https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > But why should the *mov_internal use Bm or vector_operand? It
> > can/should handle both aligned and unaligned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69038
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > > But why should the *mov_internal use Bm or vector_operand? It
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> IMNSHO you only want to touch patterns which don't have ssememalign
> attributes (== have it 0) and leave the others as is. Perhaps in the next
> step you can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69144
Bug ID: 69144
Summary: running the libgccjit tests leaves temporary files
/tmp/libgccjit-*
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69145
Bug ID: 69145
Summary: [6 Regression] Bogus 'warning: #pragma implementation
for ‘...’ appears after file is included'
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Thanks for posting the patch, I'm currently doing a sparc64-linux bootstrap and
regtest with it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69122
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69141
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66223
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69064
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69145
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Test case (seems as if the file name of the included file matters):
$ g++ TDICmds.cc
TDICmds.cc:1:24: warning: #pragma implementation for
‘create_defect_script_SCDBase.cc’ appears after file is included
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69030
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69135
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69104
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid |diagnostic
--- Comment #7 from Marek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 37227
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37227=edit
back-port of Rainer's fix.
I've been using this on my GCC5.3 WIP (it might be a reasonable starting point,
don't know
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
--- Comment #9 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Jan 5 14:40:11 2016
New Revision: 232075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232075=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/cp/
PR c++/58583
* pt.c (build_non_dependent_expr):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69145
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> Test case (seems as if the file name of the included file matters):
It may be that the threshold for triggering the bug is length of token >= 32:
libcpp uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68612
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68651
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68651
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Jan 5 16:06:06 2016
New Revision: 232077
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232077=gcc=rev
Log:
[combine][v2] Canonicalise (r + r) to (r << 1) to aid recognition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66223
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Frey ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> The advantage of __builtin_unreachable () is that it allows better
> optimizations, at the expense of the invalid code not being so nicely
> reported.
> With
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69151
Bug ID: 69151
Summary: missing docs for H8/3000 monitor/OS_Task attributes
and related breakage in -mexr/-mno-exr options
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69148
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And
union U { int r; float f; };
struct A {
int a;
union U b[64];
};
double foo (double);
void
bar (struct A *z, int x)
{
union U y;
y.f = foo (z->b[x].f);
z->a = y.r ? 4 : y.r;
}
too (to make it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68770
--- Comment #8 from Nick Clifton ---
Patch applied. (Unfortunately I cannot close this BZ...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69108
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vries at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69148
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68770
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Sorry, I indeed made a mistake - r230176 makes compilation fail with a
> different error than the one I get with 5.3 release. However, after
> rerunning git bisect and manually checking these revisions I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
A small testcase:
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 i386]$ cat /tmp/x.ii
struct xxx_def;
typedef xxx_def *xxx;
union rtxxx
{
const char *rt_str;
xxx rt_xxx;
};
struct xxx_def {
union u {
rtxxx fld[1];
} u;
};
extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Klose ---
> Debian is known to heavily modify their GCC sources.
While Debian applies patches, these are almost all not code-modifying patches,
just the release plus updates from the release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69146
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Please provide cluster.ii as an attachment. Thanks...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69113
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69113
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Looks like this fixes it...
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl2.c b/gcc/cp/decl2.c
index 9a07e1e..a7212ca0 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/decl2.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl2.c
@@ -1820,7 +1820,8 @@ comdat_linkage (tree decl)
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 58583, which changed state.
