https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81489
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Jul 20 07:16:01 2017
New Revision: 250378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix phi arg location in find_implicit_erroneous_behavior
2017-07-20 Tom d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Am I correct that this is about __seg uses in inline asm?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #11 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Not primarily.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81489
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81346
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81396
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81369
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81487
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
FYI, the build compiler identifies as
$ i686-w64-mingw32-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=i686-w64-mingw32-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/georg/bin/opt/mingw64-winpthreads-wildcard/mingw-w64-i686/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 20 08:29:45 2017
New Revision: 250379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libquadmath/65757
* math/roundq.c: Cherry-pick upstrea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81491
Bug ID: 81491
Summary: [8 Regression] PGO/LTO bootstrap: error: non-cold
basic block 6 dominated by a block in the cold
partition (15)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81491
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Also see HJ's results, e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2017-07/msg00246.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81492
Bug ID: 81492
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (ia64
target with "-O1 -g" and
__attribute__((optimize("O3"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81430
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81430
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|trivial |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81396
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
Should we open a separate PR for the transformation you suggested in comment 4,
or does that seem not useful enough now, or will be part of bitfield gimple
lowering when that lands?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81491
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, I will take a look. The test is not really testing the right thing at
first place.
We should not look for dominance relationship, but whether BB is reachable over
path that does not enter cold partition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81430
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01210.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61171
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 20 11:17:21 2017
New Revision: 250382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-20 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61171
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61171
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 61171, which changed state.
Bug 61171 Summary: vectorization fails for a reduction in presence of
subtraction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61171
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81030
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jul 20 11:27:31 2017
New Revision: 250383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81030
* cfgbuild.c (find_many_sub_basic_bl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81462
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81388
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Jul 20 12:02:19 2017
New Revision: 250384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81388
Revert r238585:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81493
Bug ID: 81493
Summary: python fails to load libtsan.so: cannot allocate
memory in static TLS block
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81493
--- Comment #1 from wangzhijun2005 at hotmail dot com ---
I tried to run try.py on different environments, but still failed.
python 2.7.12, glibc 2.23, gcc 5.4.0
python 2.7.13,glibc 2.11.3,gcc 7.1.0
python 2.6.8, glibc 2.11.3, gcc 6.1.0
OSError:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81476
--- Comment #18 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Thanks for the quick responses and the fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81493
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is a user bug, don't do it.
libtsan.so needs to be loaded early for the whole process, certainly before you
start creating threads etc.
You can LD_PRELOAD=libtsan.so or similar to eachive that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81494
Bug ID: 81494
Summary: [8 Regression] 454.calculix miscompares with -Ofast
after r249919
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81494
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81495
Bug ID: 81495
Summary: Building Ada on Linux m68k natively fails with obscure
linker errors
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
URL: https://people.debian.org/~glaubitz/gcc-7_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So one useful change is the following which makes the runtime profitability
threshold 6 and thus the vector loop is never entered. Even though that should
be quite a predictable conditional jump it turns ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81491
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46932
--- Comment #4 from Wilco ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01245.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So there are couple of concerns here.
A) I moved iv_canon pass after loop split so that new loop generated can be
completely unrolled if niter is known and small. As a result, we don't need to
skip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81495
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434
--- Comment #7 from jim.wilson at linaro dot org ---
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:20 AM, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> Do you think it might be feasible to update resource usage of a schedule
> group?
> Or would it be easier to replace a fused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80846
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 20 16:36:18 2017
New Revision: 250397
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250397&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80846
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_vector_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48839
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81496
Bug ID: 81496
Summary: AVX load from adjacent memory location followed by
concatenation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81496
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe even better would be to emit vmovq %r1, %xmm0; vpinsrq $1, %r2, %xmm0;
vpinsrq $2, %r3, %ymm0; vpinsrq $3, %r4, %ymm0; but not sure how to achieve
that.
For another testcase:
typedef long long W __attr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81496
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> With -O2 -mavx{,2,512f}, we get on the following testcase:
>
> typedef __int128 V __attribute__((vector_size (32)));
> typedef long long W __attribute__((vector_si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434
--- Comment #8 from Wilco ---
(In reply to jim.wilson from comment #7)
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:20 AM, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
> > Do you think it might be feasible to update resource usage of a schedule
> > group?
> > Or would it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81237
--- Comment #5 from Ravi ---
Are there any known work-arounds to getting ABI version 11 to link against code
compiled with an older ABI version?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #8)
> I would like to see something along these lines but even stronger: a way to
> instruct GCC to use a particular type of access and relocation. For
> example, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81497
Bug ID: 81497
Summary: error compiling arm_acle.h
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81497
Ivan Nazarenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ivan.nazarenko at uol dot
com.br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81498
Bug ID: 81498
Summary: Support build static PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> That is better, syscall_linux_s390.go already compiles, but
> syscall_linux_s390x.go still doesn't:
> ../../../libgo/go/syscall/syscall_linux_s390x.go:28:3: err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #14 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks. Do you want to commit or should I do it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81147
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
With your options (no -fverbose-asm for brevity), avr-gcc from trunk gives me
_Z3abcv:
push r28 ; 19 pushqi1/1 [length = 1]
push r29 ; 20 pushqi1/1 [length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61593
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53598
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You wrote it, so go ahead ;).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62182
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78380
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81499
Bug ID: 81499
Summary: internal compiler error when compiling gfortran code
with user-defined derived type i/o
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71456
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71905
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81193
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81500
Bug ID: 81500
Summary: ice with -O3 in process_use, at tree-vect-stmts.c:506
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501
Bug ID: 81501
Summary: Unneccessary calls to __tls_get_addr() in simple
thread-singleton pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501
--- Comment #1 from Julian Andres Klode ---
To qualify the performance overhead, I added empty constructors and destructors
with noinline, and compiled the code with g++ and clang++, and then ran a loop
1 over the function.
The clang cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #16 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jul 20 22:03:26 2017
New Revision: 250402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/81393
syscall: don't use GETREGS/SETREGS on s390
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #18 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jul 20 22:04:02 2017
New Revision: 250404
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250404&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/81393
syscall: don't use GETREGS/SETREGS on s390
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
--- Comment #17 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jul 20 22:03:48 2017
New Revision: 250403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/81393
syscall: don't use GETREGS/SETREGS on s390
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #13 from H. Peter Anvin ---
On July 20, 2017 10:47:54 AM PDT, ubizjak at gmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
>
>--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
>(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #8)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #14 from Andy Lutomirski ---
(In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #13)
> On July 20, 2017 10:47:54 AM PDT, ubizjak at gmail dot com
> wrote:
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
> >OTOH, we can avoid RIP relative
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81493
--- Comment #4 from wangzhijun2005 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> That is a user bug, don't do it.
> libtsan.so needs to be loaded early for the whole process, certainly before
> you start creating threads etc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81493
wangzhijun2005 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81502
Bug ID: 81502
Summary: In some cases the data is moved to memory
unnecessarily [partial regression]
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81493
wangzhijun2005 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
Bug ID: 81503
Summary: Wrong code at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80061
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80061
--- Comment #2 from Matthijs van Duin ---
> void foo( bool ok ) {
^constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81502
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Looks like SLSR does an overflow-unsafe transformation, then VRP2 takes
advantage of it. Maybe.
88 matches
Mail list logo
