http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58095
--- Comment #4 from Siavash Eliasi ---
In the end, here is what I really like GCC to generate for me. Same output as
function (bar) for function (foo) when using GCC with -O3 -march=core2
switches:
#include
#define BATCHSIZE 8
void foo(__m128
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Price ---
Created attachment 30623
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30623&action=edit
relevant module
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
Bug ID: 58099
Summary: over-zealous Error pointer error checking in gfortran
4.8
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Bug ID: 58098
Summary: wrong return value of normal_distribution::min()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58095
--- Comment #3 from Siavash Eliasi ---
I did an experiment with using raw float data types instead of __m128 data
type. This time GCC, Clang and ICC were able to generate desired code, even
without using __restric__ keyword, but a little more dirt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57540
bin.cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #4 from bin.cheng ---
Sor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56102
bin.cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57825
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57255
Bug 57255 depends on bug 57825, which changed state.
Bug 57825 Summary: Template specialization for ref qualified member pointers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57825
What|Removed |Added
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57850
--- Comment #7 from Sharad Singhai ---
I looked at it and this issue seems related to handling of PCH files. The
following patch introduced it
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cp/decl2.c?r1=194363&r2=194362&pathrev=194363
When only a hea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57956
DJ Delorie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from DJ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56979
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 3 Aug 2013, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Although the compiler shouldn't ICE, it's arguable that passing over-aligned
> values by value to functions is not supportable (c11, f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57825
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
--- Comment #7 from Ben Woodard ---
Created attachment 30622
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30622&action=edit
Alexandre's patch as a file rather than as text.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
--- Comment #6 from Ben Woodard ---
I just rebuilt the trunk with the patch that Alexandre Oliva provided and I can
confirm that it solves the problem with notes about non-delegitimized
addresses.
However, I haven't yet tested the DWARF to make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58096
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Paul Pluzhnikov from comment #2)
> What is the way to turn it on?
Compiling test case with -mtls-dialect=gnu2 does appear to improve the picture:
g++ -fPIC -O2 -S t.cc -mtls-dialect=gnu2
__c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58034
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
> The relevant test case source:
>
> if (setjmp (jmpbuf))
> {
> puts ("Exiting main...");
> return 0;
> }
>
> spr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
As Andrew says, the problem with -mtls-dialect=gnu (the default) is lack of TLS
support. The tls_get_addr calls expanded by tls_global_dynamic_64_ are
not recognized by the corresponding insns because the c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58079
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #6 from Rafał Miłecki ---
OK, I've installed "cross-mips-linux-gcc" package from:
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/duwe:/crosstools/openSUSE_12.2/
and it works. After compiling test.c with:
> /opt/cross/bin/mips-linux-g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58079
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58096
Bug ID: 58096
Summary: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/attr-alias.c fails with r201439
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #18 from David Abdurachmanov
---
Tested the patch on top of final 4.8.1 Cortex-A9 NEON FPU. GCC no more ICE'ing
while compiling scipy.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58084
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-eabi |arm-none-eabi,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
Con il DECRETO-LEGGE 8 aprile 2013, n. 35
in cui il Consiglio dei Ministri anticipa i pagamenti alle P.A. e aiuti per le
famiglie,
Carrefour Spa ti consente di acquistare la carta Prepagata SpesAmica del valore
di 500 Euro
al prezzo di 100 Euro.
(80% rimborsato dal Ministero dello Sviluppo Econ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58088
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktkachov at gcc dot
g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #41 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, Martin!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58088
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Kyrylo, do you plan to work on this? If that's the case, please assign the bug
to yourself.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58095
--- Comment #2 from Siavash Eliasi ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >I've tried using __restrict__ keyword for input data (foo2),
>
> I think you want __restrict__ inside of the [].
Do you mind pasting the modified source code a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #5)
> I did. Please read what the C++ standard says about conversions. 4.7
> [conv.integral] paragraph 2 is a paraphrase of wording that has been in
> every C and C+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #39 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #38)
>> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #37)
>> this version fixes the warning:
> And I confirm that it still tests the bug. If you want to commit
> it yours
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35300
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46501
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #38 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #37)
> this version fixes the warning:
And I confirm that it still tests the bug. If you want to commit it
yourself, go ahead, otherwise let me now and I'll do it be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35300
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58095
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I've tried using __restrict__ keyword for input data (foo2),
I think you want __restrict__ inside of the [].
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson ---
I can't reproduce the wrong-code with 4.6.4. 4.7.2, or 4.8.1. They all
generate:
:
0: 24020002li v0,2
4: aca2sw v0,0(a1)
8: 24020004li v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #37 from Bernd Edlinger ---
this version fixes the warning:
--- ../gcc-4.9-20130728/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr58041.c 2013-08-02
20:59:38.0 +0200
+++ pr58041.c 2013-08-06 18:30:51.0 +0200
@@ -3,8 +3,6 @@
typed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57602
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57306
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Benson ---
Thanks for fixing!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
--- Comment #5 from Nick Maclaren ---
I did. Please read what the C++ standard says about conversions. 4.7
[conv.integral] paragraph 2 is a paraphrase of wording that has been in
every C and C++ compiler since C90, and states that all integers (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58095
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|siavashserver at gmail dot com |
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #36 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #35)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #34)
> by the way the initializer
> of "struct s a = "
> seems to generate warnings at -Wall, because some
> brackets a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #35 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #34)
> by the way the initializer of "struct s a = "
> seems to generate warnings at -Wall, because some brackets are missing:
>
> changed that to
> struct s a = {0,{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58095
Bug ID: 58095
Summary: SIMD code requiring auxiliary array for best
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #34 from Bernd Edlinger ---
by the way the initializer of "struct s a = "
seems to generate warnings at -Wall, because some brackets are missing:
changed that to
struct s a = {0,{{0,0},{0,0}}};
but somehow I wonder what forced us to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 30620
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30620&action=edit
ipa and tree dumps
-fdump-ipa-all -fdump-tree-all output file attached in gzipped tar file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #2)
> All values of int can be
> represented in unsigned long in any conforming implementation.
Except the negative ones!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #2)
> I have no idea why you think that it is a narrowing conversion.
Please read the definition of a narrowing conversion in C++11, at 8.5.4
[dcl.init.list] p7. What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #33 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #31)
> I can't reproduce this with the -m32 flag on my x86_64... do
> you still have the compiler built on an i686? If so, could you try and make
> function foo stati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
--- Comment #2 from Nick Maclaren ---
I have no idea why you think that it is a narrowing conversion. The
references I gave have been essentially unchanged since C90, and there
is required to be no loss of information. All values of int can be
r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #32 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Aug 6 15:08:59 2013
New Revision: 201530
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=201530&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-08-06 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/58041
* gimple-ssa-str
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #31 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #30)
> Hi Martin,
>
> I have bootstrapped this patch for i686-pc-linux-gnu and have
> seen some "excess errors" in your test script:
>
> /home/ed/gnu/gcc-4.9-2013072
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #4 from Rafał Miłecki ---
Created attachment 30619
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30619&action=edit
test.i generated by adding -save-temps
Hi Mikael!
I added -save-temps at the end of my "mipsel-openwrt-linux-ucl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #30 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hi Martin,
I have bootstrapped this patch for i686-pc-linux-gnu and have
seen some "excess errors" in your test script:
/home/ed/gnu/gcc-4.9-20130728/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr58041.c: In
function 'fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am not able to reproduce those on gcc110.fsffrance.org. Would be possible to
have -fdump-ipa-all -fdump-tree-all dumps of the devirt testcase? I think both
are related to fast that ipa-prop is not propagatin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
Bug ID: 58094
Summary: [4.9 Regression] IPA devirt testsuite errors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Please attach the pre-processed test.i (gcc -E or -save-temps).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57987
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
Bug ID: 58093
Summary: Semi-bogus warning about narrowing conversions and
variadic templates
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58014
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Introduced in r197845:
2013-04-12 Richard Biener
* gimple.c (is_gimple_constant): Vector CONSTRUCTORs should
not be considered a gimple constant.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #2 from Rafał Miłecki ---
### Decompiled object ###
:
0: 24020002li v0,2
4: 24030004li v1,4
8: aca2sw v0,0(a1)
c: 10830002beq a0,v1,18
10: 240200
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58091
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Generally speaking, this is a basic C++ issue, doesn't have to do with the
recent constexpr, and normally icc is very solid about those. Remember there
are also DRs, besides the published Standards. At the mom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #1 from Rafał Miłecki ---
Created attachment 30618
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30618&action=edit
Compiled version of test.c
Command I use to compile test.c:
mipsel-openwrt-linux-uclibc-gcc \
-I arch/mips/inclu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
Bug ID: 58092
Summary: BEQ (Branch on equal) jumps to wrong address (executes
conditional code!)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58091
--- Comment #2 from fimbul77 at gmail dot com ---
3.4 Name lookup
The name lookup rules apply uniformly to all names (including typedef-names
(7.1.3), namespace-names (7.3), and class-names (9.1)) wherever the grammar
allows such names in the conte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58091
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
However current ICC agrees with GCC. We may have something in Bugzilla.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #16)
> > and also the patches from comment 8 and 10 don't help here.
>
> ... but the following does:
... without any testsuite failures, btw.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Barkov ---
Any updates? Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #15)
> and also the patches from comment 8 and 10 don't help here.
... but the following does:
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57959
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another test case related to comment 12 (from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-08/msg00015.html):
integer, target :: tgt
type t2
end type t2
type(t2), target :: tgt2
type t
class(*), pointer :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58088
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Well, for (i * 2) & 128 the BIT_AND_EXPR case doesn't do anything, but then we
get into BIT_IOR_EXPR case, here the "Canonicalize (X & C1) | C2." code changes
that into (i * 2) & 255, then in BIT_AND_EXPR we d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40523
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Test case from PR 57306 comment 7 (see also
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-07/msg00103.html):
type :: c
end type c
type(c), target :: x
class(c), pointer :: px => x
if (.not. assoc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58088
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> Another testcases:
>
> int
> bar (int i)
> {
> return 1 | ((i * 2) & 254);
> }
>
> int
> foo (int i)
> {
> return 1 | ((i * 2) & 255);
> }
This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57306
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57306
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Aug 6 08:20:17 2013
New Revision: 201521
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=201521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-08-06 Janus Weil
PR fortran/57306
* class.c (gfc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58088
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Another testcases:
int
bar (int i)
{
return 1 | ((i * 2) & 254);
}
int
foo (int i)
{
return 1 | ((i * 2) & 255);
}
85 matches
Mail list logo
