https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #36 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Mar 10 21:06:41 2015
New Revision: 221336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221336root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-10 Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65368
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 10 21:03:21 2015
New Revision: 221335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221335root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65368
* config/i386/i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65382
Bug ID: 65382
Summary: pointer-to-noexcept-function typealias allowed via
using
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #46 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #45)
If we change the PC returned by backtrace_full, and then use that changed PC
to look up file/line information, we might get different results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65238
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65384
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00627.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65387
Bug ID: 65387
Summary: cpp -C emits extraneous comment header on every file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65391
--- Comment #3 from Aaron Sawdey acsawdey at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
I tried applying the patch that Thomas posted for 64616
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00272.html) to trunk 221350 but
that did not change the generated code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64705
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #6)
Since it works on gcc 3.4, so I consider this as a regression and applied
the patch. Should be fixed now.
Hi Vlad, could you please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #36 from Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
and for rtl level improvement, need to enable DF_DU_CHAIN build on top of
existing DF_UD_CHAIN (may cause extra compile time resource consumption).
one draft patch is here, no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65397
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem is in resolve_ordinary_assign (resolve.c):
9428 /* Assign the 'data' of a class object to a derived type. */
9429 if (lhs-ts.type == BT_DERIVED
9430
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65394
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=65398
Bug ID: 65398
Summary: [C++11] GCC rejects constexpr variable definitions
with valid initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
Bug 64342 depends on bug 64895, which changed state.
Bug 64895 Summary: RA picks the wrong register for -fipa-ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65397
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See also gfortran.dg/coarray_38.f90 of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00057.html (assuming it will
eventually appear on the server)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65397
Bug ID: 65397
Summary: [Coarrays][OOP] ICE in resolve_ordinary_assign
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
Bug ID: 65400
Summary: tsan mis-compiles inlineable C functions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65391
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
0x1a00 +1024: bl 0x15b0 _init+112
0x1a04 +1028: ld r2,24(r1)
0x1a08 +1032: lwz r9,224(r1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-10 00:00:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65394
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65396
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65399
Bug ID: 65399
Summary: error: invalid use of non-static data member
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
0x1a00 +1024: bl 0x15b0 _init+112
0x1a04 +1028: ld r2,24(r1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65384
--- Comment #2 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Mar 12 08:58:08 2015
New Revision: 221378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221378root=gccview=rev
Log:
libmpx/
PR other/65384
* configure.ac: Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65044
--- Comment #2 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Mar 12 09:23:06 2015
New Revision: 221379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221379root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65044
* toplev.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65103
--- Comment #1 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Mar 12 09:53:36 2015
New Revision: 221380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221380root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65103
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65388
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 12 08:34:00 2015
New Revision: 221376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221376root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65388
Modified:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39429
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65044
ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37954
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #13)
Markus, are you sure about comment #9? I completely disabled the bswap pass
and still see a failure of the testcase at -O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
Bug ID: 65403
Summary: -Wno-error=not implemented is an error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
Bug ID: 65404
Summary: cgo tool on powerpc-linux-gnu maybe incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65402
Bug ID: 65402
Summary: global register variables miscompiled when unit
contains sse4.2 functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Mar 12 13:40:50 2015
New Revision: 221387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221387root=gccview=rev
Log:
[simplify-rtx] PR 65235: Calculate element size correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65399
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
(Also you should have seen the duplicate bug with *exactly* the same error
message when submitting this one)
Agreed, I should have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Besides that the error also complains about -Werror= instead of -Wno-error=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Known to fail|5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com ---
That should be -O3 -fno-inline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65401
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
I was in this code recently, so mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-12 00:00:00 |2015-03-10 0:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #51 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Here is the change I made to go-callers.c. This patch along with my previous
changes to extern.go and pprof.go allows the test identified in this issue to
report the correct line number on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65401
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In the
9345 else if (GET_CODE (rhs) == AND
9346paradoxical_subreg_p (XEXP (rhs, 0))
9347GET_CODE (SUBREG_REG (XEXP (rhs, 0))) == MEM
9348
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #8 from Honggyu Kim hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #6)
(In reply to Honggyu Kim from comment #4)
Can I add this testcase with your modification as my first gcc contribution?
