https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's another smaller example:
% cat test.ii
template class struct A
{
};
template typename struct B
{
template typename struct C;
};
class D;
template typename class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55821
--- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sandra Loosemore from comment #7)
Trying to build an arm-none-linux-gnueabi cross from mainline head, I'm
getting this error now:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63599
Bug ID: 63599
Summary: wrong branch optimization with Ofast in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63599
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The tree level looks like this:
t_13 = VEC_COND_EXPR t_4 = { 4.142135679721832275390625e-1,
4.142135679721832275390625e-1, 4.142135679721832275390625e-1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54488
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, evgeniya.maenkova at gmail dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54488
--- Comment #5 from Evgeniya Maenkova
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62031
--- Comment #14 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I confirm what I observed is a testsuite harness problem, for which I proposed
a patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg01792.html
dejagnu-1.5 (as shipped with Ubuntu 14.04)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, mliska at suse dot cz wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška mliska at suse dot cz ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63589
--- Comment #2 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Oct 20 07:53:37 2014
New Revision: 216449
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216449root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR 63589 Fix splitting of PATH in find_addr2line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63589
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Oct 20 08:04:39 2014
New Revision: 216450
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216450root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR 63589 Fix splitting of PATH in find_addr2line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63589
--- Comment #4 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Oct 20 08:16:06 2014
New Revision: 216451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216451root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR 63589 Fix splitting of PATH in find_addr2line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63589
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63586
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=63563
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=63173
Fei Yang fei.yang0953 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fei.yang0953 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63600
Bug ID: 63600
Summary: ice in ix86_expand_sse2_abs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63601
Bug ID: 63601
Summary: Segfault on usage of 'this' in unevaluated context
inside lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
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=63599
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
I agree that the code produces correct results. It looks to me sub-optimal.
I understand that with Ofast the sequence below will be always executed
andps%xmm5,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
--- Comment #4 from Venkataramanan venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com ---
(In reply to Fei Yang from comment #3)
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #1)
Confirmed.
Feel free to propose a patch for them on gcc-patches along the
lines you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
clyon at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63599
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ifcvt making a transformation that doesn't help vectorization and ends up
pessimizing the code... not really the first time this happens. I believe Jakub
had a big patch for that, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #31 from Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #29)
I thought we had already dealt with the hidden GOT usages that show up
during reload... Is it IRA that's removing the SET_GOT?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #32 from Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #30)
FWIW, I built a stage #1 with fortran, objc and ada enabled.
libgcc, libstdc++v3, libgomp, libobjc and libada build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33761
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33761action=edit
WIP patch for discussions
From what I see, if TARGET_AVX512BW is not defined, then we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63531
--- Comment #6 from Ralf allizgubccg at reallysoft dot de ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
I meant a GCC build, that contains r215459 fix (for that you'd have to build
gcc, 5 nor 4.9.2 haven't been released yet).
But I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63583
--- Comment #2 from marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Oct 20 10:44:54 2014
New Revision: 216458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216458root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63583
* ipa-icf-gimple.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
--- Comment #7 from Fei Yang fei.yang0953 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to clyon from comment #6)
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #5)
(In reply to
Venkataramanan from comment #4)
(In reply to Fei Yang from comment #3)
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61192
Ilya Palachev i.palachev at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.palachev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63602
Bug ID: 63602
Summary: Wrong code w/ -O2 -ftree-loop-linear
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61052
Ilya Palachev i.palachev at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.palachev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63601
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=60655
--- Comment #22 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Oct 20 11:54:22 2014
New Revision: 216462
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216462root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR debug/60655
* simplify-rtx.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63600
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=63531
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
--- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
Created attachment 33761 [details]
WIP patch for discussions
From what I see, if TARGET_AVX512BW is not defined, then we obviously
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63598
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63596
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=63595
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63588
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63583
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63582
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|cris-axis-elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63588
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580
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=63577
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63576
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63577
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5? Regression]:|[4.8/4.9/5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63588
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
yes, see above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54488
--- Comment #7 from Evgeniya Maenkova evgeniya.maenkova at gmail dot com ---
I got only 317Mb by top.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
Bug ID: 63603
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] Linking with -fno-lto still invokes
LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63563
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61192
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Cederman cederman at gaisler dot com ---
(In reply to Ilya Palachev from comment #2)
(In reply to Daniel Cederman from comment #0)
when using lto on sparc.
Daniel, can you also provide original source code (not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
--- Comment #6 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iverbin
Date: Mon Oct 20 15:22:09 2014
New Revision: 216483
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216483root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/63307
gcc/c-family/
* cilk.c: Include vec.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63553
--- Comment #5 from patnel97269-gfortran at yahoo dot fr ---
Thanks for the patch.
Another similar case, this time the type contains an allocatable field,
produces a internal compiler error (without applying the patch) :
internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55821
--- Comment #9 from Sandra Loosemore sandra at codesourcery dot com ---
Yes, that patch (with regenerated Makefile.in) did the trick. Thanks.
config.log says my configure line is:
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Better testcase that tests both broadcasts from GPRs and broadcasts from
memory:
#define C1 c
#define C2 C1, C1
#define C4 C2, C2
#define C8 C4, C4
#define C16 C8, C8
#define C32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33763
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33763action=edit
gcc5-pr63594-wip2.patch
Updated WIP patch, which attempts to generate better code using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63599
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=63601
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Oct 20 17:29:02 2014
New Revision: 216488
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216488root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/63601
* lambda.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63577
Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63601
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63604
Bug ID: 63604
Summary: [C++11] A direct-initialization of a reference should
use explicit conversion functions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63605
Bug ID: 63605
Summary: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57610
Mitsuru Kariya kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to iverbin from comment #6)
Author: iverbin
Date: Mon Oct 20 15:22:09 2014
New Revision: 216483
This breaks the build as wd-decl_map will always contain a BLOCK which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63606
Bug ID: 63606
Summary: Missing a warning for binding a reference member to a
stack allocated parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63181
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bcmpinc at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63606
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63582
DJ Delorie dj at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63602
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha asolokha at gmx dot com ---
It seems I've reduced the snippet too hard. However, are global variables
declared static or not, it doesn't change anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joshua Kinard from comment #20)
Created attachment 33166 [details]
Disassembly of the ASM from 'sln' compiled by a non-working gcc-4.8.0.
This is the objdump
73 matches
Mail list logo
