https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 15, 2016 11:58:39 PM GMT+02:00, "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
>
>--- Comment #26 from Martin Jambor ---
>(In reply to Josh Poim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #4 from Andy May ---
Yes, I agree that demonstrates the bug - and I see it gives the desired output
with 4.8.3 but not with 5.3.0.
However, I would actually not mind if that modified testcase continued not to
'work' on Linux since th
: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160415 (experimental) [trunk revision 235013] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O0 small.c
$ gcc-5.3 -m32 -O1 small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38295
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70616
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
The following test case where test is not a function template does not ICE but
it aborts at runtime because a == 2 at the end of execution:
static int a;
struct A
{
virtual ~A () { a++; }
};
struct B :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67180
czlz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luo_12yan at 163 dot com
--- Comment #5 from czlz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29280
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-02-21 00:38:52 |2016-4-15
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70616
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
This slightly modified version of the testcase shows the bug with Linux:
program test
implicit none
integer,parameter :: isize=12
integer,parameter :: funit=12
integer :: i
character(1), parameter :: cr=char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #26 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Josh Poimboeuf from comment #24)
>
> Yes, I'm looking for a general way to either prevent or try to detect
> potential other cases of the bug throughout the entire kernel.
>
> Can it only occu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70624
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This is fixed on x86_64-apple-darwin10 without regression on
x86_64-apple-darwin15 by the following patch
--- ../_clean/libsanitizer/asan/asan_mac.cc 2015-11-23 10:17:05.0
+0100
+++ libsan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #22)
> I suppose the easiest fix is to overload the value field to store the
> size of the access for these two codes and then add the missing check.
OK, so the IS_NO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #24 from Josh Poimboeuf ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #23)
> (In reply to Josh Poimboeuf from comment #20)
> > Thanks very much to everyone who has looked into this so far. It would be
> > very helpful to get answers to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Schmidt ---
I actually tried this a few weeks ago, it's slightly less trivial than it seems
since you don't want to fold away the inside of &("fish"[0]).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70484
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 04/04/2016 12:37 PM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Fixed on trunk sofar.
Thanks. I've checked some variations of the original testcase --
everything works fine now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70688
Bug ID: 70688
Summary: bogus OpenACC data clause errors involving reductions
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41138
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59562
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70687
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #23 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Josh Poimboeuf from comment #20)
> Thanks very much to everyone who has looked into this so far. It would be
> very helpful to get answers to the following questions, so we can understand
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70687
Bug ID: 70687
Summary: Undefined shift in change_zero_ext in combine.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70685
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 15 19:53:03 2016
New Revision: 235046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235046&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70685
* constexpr.c (get_fundef_copy): Handle null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70685
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 15 19:47:19 2016
New Revision: 235045
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235045&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70685
* constexpr.c (get_fundef_copy): Handle null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70685
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70685
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59976
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #18)
> Jakub: There is indeed aliasing issue, but with -fno-strict-aliasing the bug
> is the same.
>
> Apparently this is ipa-prop bug, because ipa-prop does not track
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devel at fresse dot org
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54823
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mueller at kde dot org
--- Comment #38 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20562
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70685
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 tmp % cat sum.ii
namespace std {
template struct A { static constexpr _Tp value = __v;
};
typedef A false_type;
template using conditional_t = _Iftrue;
namespace hana {
template struct is_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70686
Bug ID: 70686
Summary: -fprofile-generate (not fprofile-use) somehow produces
much faster binary
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70685
Bug ID: 70685
Summary: [6/7 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
Patrick J. LoPresti changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lopresti at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70668
--- Comment #5 from Stefan Reinauer ---
Created attachment 38283
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38283&action=edit
Fix for the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70668
--- Comment #4 from Stefan Reinauer ---
Thanks to Segher Boessenkool, https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/14380/2 fixes the
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67164
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 15 17:03:33 2016
New Revision: 235043
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235043&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67164
* pt.c (copy_template_args): New.
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
Bug ID: 70684
Summary: incorrect reading of values from file on Windows
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70505
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 15 16:32:22 2016
New Revision: 235042
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235042&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70505
* pt.c (tsubst_baselink): Give the new TEMPL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70682
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64329
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Michael Stahl from comment #1)
> i believe i've hit the same problem
I don't think so. The original bug report is for 4.9.3, and seems to be an
actual compiler bug that is fixed already in GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64329
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, the original report was for 4.9.1, but the bug is still present in 4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64329
Michael Stahl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mstahl at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70662
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 15 15:53:01 2016
New Revision: 235040
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235040&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70662
* config/i386/sse.md (define_insn "_vec_du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70662
--- Comment #6 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Fri Apr 15 15:17:31 2016
New Revision: 235038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
AVX-512. Fix mode size check.