:)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #3 from TC rs2740 at gmail dot com ---
Depends on how http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2443 comes out in
LEWG, it might be a good idea to go with a solution that maintains the
`constexpr`-ness so that it doesn't have to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
Honggyu Kim hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.2
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
: default_check
{
using default_check::check; // #1
using type = decltype(checkvoid(0));
};
int main() {}
gcc HEAD 5.0.0 20150312 (experimental) reports
prog.cc:9:31: error: expected primary-expression before 'void'
using type = decltype(checkvoid(0));
^
prog.cc:9:31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sth like
@@ -672,8 +650,18 @@ cleanup_tree_cfg_bb (basic_block bb)
if (single_succ_p (bb)
can_merge_blocks_p (bb, single_succ (bb)))
{
- merge_blocks (bb,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
I think the trouble starts at opcua_string.c.039t.fnsplit :
OpcUa_String_Clear (struct OpcUa_String * a_pString)
{
...
bb 5:
# _25 = PHI 0(2), 1(3), 0(4)
if (_25 ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #22 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Could you please attach the unreduced testcase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #24 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35020
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35020action=edit
Unreduced translation unit of the test program.
Compil and run like so:
$ gcc -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52579
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Strange, this fails with my builds on our internal POWER8 box, but doesn't with
my build on the external gcc112 POWER8 compile farm system. I'll try and track
down what the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
There is nothing in the cgo tool which would cause this error.
When the command runs go, which go tool is actually running? The difference
may be that on platforms other than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The original test doesn't show any valgrind errors so these could be the result
of using delta to reduce the test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah. In md4_digest, for (i = 0; i 16 - 2; i++) look writes data[0] through
data[13], data[14] is stored after the loop, but data[15] is uninitialized,
but md5_transform reads it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35019
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35019action=edit
pr65369.c
Adjusted testcase that now works reliably at -O0, and even with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Mar 12 16:08:48 2015
New Revision: 221395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221395root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR fortran/60898
fortran/
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Jakub,
at that time we do not have the __tsan_func_entry calls, only
the __TSAN_FUNC_EXIT thing.
in opcua_string.c.038t.local-pure-const1
OpcUa_String_Clear looks like it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
see http://paste.ubuntu.com/10586128/
afaics it is both running the go tool from GCC 5. no other go tool is
installed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
trippels@gcc2-power8 ~ % valgrind --track-origins=yes ./a.out
==152914== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==152914== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
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=64999
--- Comment #52 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
Why not just
pc++;
on all targets? Why the #ifdef? It seems to me that we should aim for
consistent results on all platforms.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking at https://git.lysator.liu.se/nettle/nettle/blob/master/md4.c I see
there:
bit_count = (ctx-count 9) | (ctx-index 3);
data[MD4_DATA_LENGTH-2] = bit_count;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65376
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65376
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
Stéphane Graber stgraber at stgraber dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stgraber
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Vlad,
are you planning a 4.9 backport ?
Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In fact, this version seems much more straightforward:
Index: opts-global.c
===
--- opts-global.c (revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34010
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64916
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |---
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For harmonizing how -Wno-X and -Wno-error=X work, it is a bit more convoluted.
This mostly works:
Index: opts-global.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
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=65404
--- Comment #5 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Mar 12 16:41:28 2015
New Revision: 221396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221396root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR go/65404
go/build: cgo works on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65407
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65405
Bug ID: 65405
Summary: improve locations of diagnostics in c-pragma.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #25 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Mar 12 17:26:17 2015
New Revision: 221400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221400root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR fortran/60898
fortran/
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65406
Bug ID: 65406
Summary: Wrong namespace in error message for missing
typename in lambda parameter type list
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65407
Bug ID: 65407
Summary: Extra mask register move in
gcc.target/i386/avx512f-kandnw-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
Bug ID: 65408
Summary: powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid
memory
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59683
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, on my version of the testcase with r210843 -O3 -mcpu=power8 there are like
49
32 bit load in host endianness found at: _105 = MEM[(const unsigned char
*)load_src_25];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #54 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
I assume that it works on x86 because subtracting 1 from PC in libbacktrace,
and then subtracting 1 again in runtime/pprof/pprof.go, still gives you a PC
within the call instruction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65410
Bug ID: 65410
Summary: Short local string array optimization doesn't happen
if string has NULs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65269
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot com ---
Seems to me that return requires() as yet does not do type requirement
as mentioned in n3701.pdf, pg 6
I needed to push the relevant changes to Origin, which I just did.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65376
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Works for me, I don;t know what I was doing incorrect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65412
Bug ID: 65412
Summary: missing control flow optimisation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
