https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71521
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 14 07:22:04 2016
New Revision: 237425
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237425&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71521
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71521
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[6/7 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 14 07:26:52 2016
New Revision: 237426
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237426&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-14 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/71310
PR b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71510
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 14 07:26:52 2016
New Revision: 237426
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237426&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-14 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/71310
PR bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
Bug 71509 depends on bug 71310, which changed state.
Bug 71310 Summary: Bitfields cause load hit store with smaller store and larger
load
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Bitfield extraction on ppc64le goes the
/* Try loading part of OP0 into a register and extracting the
bitfield from that. */
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT bitpos;
rtx xop0 = adjust_bit_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
>
> Uroš Bizjak changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71526
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> this is the new /* MIN (X, C1) < C2 -> X < C2 || C1 < C2 */ pattern matching
> and using boolean_type (guessed by genmatch) for the result comparisons
> instead o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71520
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 14 10:20:04 2016
New Revision: 237427
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237427&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71520
* tree-ssa-tail-merge.c (find_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71521
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 14 10:28:23 2016
New Revision: 237428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71521
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71522
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 14 10:42:00 2016
New Revision: 237429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71522
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71522
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71385
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71527
Bug ID: 71527
Summary: wrong type mismatch while template argument
deduction/substitution
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71528
Bug ID: 71528
Summary: multiple extern reference declarations produce
uninitialized access
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71529
Bug ID: 71529
Summary: [7 regression][CHKP] ICE in expand_expr_real_1
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: midd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71529
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Arguments copied for instrumented functions with no body don't have their
context fixed. It didn't trigger any problems before but does now because we
may inline into thunks. I'm testing this patch now:
di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71526
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 14 13:47:01 2016
New Revision: 237441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-14 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/71526
* gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
What seems suspicious to me is how we vectorize boolean comparison. Before
vectorization we have (_3, _5, _6 are bool):
_3 = var_9.0_2 == 0;
_6 = _3 > _5;
vectorized code:
mask__3.59_62 = vect_cst__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
--- Comment #6 from Ilya Enkovich ---
I think we should disable vectorization of boolean comparison (except '==' and
'!=') and handle them applying patterns. E.g. a > b ==> a & !b, a >= b ==> a |
!b etc. Bitwise operations are better because wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71516
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 14 14:33:11 2016
New Revision: 237445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71516
* decl.c (complete_vars): Handle gracefully t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71530
Bug ID: 71530
Summary: the caching does not work
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71405
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 14 14:42:46 2016
New Revision: 237446
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237446&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-06-04 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 14 14:43:42 2016
New Revision: 237447
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237447&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-06-08 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71494
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 14 14:45:23 2016
New Revision: 237449
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237449&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-06-10 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71530
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71516
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 14 14:47:17 2016
New Revision: 237450
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237450&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71516
* decl.c (complete_vars): Handle gracefully t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68657
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 14 14:44:28 2016
New Revision: 237448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237448&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-06-10 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6/7 Regression] |[4.9/5 Regression] label as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71405
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68657
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE on |[5 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
I think that calling finish_spills before select_reload_regs is incorrect:
static void
select_reload_regs (void)
{
struct insn_chain *chain;
/* Try to satisfy the needs for each insn. */
for (chain =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Not calling finish_spills however could miss cases where pseudos got spilled by
update_eliminables_and_spill->spill_hard_reg.
Maybe we need an arg for that function to say whether to look at individual
insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Maybe we need an arg for that function to say whether to look at individual
> insn chains?
That, or just fiddle with the existing one, its only purpose in the function is
to guard the problematic global re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71531
Bug ID: 71531
Summary: [7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90
-O2 execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71531
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532
Bug ID: 71532
Summary: [7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90
-O2 execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
printf("%Lf\n", d);
}
--
gcc version: gcc (GCC) 7.0.0 20160614 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71534
Bug ID: 71534
Summary: Initializing a static constexpr data member of a base
class by using a static constexpr data member of a
derived class should be an error
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at honermann dot net
--- Comment #27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71535
Bug ID: 71535
Summary: ICE in LTO1 with -fopenmp offloading
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71536
Bug ID: 71536
Summary: lto1 ICE: func-static constant in openmp offloaded
function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70703
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2016-6-14
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70703
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71528
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 14 19:55:08 2016
New Revision: 237458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237458&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71528
* decl.c (duplicate_decls): For DECL_INITIALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
Bug ID: 71537
Summary: GCC rejects consetxpr boolean conversions and
comparisons on the result of pointer arithmetic.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It looks like we didn't adjust the bitfield read paths for the mem model
> because in practice it doesn't matter and it may generate larger/slower code
> no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70572
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 14 20:55:08 2016
New Revision: 237460
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237460&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-06-14 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/70572
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70572
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71538
Bug ID: 71538
Summary: Obvious optimization related to arrays aren't
performed.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71538
--- Comment #1 from sasho648 at gmail dot com ---
The exact command used to compile this code was "gcc -O3 test.c" (as test.c
containing the snippet above).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
--- Comment #2 from Eric Fiselier ---
Hi Martin,
The 'xx' case is only accepted if it occurs at a global scope. If it appears
in a function body it is still rejected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71539
Bug ID: 71539
Summary: incomplete execution of a nested loop for -O2 and -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69523
--- Comment #7 from Eric Fiselier ---
> The warning should be controlled by *some* flag, but I'm not sure whether or
> not linking it with -Wliteral-suffix makes sense. I'll prepare a patch and
> see what people think.
Any update? I would be h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71539
mednafen at sent dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mednafen at sent dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71539
--- Comment #2 from cubitect at gmail dot com ---
Thank you for the tip! I was unaware that signed integer overflow is undefined
in standard C. I was rewriting some java code in C when I ran into this
problem, so this makes sense now. (Though I st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
72 matches
Mail list logo
