https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79042
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79068
Bug ID: 79068
Summary: [7 Regression] Bootstrap failure on powerpc64-linux
and armv7hl-linux-gnueabi in libgo
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79068
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79068
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It happens both with profiledbootstrap and bootstrap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
Bug ID: 79069
Summary: [7 Regression] Bootstrap failure on s390x-linux while
building libgo
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79067
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79066
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79065
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79062
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Is this after the fix for PR79042?
I am nearly certain that it was after that fix.
Before, I got an UBSAN overflow but only when combining OpenMP, LTO,
-fipa-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79068
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reproduced on gcc110.fsffrance.org vanilla r244305 and
../configure --enable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++,go,lto --prefix=/usr
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared
--enable-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71627
--- Comment #6 from Khuong Nguyen Tan ---
(In reply to Senthil Kumar Selvaraj from comment #5)
> Fixed in trunk (7.0)
Thanks Senthil Kumar Selvaraj.
It was worked !!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67336
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77283
--- Comment #11 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Any progress on this? The patch fixes the problem for s390x (no performance
regressions), but without it we see the regression in SPEC2006's libquantum all
the time, I guess the same is true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79070
Bug ID: 79070
Summary: Unhelpful error message for ambiguous type in template
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
--- Comment #30 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 40507
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40507&action=edit
combined proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78142
tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79070
--- Comment #1 from Björn Fahller ---
More info: adding an alias for a function signature involving the ambiguous Foo
in the above program gives a directly misleading error message:
using type = void(Foo);
c.cpp:12:18: error: expected ';' befor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've started looking at this again.
Norm's patch has a few problems:
* For one, it matches a couple of alias names for -std values, which
will never hit the specs machinery.
* Worse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
What are the revision and the configure flags that trigger this, please?
r244350 bootstraps without problem here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77283
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #39469|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Vanilla r244305, and
../configure --disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++,go,lto \
--with-long-double-128 --with-arch=z9-109 --with-tune=z10
make -j4
on s390x.
Let me retry with latest trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77283
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I'm somewhat fed up with the lack of maintainance shown by the pass
submitter. He doesn't have write-after-approval nor a bugzilla account.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77283
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
And maybe PR77366 is too simplified. The following testcase is "fixed":
void
foo(unsigned int size, unsigned int *state)
{
unsigned int i;
for(i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
if(state[i] & 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79066
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
> --disable-bootstrap
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And with r244350 ../configure --disable-bootstrap
--enable-languages=c,c++,go,lto --with-long-double-128 --with-arch=z9-109
--with-tune=z10
reproduced too.
Note that without --enable-checking=release, the err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #3)
> > --disable-bootstrap
>
> ?
Originally (the #c0 error) it has been of course --enable-bootstrap). But when
trying to reproduce it, I didn't want to wait so long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79066
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79071
Bug ID: 79071
Summary: Add test case for PR/65618
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79071
--- Comment #1 from James Cowgill ---
Created attachment 40510
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40510&action=edit
a-except.ads
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
Confirmed; bisecting now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE is during the jump2 pass, there is EDGE_FALLTHRU in between
(note 21 1 942 2 [bb 2] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(insn 942 21 943 2 (unspec_volatile [
(code_label 0 0 0 10311 (nil) [2 uses])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe the easiest fix would be to emit the __morestack magic call patterns as
ASM_OPERANDS like one that is emitted for asm goto. The cfgrtl.c etc. code has
already years of fixes to handle those calls and d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77283
--- Comment #15 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
The updated patch fixes libquantum on s390 so PR77366 might indeed be to
simplified to check for that, but it was unrolled before r238005. Addressing
libquantum is more important, of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
Arnd Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
Can you please add the combine dump (and the dump before combine)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems the barrier after the unconditional __morestack call is removed by
rtl_tidy_fallthru_edge.
I think:
--- gcc/cfgrtl.c.jj 2017-01-01 12:45:35.0 +0100
+++ gcc/cfgrtl.c2017-01-12 13:24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77812
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Jan 12 12:40:28 2017
New Revision: 244351
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244351&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
cp/
PR c++/77812
* name-lookup.c (set_namespace_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79068
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77812
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
Matthew Fortune changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew.fortune at imgtec dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Created attachment 40511
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40511&action=edit
rtl dump 256r.ed_dce and 257r.combine
Here are four dumps, I hope this is what you are asking for:
latest gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78775
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78633
--- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> When a fix exists, why hasn't it been posted to gcc-patches?
Because, like I wrote in comment #13, I would like to check if there might be a
better fix for the pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70696
--- Comment #8 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch available at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-01/msg00031.html
Waiting for review.
Backport to gcc-6 available.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70697
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78977
--- Comment #14 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
I can confirm that the behaviour is fixed. Thanks for your quick and detailed
answers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66284
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 12 14:28:38 2017
New Revision: 244364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244364&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR66284 remove std::function special case for reference_wrapper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66284
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46555
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13979
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78604
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For function sign_lt and uns_lt, the change causes worse code generation
unfortunately. Take uns_lt as example, the difference in optimized dump is as
like:
529,530c529,530
< vect_cst__32 = {val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71169
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71285
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71406
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71433
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71710
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71207
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71207
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 40512
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40512&action=edit
Patch candidate
Btw. I really believe this should be marked as P1 because it creates invalid
builtin_unreachable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71966
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 72739 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72850
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77283
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77345
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78633
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If the original insn that has the op.set_src rtx in it is not removed by the
splitter (which it seems it is not), and it is just expected to be removed
during DCE later, then doing copy_rtx is the right thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77498
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79044
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jan 12 16:01:13 2017
New Revision: 244368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-01-12 Bill Schmidt
PR target/79044
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71821
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> There is a reasonable chance that this patch broke mips64 n64 but I do not
> have confirmation yet. See PR target/78660.
The quoted hunk only reverted a recent pessimization (r205550), the current
code is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79050
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79072
Bug ID: 79072
Summary: ICE with class(*) pointer function result and
character value
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76731
--- Comment #10 from Kirill Yukhin ---
(In reply to Andrew Senkevich from comment #8)
> I think we should follow here declarations from icc headers to be compatible
> with it.
Okay. Could you pls state which rules ICC follows for all gather/scatt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #8 from Matthew Fortune ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> > I'm yet to get my head around what the issue is but if anyone has a pointer
> > based on the potential impact on MIPS64 as described above then I'd be
> > gra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
I'm trying to build an cross compiler but cannot figure out the --target
configure option to use. Neither --target=arm nor --target=arm-linux nor
--target=arm-gnu-linux work. gcc/configure spits out an error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #6)
> I'm trying to build an cross compiler but cannot figure out the --target
> configure option to use. Neither --target=arm nor --target=arm-linux nor
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
--- Comment #19 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Jan 12 17:02:38 2017
New Revision: 244372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add Cortex-A15 tuning to gcc.dg/uninit-pred-8_a.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I poked at this a bit yesterday (given the irreducible loops I've got some
concerns that jump threading might be involved). Whatever is going on, it is
highly sensitive to just about any codegen changes. I
/dg.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr78973.c (test for warnings, line 12)
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes1
# of unexpected failures1
/home/msebor/build/gcc-git/gcc/xgcc version 7.0.0 20170112 (experimental)
(GCC)
The failure seems to be due to the lack or range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78775
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
I've raised bug 79073 for the gcc.dg/pr78973.c failure. AFAICT, it's due to a
VRP defect or limitation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78751
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79044
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jan 12 17:19:17 2017
New Revision: 244373
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244373&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-01-12 Bill Schmidt
PR target/79044
* con
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
