai Azuma ai.azuma at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #1)
I don't see any ICE for gcc 5.0.0 20141004 (experimental). Could you retry
that one?
I am still seeing the ICE with 5.0.0 20141005
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #17 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com ---
I'm going to finish testing my patch, which passes regular
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu bootstrap + regression tests. I am still
trying to get the lto profiledbootstrap to work. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Hi,
actually I can just add the location to the first argument to avoid the need
to build extra tree...
Somewhat ugly, but seems to work.
Index: internal-fn.c
78 matches
Mail list logo