Bug 58583 Summary: [c++11] ICE with invalid non-static data member
initialization in template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
--- Comment #7 from Justas L ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> As expected, reverting the patch doesn't change anything on the 5 branch, so
> I'd suggest either filling a bug report for 'git bisect' or double checking
> its
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69148
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69150
Bug ID: 69150
Summary: undocumented dllimport/dllexport attributes in mcore
backend
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69145
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> > Test case (seems as if the file name of the included file matters):
>
> It may be that the threshold for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37226|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69148
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69146
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Oh, sorry, you provided it inline. Need my coffee this morning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69149
--- Comment #1 from Johannes Hauf ---
Created attachment 37229
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37229=edit
Compiler output
Compressed compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69122
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jan 5 15:54:46 2016
New Revision: 232076
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232076=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix PR c/69122 (-Wmisleading-indentation false positive with empty macros)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Could the fix be back ported to the gcc5 branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69149
Bug ID: 69149
Summary: Segmentation fault during compile of libre office with
debug
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68960
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69149
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #38 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Jan 5 17:57:05 2016
New Revision: 232080
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232080=gcc=rev
Log:
[PATCH v2] ia64: don't use dynamic relocations for local symbols
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
--- Comment #9 from Justas L ---
Yes, forced stack alignment on x86_64 was introduced after 5.2, in r228728 for
pr66697. Also, I can confirm that adding -fno-omit-frame-pointer allows Wine to
compile normally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
This change makes it to compile:
diff --git a/gcc/var-tracking.c b/gcc/var-tracking.c
index 07eea84..43a85b7 100644
--- a/gcc/var-tracking.c
+++ b/gcc/var-tracking.c
@@ -4968,7 +4968,7 @@ dataflow_set_different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69143
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69149
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68009
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68232
--- Comment #6 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #5)
> "Fixed" with the testsuite skips. Feel free to add any other target triplets
> for which this test is unreliable.
I was going to modify the powerpc64le triplet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(insn:TI 248 289 246 8 (set (reg:V2DI 21 xmm0 [130])
(mem/c:V2DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 7 sp)
(const_int 16 [0x10])) [9 %sfp+-32 S16 A128])) /tmp/x.ii:24
1215 {*movv2di_internal}
(nil))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression]|[4.9/5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #40 from Mike Frysinger ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #39)
we should at least do gcc-5. i'm guessing there won't be another 4.9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #9)
> So I did a bisection between 4.9 and 5.
> The offending commit is r217624:
> Author: vmakarov
> Date: Sun Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1078
--- Comment #10 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Tue Jan 5 18:04:01 2016
New Revision: 232081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232081=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-01-05 Sandra Loosemore
PR 1078
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65996
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 37231
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37231=edit
Reduced testcase
To be compiled with -O2 -mincoming-stack-boundary=3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66460
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hauf.johannes at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69149
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62536
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68960
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69122
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #19 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jan 5 20:19:16 2016
New Revision: 232088
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232088=gcc=rev
Log:
Use vector_operand on SSE with 16b memory operand
Add vector_operand,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69104
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jan 5 20:24:02 2016
New Revision: 232090
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232090=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/69104
* builtins.c (get_memmodel): Use expansion point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69152
Bug ID: 69152
Summary: _GLIBCXX_BITSET_BITS_PER_WORD is wrong for x32
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69148
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69116
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69153
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> You are leaking a target specific configure option to the configure script.
> This seems wrong. Can't you set target_header_dir in config.gcc instead?
As the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65421
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
See also bug 69143.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68398
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|coremark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46555
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am going to try to work on this so it can be in for stage 1 of 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69133
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69116
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
I don't think this has anything to do with `end`. Consider the following code:
#include
template struct foo {
T f();
void g(T);
};
template void operator<<(const T&, const foo&) {}
struct x : public
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69116
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to TC from comment #2)
> Deduction for this operator<< function template succeeds: `T` is deduced to
> be `x` from the left operand; the right operand is a non-deduced context
> because the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69134
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul.hua.gm at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45390
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46555
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67755
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
Summary|[5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69153
Bug ID: 69153
Summary: --with-advance-toolchain configure option does not
correctly set configure variable target_header_dir
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68049
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-12-08 00:00:00 |2016-1-5
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69153
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-linux
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68525
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
Last reconfirmed|2015-11-25 00:00:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69098
--- Comment #3 from hir...@trash-mail.com ---
Your testcase is really quite a bit smaller still – impressive skills! :)
Thanks for confirming and since 5.1.0 works for you, on Wandbox and
additionally your testcase doesn’t fail locally, I guess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69152
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
This macro is about the typedef _WordT in bitset (currently "long", so
__SIZEOF_LONG__ is exactly what we want), not about the compiler notion of
"word". Using "long" for that typedef is suboptimal on x32, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49358
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66944
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 regression] ICE on |ICE on static thread_local
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo