http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-05-08
06:58:37 UTC ---
unsigned int
f1 (unsigned int x, unsigned int y)
{
return (x << y) | (x >> (32 - y));
}
unsigned int
f2 (unsigned int x, unsigned long y)
{
return (x << y) | (x >> (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57068
--- Comment #2 from Kai Koehne 2013-05-08
06:39:48 UTC ---
Still reproducable in revision 198685 . This is most likely a regression
introduced by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00024.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-05-08 06:27:32 UTC ---
> Can you check what you see by running f951 under valgrind ?
It fails for me with:
[macbook] f90/bug% valgrind
/opt/gcc/gcc4.9w/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin10.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele
2013-05-08 06:18:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> On x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 at revision 198697 with the patch at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg00367.html the test executes
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57094
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-05-08
06:07:11 UTC ---
For the record, the first test in comment #1 is invalid as n is not
initialized. Now I see something I don't expect for both trunk and fortran-dev:
if I set n to 7, then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57197
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-05-08
06:01:02 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 at revision 198697 with the patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg00367.html the test executes under
valgrind without error (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed
/install/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.9.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/mbuf/testing/gcc/42921/install
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130507 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57202
Bug #: 57202
Summary: Please make the intrinsics headers like immintrin.h be
usable without compiler flags
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57201
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2013-05-08 03:18:17
UTC ---
I should have clarified that the warning is correct with --save-temps. When
--save-temps is omitted, the warning is missing. That is wrong. There should
be a warning in th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57201
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|trivial |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57201
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57201
Bug #: 57201
Summary: Using --save-temps affects whether warning is printed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57200
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57199
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2013-05-07 22:48:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I'm surprised that
> the 16-bit rotations aren't detected/folded into rotations (or rotate_left
> (u16, 8) into a bswap16).
See also PR 45216 for ro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-05-07
22:34:15 UTC ---
To:
unsigned char KASUMI_SBOX_S7[128];
unsigned short KASUMI_SBOX_S9[512];
static inline unsigned short
rotate_left (unsigned short input, unsigned long rot)
{
return ((
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2013-05-07
22:31:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 30049
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30049
kasumi_clang.s
Clang assembly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-05-07
22:31:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 30048
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30048
kasumi_gcc.s
Adding GCC assembly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57200
Bug #: 57200
Summary: [4.8/4.9] aggressive-loop-optimizations notes appear
even when warning itself is suppressed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57199
Bug #: 57199
Summary: [4.8, 4.9] Bogus warning: iteration invokes
undefined behavior -Waggressive-loop-optimizations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unkn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54427
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse 2013-05-07
21:59:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> - support &&, ||, !
A patch was posted at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00783.html
but the only answer was against supporting th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57198
Bug #: 57198
Summary: ICE in warn_logical_operator for vectors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57197
Bug #: 57197
Summary: [Fortran-Dev][Regression] ICE in record_reference, at
cgraphbuild.c:66
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57196
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt 2013-05-07
20:13:10 UTC ---
Ah, and thanks for noting the compile warning. I would have expected that to
get caught in bootstrap, odd. I'll fix that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57196
Bug #: 57196
Summary: [4.8 regression] Bogus "aggregate ... has incomplete
type and cannot be defined"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
2013-05-07 19:16:31 UTC ---
Current trunk (without the patch) seems to fix also the original problem. At
least for this case, the proposed patch seems not necessary. I think the bug
can be closed as f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele
2013-05-07 19:01:56 UTC ---
BTW, on trunk:
../../gcc/gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c: In function ‘void
analyze_candidates_and_replace()’:
../../gcc/gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3394:17: warning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
2013-05-07 18:54:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 30047 [details]
> Proposed patch
I'll give it a try.
Meanwhile, this might be an easy way to get the testcase (and rena
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57194
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt 2013-05-07
18:23:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 30047
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30047
Proposed patch
Hi Joost,
Can you please apply the proposed patch and see if this fixes yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57193
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57142
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57142
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2013-05-07
17:28:51 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue May 7 17:28:12 2013
New Revision: 198690
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198690&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-05-07 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57142
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2013-05-07
17:26:40 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue May 7 16:36:48 2013
New Revision: 198687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-05-07 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #26 from dnovillo at google dot com
2013-05-07 17:10:07 UTC ---
On 2013-05-07 13:06 , roland at gnu dot org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
>
> --- Comment #25 from roland at gnu dot org 2013-05-07 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #25 from roland at gnu dot org 2013-05-07 17:06:56 UTC ---
I have been using a straightforward revert of r190487 to build on mingw with
--disable-nls. It works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57094
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55942
Matt Clarkson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mattyclarkson at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Diego Novillo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #24 from Di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Diego Novillo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29020|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57150
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2013-05-07
16:04:07 UTC ---
> This seems to argue for reverting or at least reworking the change. I
> suppose I'll withhold my patch until it's decided how to proceed.
I'd post it on the list in any cas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57195
Bug #: 57195
Summary: Mode attributes with specific mode iterator can not be
used as mode iterators in *.md files
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-05-07 15:09:04 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou 2013-05-07
> 15:06:45 UTC ---
>> But what's the justification for the relevant change, which wasn't
>> posted to gcc-pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #22 from Diego Novillo 2013-05-07
15:07:54 UTC ---
Looking at this today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou 2013-05-07
15:06:45 UTC ---
> But what's the justification for the relevant change, which wasn't
> posted to gcc-patches AFAICS?
>
> 2013-04-23 Eric Botcazou
> Pascal Obry
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-05-07 14:57:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou 2013-05-06
> 16:55:04 UTC ---
>> This doesn't happen in sparcv9-sun-solaris2* or i386-pc-solaris2*
>> configurations.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41329
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab 2013-05-07 12:14:50
UTC ---
This is not true. POSIX does not *require* support for colon in a filename,
but supporting it as an extension is perfectly ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57193
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41329
Shakthi Kannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skannan at redhat dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57194
Bug #: 57194
Summary: go binaries give "no debug info in ELF executable
errno -1"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57149
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57184
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55933
Shakthi Kannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skannan at redhat dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57187
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56800
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56800
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2013-05-07
10:00:20 UTC ---
FIXED by the following commit (on the Fortran-dev branch).
Thanks for the report!
Author: burnus
Date: Tue May 7 09:37:19 2013
New Revision: 198669
URL: http://gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57174
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57193
Bug #: 57193
Summary: suboptimal register allocation for SSE registers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57186
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57189
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57189
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
Bug #: 57192
Summary: [4.9 Regression] miscompilation at -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57000
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou 2013-05-07
08:07:45 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue May 7 08:03:15 2013
New Revision: 198664
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/56474
* gcc-interfa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
--- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou 2013-05-07
08:07:27 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue May 7 07:59:37 2013
New Revision: 198663
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198663&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/56474
* gcc-interfa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |ada
--- Comment #18 from Eric B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57149
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-05-07
07:00:58 UTC ---
The difference in *.uninit before/after that commit is small, just:
@@ -78,7 +79,7 @@ fn4 (struct F * x, unsigned int k)
goto ;
:
- # retval_25 = PHI <0(3), retval_
83 matches
Mail list logo