PR target/70662
gcc/
* config/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70662
--- Comment #5 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Fri Apr 15 15:13:42 2016
New Revision: 235037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
AVX-512, Fix mode size check.
PR target/70662
gcc/
* config/i38
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
--- Comment #51 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 15 14:51:06 2016
New Revision: 235033
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235033&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70594
* constexpr.c (constexpr_call_table): Preser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70683
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess most or all hash tables using iterative_hash_expr as hashing function
and operand_equal_p as comparison function are affected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70671
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70671
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Apr 15 14:46:06 2016
New Revision: 235032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/70671
* c-typeck.c (build_unary_op): Pass location
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 15, 2016 3:31:33 PM GMT+02:00, "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
>
>--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
>> Honza? This seems to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70683
Bug ID: 70683
Summary: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug bug with
-fsanitize=address
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70683
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21150
--- Comment #7 from Denis Vlasenko ---
Fixed at least in 4.7.2, maybe earlier. With -m32 -fomit-frame-pointer -O2:
a: movzbl v+45, %eax
xorbv+36, %al
xorbv, %al
xorbv+54, %al
xorbv+63, %al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70682
Bug ID: 70682
Summary: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug building LLVM with
checking=release compiler on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #20 from Josh Poimboeuf ---
Thanks very much to everyone who has looked into this so far. It would be very
helpful to get answers to the following questions, so we can understand the
impact to the kernel:
1) Is there a reliable way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
Josh: This is limitation of ipa-prop tracking. It very easily gives up on
determinging constantness of aggregate parameter. Hope Martin will fix it next
stage1. WIP patches was done few releases back but not m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70671
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #17 from Josh Poimboeuf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> (In reply to Josh Poimboeuf from comment #13)
> > Interestingly, the function's epilogue (frame pointer restore) and return
> > instruction are also getting d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70673
--- Comment #4 from David Kinniburgh ---
It seems the problem usually arises when there is reassignment in one line, eg
character(:), allocatable: s, t
s = s(2:) ! or even s = s
whereas forcing the temporary
t = s(2:)
s = t
seems to work. But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70662
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
The fix is incomplete:
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ /export/build/gnu/gcc-x32/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc-x32/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/ -mx32 -mtune=slm
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Honza? This seems to be somewhat fragile (redirecting things to unreachable
> but _not_ changing the actual predicates in the IL). Claiming the
> predicate is constant true is also a bit bogus (as can be s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70651
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70651
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Apr 15 13:15:23 2016
New Revision: 235027
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235027&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/70651
* c-common.c (build_va_arg): Change two asse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70505
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70675
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70675
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 15 13:07:43 2016
New Revision: 235025
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235025&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70675
* tree-pretty-print.c (do_niy): Add FLAGS arg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70681
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|[6 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> The empty class passing ABI changes were reverted and are going to be
> resolved only for GCC7+.
> I've tried your testcase (and latest preprocessed hash_policy.ii fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 38281
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38281&action=edit
A testcase
Compile it with -O2 -S -mx32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70681
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Apr 15 12:45:20 2016
New Revision: 235024
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235024&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[testsuite] PR rtl-optimization/70681: XFAIL ira-shrinkwra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> From gcc-testresults, it seems it only fails with -mx32 -fpic, and not with
> plain -mx32, but that is all I can find out.
See:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70588
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 15 12:29:32 2016
New Revision: 235021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69517
PR c++/70019
PR c++/70588
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69517
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 15 12:29:32 2016
New Revision: 235021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69517
PR c++/70019
PR c++/70588
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70019
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 15 12:29:32 2016
New Revision: 235021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69517
PR c++/70019
PR c++/70588
* g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 15 12:24:18 2016
New Revision: 235020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/70436
c/
* c-parser.c (c_parser_pragma): Add IF_P ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70651
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70678
--- Comment #2 from Lukas Martini ---
Hi,
thanks for testing. I have to admit the explanation regarding how the various
switches play together went a little over my head, but if you tell me that's
intended behaviour, I'll trust your word on it :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70681
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70681
Bug ID: 70681
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c
gcc.dg/pr10474.c on arm and powerpc
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70680
Bug ID: 70680
Summary: [5/6 Regression] OpenMP SIMD linear variable
privatized too eagerly
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70675
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70679
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38279
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38279&action=edit
gcc6-pr70436-omp.patch
Untested fix for OpenMP/OpenACC/Cilk+/#pragma GCC ivdep, both C and C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70679
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Can you see if the fix in PR70675 works? That is, is this a dup?
Unfortunately no.
> Does reducing GC params make it reproduce with the .ii file?
--p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70678
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Declaring test_function inline and using -Winline shows:
t.c:4:52: warning: inlining failed in call to ‘test_function’: optimization
level attribute mismatch [-Winline]
static inline void __attribute__((op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
