https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69544
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69537
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 29 08:36:04 2016
New Revision: 232968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-29 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/69537
* mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69547
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69516
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Jan 29 09:25:14 2016
New Revision: 232969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69509
PR c++/69516
* constexpr.c (cxx_ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69509
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Jan 29 09:25:14 2016
New Revision: 232969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69509
PR c++/69516
* constexpr.c (cxx_ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I suspect the place to start at is looking what arm_function_value does for the
lto case. This is where the code decides what register the function returns its
value based on ABI.
But I'm having
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69516
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69509
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] wrong code |[5 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69517
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So during LTO compilation inside aapcs_allocate_return_reg
the pcs_variant used is ARM_PCS_AAPCS_LOCAL (/* Private call within this
compilation unit. */)
whereas for non-LTO it is:
ARM_PCS_AAPC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69462
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Jan 29 10:03:26 2016
New Revision: 232970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69462: Provide FLT_EVAL_METHOD and DECIMAL_DIG in float.h.
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69006
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Jan 29 10:12:11 2016
New Revision: 232972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/69006: S/390: Fix extra newlines after diagnostics.
gcc/Chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Quick update. It appears that we've got something like this
t = b * c;
r = b / c;
if (r != b)
Which python is using as an overflow check. We now know how to optimize the
mul/div sequence, whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
Bug ID: 69550
Summary: Need a way to disable "flexible array member in an
otherwise empty struct" error on GCC 6
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.3.0 |4.9.2
Severity|major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69506
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 29 10:52:08 2016
New Revision: 232974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix Cygwin bootstrap error due to TM symbols
PR libstdc++/69506
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|2015-08-11 00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69445
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The code is nonsense, what's it even supposed to do?
It would be invalid in C (where flexible arrays are actually standard) because
flexible arrays can only be the last member, *and* because apart from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #0)
> Would it be possible to provide a way to turn the error into a warning? For
> example, -std=gnu++11 could allow this, while -std=c++11 would still
> consi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67451
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69418
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69546
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66869
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 29 11:14:42 2016
New Revision: 232975
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232975&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/66869
* decl.c (wrapup_globals_for_namespace): Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69547
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 29 11:21:19 2016
New Revision: 232976
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232976&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-29 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69547
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> Im sure there are more...
One more case that I just ran across by coincidence (from resolve.c):
if (warn_compare_reals)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69551
Bug ID: 69551
Summary: Wrong code with single element vector insert
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #7)
> I could be wrong but I do not agree that this is valid code. I will turn to
> it tomorrow. I believe that a MODULE SUBROUTINE/FUNCTION declaration cannot
> appear in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, makes sense if b and c are signed and thus overflow is undefined. Where's
that code in python?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #2 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69548
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 37516
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37516&action=edit
possible fix
This fixes the testcase on gcc-5. I haven't yet bootstrapped it, or
investigated why the problem doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69551
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
if (SSE2)
else
/* For SSE1, we have to reuse the V4SF code. */
rtx t = gen_reg_rtx (V4SFmode);
ix86_expand_vector_set (false, t, gen_lowpart (SFmode, va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #4 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Yes, -fpermissive is a better solution. The code at stake has been replaced in
the master branch, but breaking API in stable releases isn't great.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69551
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5-branch@232962), built it with
main.c from PR 69330, and this is what I got
cbi 0x20,0
ldi r24,0
ldi r25,0
ret
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 5.3.1 20160129"
The problem shows up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69552
Bug ID: 69552
Summary: flto save-temps overwrites file
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: driver
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69551
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 2016-01-28 15:07:25.0 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c 2016-01-29 13:02:32.100788474 +0100
@@ -46744,6 +46744,7 @@ ix86_expand_vector_set (bool mmx_ok, rtx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I believe it's in replace_substring.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69551
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> So
> --- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 2016-01-28 15:07:25.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c2016-01-29 13:02:32.100788474 +0100
> @@ -46744,6 +46744,7 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69551
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69552
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, there's no linker output so we use whatever else. We could try falling
back to a.out.
Similarly without LTO -save-temps overwrites files if you do
gcc t.c t.C
both assembly and linker files will be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #5 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Note this actually also happens with the C compiler (the attached example also
illustrates this).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #5)
> Note this actually also happens with the C compiler (the attached example
> also illustrates this).
