https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65117
--- Comment #1 from Chen Gang ---
The root cause is in function 'find_reload' (at least it should be a real
cause):
- 'this_alternative_match_win' is not initialized before use it -- for the
first looping 0, it initializes 'this_alternative_matc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65117
--- Comment #2 from Chen Gang ---
Oh, sorry, one typo issue: 'this_alternative_match_win' is incorrect, it should
be 'this_alternative_win'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65160
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65159
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 65160 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65161
Bug ID: 65161
Summary: ICE: in vec<_haifa_insn_data, va_heap,
vl_embed>::operator[], at vec.h:736 with -O3
-fselective-scheduling2 -mtune=slm
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Bootstrapping with the patch in comment 26 fails with
/opt/gcc/build_w/./prev-gcc/xg++ -B/opt/gcc/build_w/./prev-gcc/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.10w/x86_64-apple-darwin14.1.0/bin/ -nostdinc++
-B/opt/gcc/build_w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65162
Bug ID: 65162
Summary: [5 Regression][SH] Redundant tests when storing
bswapped T bit result in unaligned mem
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Clean patch to avoid the errors: variable '*' set but not used
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c2015-01-17 21:48:17.0
+0100
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c2015-02-22 13:02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30957
--- Comment #23 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've made the test-case pr30957-1.c match the current compiler behaviour. The
test-case made sense for the time the committed code was working in the
compiler. It then regressed at some point, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65162
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
so - next increment - simplification of the previous.
(don't try to redirect callers if we don't have any)
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf.c b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
index e1af8bf..ca19967 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-icf.c
+++ b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65161
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 34834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34834&action=edit
testcase that doesn't need --param on cmd line
Compiler output:
$ gcc -O3 -fselective-scheduling2 -mtune=slm tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65163
Bug ID: 65163
Summary: [5 Regression][SH] ICE in decompose at rtl.h:2007
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65163
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65151
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64306
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65126
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34835&action=edit
Tentative patch
works for vect-simd-clone-10.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65153
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
It seems that the problematic peephole is trying to wallpaper some unlucky
register allocation/reload choices like:
before peephole:
mov.w.L26,r1
addr8,r1
movr1,r8
mov#0,r1
mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65126
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5 Regresion] |[5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65100
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Sun Feb 22 15:16:59 2015
New Revision: 220895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix warning in 'Loop Statements' in gnat-style.texi
2015-02-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65102
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65100
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64113
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Feb 22 15:29:16 2015
New Revision: 220896
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-12-02 Uros Bizjak
PR t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65164
Bug ID: 65164
Summary: [5 Regression][SH] missed subc in integer sign
function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 34836
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34836&action=edit
testcase to discuss.
So with the patch above, I get a failure to build LLVM stage#1.
the .ii here is a reduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
testing:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf.c b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
index e1af8bf..4d72e42 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-icf.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
@@ -660,7 +660,8 @@ sem_function::merge (sem_item *alias_item)
/* When both alia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #30 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #28 and #29)
Thanks for checking and I have the cleanup taken care of. I am making some
adjustments to avoid ABI issues as well.
Test case will be next.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65165
Bug ID: 65165
Summary: missing std::promise::set_value_at_thread_exit
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65165
--- Comment #1 from Carlo Wood ---
The same for std::promise::set_exception_at_thread_exit I guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65166
Bug ID: 65166
Summary: [SH] use div1 to do R[n] = ((R[n] << 1) | T) - R[m]
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65167
Bug ID: 65167
Summary: ICE: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1383
(unable to find a register to spill) with -O
-fschedule-insns -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx
Product: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65032
--- Comment #2 from pbrobinson at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 34838
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34838&action=edit
preprocessed file from koji
this is from koji if it's of help or different from the other one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65168
Bug ID: 65168
Summary: diagnostic: missing: reference cannot be bound to
dereferenced null pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65032
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
--- Comment #21 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sun Feb 22 19:38:53 2015
New Revision: 220899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-22 Bernd Edlinger
PR fortran/64980
PR for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61960
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sun Feb 22 19:38:53 2015
New Revision: 220899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-22 Bernd Edlinger
PR fortran/64980
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #39 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #38)
> By the way, I'm not sure that it's at all correct to avoid deep copies.
This seems to be safe:
as long as the procedure is pure, there is no way it can modify its
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #5 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
But the point is not the missing string, but a missed optimisation.
Has the optimisation been brought back now?
NB I have no way to look into it anymore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65165
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65165
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's also documented as missing in previous releases e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.2/libstdc++/manual/manual/status.html#status.iso.2011
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61728
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Defining the function inline means that cxxabi.h depends on our implementation
details, which makes it incompatible with other implementations of the ABI
(libc++ uses our cxxabi.h but provides their own def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65032
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65157
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Clang accepts the code, EDG rejects it with:
"x.cc", line 16: error: nontype "A::B::Create" is not a template
friend void B::Create();
^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65082
--- Comment #3 from NickParker at Eaton dot com ---
register uint16_t r4 asm ("r4");
register uint16_t r6 asm ("r6");
volatile int8_t localOscCosine;
volatile int8_t acInput;
void pllExec(void)
{
int16_t mix_output_s2=0;
r4 += r6;
localOsc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65082
--- Comment #4 from NickParker at Eaton dot com ---
That was with 's' optimisation, and it does the sames for optimisation level
'1'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at bromo dot med
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61142
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 34839
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34839&action=edit
A set of peepholes
This is a set of peepholes I have accumulated, although untested.
With the patch CSiBE (-O2 -m4-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65150
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65153
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
>
> I've tried to disable the peephole on trunk and compared CSiBE results. It
> seems the peephole doesn't hit very often:
> sum: 3371887 -> 3371943+56 / +0.001661
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe ---
yeah, it's not right yet.. looking at this:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf.c b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
index e1af8bf..3b5553e 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-icf.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
@@ -658,13 +658,16 @@ sem_function::merge (sem_item
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65151
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
> I've also tried to see if the movrt pattern on SH2A has the same problem.
> But the only thing that seems to trigger it is a movt. The patch in c#7
> could also b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65153
--- Comment #10 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
The new peepholes are fine for trunk even in the stage4 but a bit
invasive to the release branch. For 4.9 branch, I'd like to simply
remove the problematic peephole.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65153
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
Sure. I was actually referring to trunk all the time :)
I agree to remove the problematic peephole on 4.9 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
--- Comment #2 from David ---
Attaching a patch was just the clearest way I knew to show the problem.
My hope was that posting it here would allow someone who knew how to submit
patches to take this the rest of the way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65153
--- Comment #12 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 34840
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34840&action=edit
patch for 4_9-branch
I've noticed that that peephole is the last user of sh.c:replace_n_hard_rtx.
I'm testin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65126
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #8 from vrie
57 matches
Mail list logo
