http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
Bug #: 56524
Summary: Compiler ICE when compiling with -mips16
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey 2013-03-06 18:04:30
UTC ---
For the record, this does undo the performance regression fix on MIPS. I will
submit a new bug for that issue. The problem (on mips) is that we want to do a
conditional move of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey 2013-03-06 18:22:44
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> But you can't achieve that through generation of invalid RTL.
Agreed.
> Anyway, I wonder why nonzero_bits during combine doesn't figure out that t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
Bug #: 56552
Summary: conditional move can generate unnecessary conversion
code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey 2013-03-07 15:56:19
UTC ---
I included the patch in my nightly build and test and encountered no problems
with GCC or GLIBC. I was able to completely build GLIBC in mips16 mode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56942
Bug #: 56942
Summary: MIPS GCC will not build with -mips16 mode because
libgcc fails to build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57118
Bug #: 57118
Summary: g++.dg/debug/* tests fail on MIPS due to micromips
checkin, scan-assembler pattern needs update
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey 2013-05-02 00:11:52
UTC ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-05/msg9.html for a dynamically loadable
pass to do this optimization. It is not a finished product but it seems to
work for coremark.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey 2013-05-03 16:03:48
UTC ---
My mips build seems to be working with the patch. It has gotten past the point
where it died last night but the complete bootstrap isn't finished yet.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-09 23:46:52
UTC ---
Created attachment 27976
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27976
Cutdown test case
I have attached a new test case, cut down from the original. I have duplicated
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-10 20:10:56
UTC ---
It looks like the code generation is going different (between -g and no -g)
during the IRA/reload phase. With the cut down test case and using -O2 -g
the x.i.195r.reload file (for debu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-14 23:35:03
UTC ---
The cutdown test case only shows the difference in code generation (between
"-O2" and "-O2 -g") in big-endian mode. The original larger test case had
differences in both big-endian and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-15 18:01:58
UTC ---
That is correct, the original test fails with -fcompare-debug on a mipsel*
target
or a mips* (big-endian) target. The cutdown test case only fails on mips*
big-endian targets.
The ori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-15 23:21:42
UTC ---
Created attachment 28026
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28026
Cutdown test case that fails in little endian mode
Here is a second cut-down test case, this one fai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-28 23:07:25
UTC ---
I think the problem is the use of INSN_P instead of NONDEBUG_INSN_P in
build_insn_chain (ira.c). Changing this fixes the small test case and I will
do a full bootstrap build and test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54369
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54369
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-31 18:16:08
UTC ---
Thanks for digging into this Eric. I tested your patch here against the
example and on the GCC testsuite and didn't see any problems. Are you going to
check this in on the mainline?
||2012-08-31
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-31 21:27:26
UTC ---
I sent a question to g...@gcc.gnu.org to see if I could get some idea of how to
fix this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #12 from Steve Ellcey 2012-09-04 21:46:55
UTC ---
Proposed patch has been posted to gcc-patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg02089.html
Use NONDEBUG_INSN_P instead of INSN_P in build_insn_chain.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54619
Bug #: 54619
Summary: GCC aborts during compilation with '-O2 -mips16'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54619
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey 2012-09-18 18:34:21
UTC ---
It looks like this is coming from mips16_unextended_reference_p,
if mode is VOIDmode then GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) is zero and we wind
up doing 'offset % 0'. I think we should be checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54711
Bug #: 54711
Summary: Fix --target_board examples on test.html page
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54711
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2012-09-26 15:10:21
UTC ---
Yes, RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/\{-m32,\}" works fine but
RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix --target_board=unix/-m32" does not.
It should be RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54711
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey 2012-09-26 18:18:05
UTC ---
OK, I can check out wwwdocs but the page I am interested in doesn't seem to be
there. On the web it is http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html, but I can't seem
to find this page i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37303
--- Comment #8 from Steve Ellcey 2012-09-26 20:33:32
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Sep 26 20:33:28 2012
New Revision: 191772
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191772
Log:
2012-09-26 Steve Ellcey
PR c/3730
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53476
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P5 |P1
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ell
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54711
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey 2012-09-26 22:47:26
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Sep 26 22:47:22 2012
New Revision: 191781
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191781
Log:
2012-09-26 Steve Ellcey
PR web/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54711
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2012-11-01
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2012-11-01 19:53:01
UTC ---
I am seeing this failure as well when building newlib with the -mips16 option
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55103
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46997
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey 2011-01-18 21:56:50
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Jan 18 21:56:46 2011
New Revision: 168970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168970
Log:
PR target/46997
* ia64.c (ia64_expand_unpack):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46997
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2011-01-26 17:50:05
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Jan 26 17:49:56 2011
New Revision: 169296
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169296
Log:
2011-01-26 Steve Ellcey
PR target/46997
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46997
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey 2011-02-04 21:46:50
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Feb 4 21:46:45 2011
New Revision: 169840
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169840
Log:
2011-02-04 Richard Henderson
Steve Ellcey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46997
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey 2011-02-07 21:06:45
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Feb 7 21:06:42 2011
New Revision: 169904
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169904
Log:
2011-02-07 Steve Ellcey
PR target/46997
*
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 30217
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30217&action=edit
Test case to reproduce error
A number of cilk tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
The patch in comment #3 worked for me as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57687
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57921
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 30518
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30518&action=edit
What the CSE phase generated after checkin r200133
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 30517
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30517&action=edit
What the CSE phase generated prior to checkin r200133
W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57921
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 30519
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30519&action=edit
Test case cut down from perl benchmark in SPEC 2006
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57921
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Digging around on the SPEC web page led me to this:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/Docs/400.perlbench.html
Known portability issues
There are some known aliasing issues. The internal data structures that
repres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56942
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45941
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45941
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57921
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
I am seeing this segfault while building newlib with GCC on MIPS.
/local/home/sellcey/nightly/src/newlib/newlib/libc/stdio/vdiprintf.c:34:1:
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
}
^
0xac9f11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58519
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
That fixed the small testcase I created, I will try a complete build next.
For the record the test case that fails with MIPS GCC (-O2 -g -mips64) is:
_vdiprintf_r(struct _reent *ptr , int fd , const char *fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50153
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey 2011-08-23 21:32:37
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Aug 23 21:32:34 2011
New Revision: 178018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178018
Log:
2011-08-23 Steve Ellcey
PR libstdc++/50153
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49967
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2011-10-03 17:57:44
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 3 17:57:40 2011
New Revision: 179472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179472
Log:
2011-10-03 Steve Ellcey
PR target/49967
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49967
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2011-10-12 18:07:29
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Oct 12 18:07:25 2011
New Revision: 179862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179862
Log:
2011-10-12 Steve Ellcey
PR target/49967
Ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50722
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey 2011-10-20 21:26:05
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Oct 20 21:26:01 2011
New Revision: 180277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180277
Log:
2011-10-20 Steve Ellcey
PR testsuite/50722
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Bug #: 54128
Summary: GCC does not bootstrap on little endian mips due to
mis-compare on tree-data-ref.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2012-07-31 15:17:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 27906
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27906
Compressed preprocessed test case
Sorry about not including the attachment earlier, I thought I had d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey 2012-07-31 15:26:56
UTC ---
I configured with:
--disable-libssp --disable-libgomp --disable-libmudflap --disable-fixed-point
--disable-decimal-float --with-arch=mips32r2 --with-synci --with-llsc
--with-mips-plt -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58519
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 31076
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31076&action=edit
Proposed patch I tested
Andrew, is this still on your TODO list? I have attached a patch that I have
tested here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Nov 18 19:20:12 2013
New Revision: 204979
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204979&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Andrew Pinski
Steve Ellcey
PR target/56552
* co
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: mips*-*-*
If I compile this program with -O2 on MIPS:
int foo(int *p, unsigned short c)
{
signed short i;
int x = 0;
for (i = 0; i < c; i++) {
x = x +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 31365
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31365&action=edit
runnnable performance test case
Here is a runnable test case. You may need to increase the loop counts
depending
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: richard.sandiford at linaro dot org
Target: mips*-*-*
Starting around December
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: mips*-*-*
The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/builtin_func_double2.c is failing on both of
my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51144
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey 2011-11-17 21:22:15
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Nov 17 21:22:11 2011
New Revision: 181457
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181457
Log:
2011-11-17 Steve Ellcey
PR middle-end/51144
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85711
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
This has been failing for quite a while now and there is apparently a fix for
it. Can we get it fixed for GCC 9.0 release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Jan 18 00:41:40 2019
New Revision: 268054
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268054&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-17 Steve Ellcey
PR fortran/88898
* gfortran.dg/go
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am using the new -pre-include= option with Fortran and when the file I
am trying to preinclude does not exist the compiler segfaults
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
It is quite possible I am using the option incorrectly (though that should not
result in a segfault of course). Should some other flag be adding this to the
command line for me?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #21 from Steve Ellcey ---
If I look at this specific example:
int f2 (int x, int y)
{
return (x & ~0x0ff000) | ((y & 0x0ff) << 12);
}
Before the combine change, I see in x.c.260r.combine:
Trying 8, 9 -> 15:
8: r98:SI=x1:SI<<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85711
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Jan 23 22:43:42 2019
New Revision: 268219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-23 Bin Cheng
Steve Ellcey
PR target/85711
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451
--- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #9)
> Looks like that's because of different expected comment characters,
> # vs. // in your file. The pattern for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> If Martins bisection to power.fppized.o is correct you can bisect the loop
> via the vect_loop or vect_slp debug counters (or first try with just
> -fno-tree-{loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85383
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am seeing a bunch of failures in the gcc.target/aarch64/sve/vcond_1.c
test on aarch64. You can see them on the test results list at:
https://gcc.gnu.org
||2018-04-24
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
I am seeing this failure also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79924
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Jun 5 22:20:13 2018
New Revision: 261217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-05 Steve Ellcey
PR target/79924
* config/aarch64/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79924
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Jun 5 22:21:36 2018
New Revision: 261218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-05 Steve Ellcey
PR target/79924
* gcc.target/aarc
||dave.pagan at oracle dot com,
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
Adding David Pagen since it looks like Jeff checked this patch in for him.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86153
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I get ICE on these GCC tests:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/clastb_1.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve (internal compiler
error)
FAIL: gcc.target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83518
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83518
--- Comment #21 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #20)
> (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #19)
> It should have been fixed by r273732 (checked with a cc1 cross to aarch64,
> albeit on a not clean tree...)
OK, I
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When testing GCC with the latest GLIBC, specifically one which creates a
math-vector-fortran.h header file, the gfortran.dg/continuation_6.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91242
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jaydeep Chauhan from comment #4)
> > Hello,
> >
> > With latest trunk issue is not reproducible for all three
> > case(clastb_1.c,clastb_4.c,clastb_6.
: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
If you run 'gcc -Q -v x.c' and look at the 'options enabled:' list, it is not
accurate. For example, on aarch64 it will show '-fprefetch-loop-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89179
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89179
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey ---
I built ggc-page.c with GCC_DEBUG_LEVEL 5 and I see:
Allocating object, requested size=360, actual=360 at 0x8726c210 on
0x10549200
Freeing object, actual size=360, at 0x8726c210 on 0x10549200
But th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89179
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey ---
The bug I was seeing on aarch64 turns out to be PR 91404. It has now been
fixed. I don't know if that patch will also fix the original bug seen on
Darwin or not.
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When compiling the following source file, GCC gives a warning. The warning
notes that the declaration is on line 2 but it does not say what line the
actual write is on
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC bootstrap currently fails with this error:
/home/sellcey/tot/src/gcc/gcc/expmed.c: In function ‘rtx_def*
emit_store_flag_1(rtx
1 - 100 of 314 matches
Mail list logo