That's the correct behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69518
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 37519
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37519&action=edit
patch to fix it in two places
Uh, indeed. Looks like those kind of broken overflow checks are everywhere
(wel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Also see PR 60336 for impact of empty class.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #8 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6)
> (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #5)
> > Note this actually also happens with the C compiler (the attached example
> > also illustrates this).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #8)
> As I said, I don't deny it's the correct application of the standard, nor
> that it's a sane behavior. But the fact that this was accepted without even
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #5)
> Note this actually also happens with the C compiler (the attached example
> also illustrates this).
Which is a Good Thing.
It's also a Good Thing that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Ugh, totally insufficient patch. Probably warrants a CVE, I'm sure some of
them we optimized before, like
old_size = sz;
sz += a;
if (sz < old_size)
...
I'll dig further (just look for PyExc_Overflo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #11 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #9)
> Note that this was only accepted by the C++ compiler; the C compiler always
> rejected such a code (going back to at least gcc 3.4).
Indeed you're right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Apparently the case they actually care about in Julia is not what was posted
here, which might be where the disagreement comes from. What they actually have
is:
typedef struct mytype {
struct mytype *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
Milan Bouchet-Valat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37514|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
Bug ID: 69553
Summary: Optimizations O1/O2 makes std::array value incorrect
when passed to function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any progress on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69506
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #20 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> Any progress on this?
Yes, I'm testing patches for both arm and aarch64 to fix this.
I'll try to post them early next week
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
Bug ID: 69554
Summary: Multi-location diagnostics writes too many lines
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 37522
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37522&action=edit
patch to expose the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66137
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 29 14:07:40 2016
New Revision: 232981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232981&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66137
* gcc.target/i386/pr66137.c: New test.
Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66137
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68701
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 66137 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69551
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 29 14:14:56 2016
New Revision: 232982
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232982&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69551
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_vector_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #21 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patches posted at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02308.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02309.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69551
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 29 14:37:02 2016
New Revision: 232983
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232983&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69551
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_vector_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555
Bug ID: 69555
Summary: libgomp.c++/target-6.C fails because of undefined
behaviour
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But the test is OpenMP 4.5, and OpenMP 4.5 does allow reference types in the
privatization clauses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt ---
Does it work on other platforms?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Works on x86_64/i686/ppc64/ppc64le/aarch64 for me, fails on armv7hfp, s390{,x}.
I'm not saying there is not a middle-end bug, will need to analyze it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32401
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
Sure. Can I provide any debug information or another kind of help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69556
Bug ID: 69556
Summary: [6 Regression] forwprop4/match.pd undoing work from
recip
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
Hm, actually the chapter about "private" says nothing about how to actually
*handle* a reference type whereas it states that for "firstprivate" and
"lastprivate" the reference must bind to the same object for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
Example:
-- snip --
#include
int main ()
{
int a;
int &c = a;
printf("a %p\n", &a);
printf("g %p\n", &c);
#pragma omp target private (c)
{
printf("t %p\n", &c);
}
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is well defined.
Anyway, most likely the bug is already during gimplification.
I see in the omplower dump:
int[0:(sizetype) D.2477] & c;
...
D.2477 = D.2476 + -1;
...
#pragma omp target num
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69557
Bug ID: 69557
Summary: [ARM] revsh instruction not being conditionalised for
Thumb2
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69556
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69556
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I suspect we should disable "Fold (C1/X)*C2 into (C1*C2)/X" for gimple then
> and have it only for generic.
Or check for single use of the divide.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #12)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> > > Created attachment 37512 [details]
> > > A new patch
> > >
> > > I am test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> > Created attachment 37512 [details]
> > A new patch
> >
> > I am testing this now.
>
> No regressions on x86-64. I wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65604
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Jan 29 16:29:58 2016
New Revision: 232985
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232985&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65604
* config/mips/mips.c (mips_output_division):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65604
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Jan 29 16:31:18 2016
New Revision: 232986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232986&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65604
* gcc.target/mips/div-delay.c: New test.
Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
--- Comment #14 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Jan 29 16:52:15 2016
New Revision: 232988
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232988&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69459
* config/i386/constraints.md (C):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
foo (_13, _11);
_9 = &MEM[(const int[2] &)t_2(D) + 8][1];
foo (_11, _9); [tail call]
Trying to reduce the issue.
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #2)
> Started with r229265:
>
> commit 2
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo