https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64059
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63965
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64065
Bug ID: 64065
Summary: [5 Regression] CP2K miscompilation at -O3 -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63986
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #10)
> Author: olegendo
> Date: Sat Nov 22 15:06:34 2014
> New Revision: 217968
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217968&root=gcc&view=rev
Hm, I think the patch is mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
Misty De Meo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||misty at brew dot sh
--- Comment #15 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63920
--- Comment #2 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Tue Nov 25 05:43:04 2014
New Revision: 218037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/63920
* include/bits/regex_executor.h: Make _M_begin non
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64063
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The current handling of the following is still wrong (rejects-valid)
independent of DR 1665. It should compile because it can only refer to the
template:
template
struct S
{
void foo(int);
template voi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46967
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64059
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64063
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63524
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62178
--- Comment #5 from bin.cheng ---
Now I think the patch proposed isn't good enough. I am revisiting the
implementation to see if I can improve the existing algorithm, rather than just
adding another heuristic pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64057
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Ulmer ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> > Let me know if you need more info
>
> We need a testcase that fails with GCC 4.8 or GCC 4.9 since xsinfo is built
> by the base compiler.
The base compiler and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64064
Bug ID: 64064
Summary: basic_filebuf seekoff return value is unusable for
files opened in text mode on Windows
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64061
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64063
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Apparently EDG instantiates the member function template, which is not what I
wanted:
template
struct S
{
void foo(int) { }
template void foo(U); // undefined
};
template void S::foo(int); // XXX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15272
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Paolo, did you manage to make any progress on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64057
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64063
Bug ID: 64063
Summary: Incorrect "ambiguous template specialization" error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63938
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 24 23:08:26 2014
New Revision: 218031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/63938
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_atomic): Make sur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64055
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Revision r217101 is OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64020
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> [would it be even better to optimize this to just a sin (2 * theta) ?]
Only with -funsafe-math-optimizations (it's unsafe for large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #10 from Jiong Wang ---
Finished a further investigation, looks like the simplest fix to genrate
optimized code for case A is to add one more optimization case in
"eliminate_regs_in_insn".
currently we only optimize "eliminate_reg +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64062
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Steve from comment #4)
> Would this be considered a bug in glibc and should I report it to them?
It is an user error, not a glibc issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64062
--- Comment #4 from Steve ---
On 11/24/2014 02:03 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64062
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64047
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64062
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64062
--- Comment #2 from Steve ---
Created attachment 34107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34107&action=edit
terminal output from gcc -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64062
--- Comment #1 from Steve ---
Created attachment 34106
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34106&action=edit
.i file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64062
Bug ID: 64062
Summary: AVX Segfaults
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63847
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63847
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Nov 24 21:43:59 2014
New Revision: 218030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/63847
* c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/builtin_fn_cus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Here is the related discussion:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ia32-abi/9H4BBrIdkmk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63970
--- Comment #6 from wmi at google dot com ---
The patch was committed to trunk at r217973.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
This may fail on all targets where WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS isn't defined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
--- Comment #16 from Pranith Kumar ---
This is not a good use case(it is a bit twisted, invalid too maybe?), but when
I try to read the stack without aliasing, the volatile write which I performed
is not visible.
#include
#include
#include
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63965
--- Comment #13 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Nov 24 19:27:29 2014
New Revision: 218028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-24 Michael Meissner
PR target/63965
* config/rs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61294
carlos at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63593
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
It appears this is a predcom bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64061
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63965
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Michael
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64061
Bug ID: 64061
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: in gen_rtx_SUBREG, at
emit-rtl.c:894 with -O2 -g -fno-dce -fno-tree-dce
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63757
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
--- Comment #14 from Rohit ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #13)
> (In reply to Rohit from comment #12)
> > Created attachment 34100 [details]
> > Proposed patch
>
> > Can you please test the attached patch?
>
> In this case you could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63593
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64059
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Breakpoint 1, ipa_polymorphic_call_context::get_dynamic_type
(this=0x7fffdb90, instance=0x77271678, otr_object=0x77271678,
otr_type=0x773dd1f8,
call=0x773e4ab0) at ../../gcc/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64025
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This breaks because find_base_term is confused by what ix86_find_base_term
> (which calls ix86_delegitimize_address) returns, namely the
> (something - symbol_ref (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63965
--- Comment #11 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Nov 24 18:58:40 2014
New Revision: 218027
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218027&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-24 Michael Meissner
PR target/63965
* config/rs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64025
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Just to explain more why the strcpy.c testcase breaks.
During postreload cse, we have:
(insn 63 61 70 5 (set (mem/c:QI (plus:SI (reg:SI 5 di [87])
(const:SI (plus:SI (unspec:SI [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64060
Bug ID: 64060
Summary: [5 Regression] r218009 caused FAIL:
g++.dg/ipa/devirt-42.C
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64025
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* |
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
It also happ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63671
--- Comment #17 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #16)
> The ICE will probably go away with
> Index: ipa-prop.c
> ===
> --- ipa-prop.c (revision 217
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64059
Bug ID: 64059
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault in
ipa-polymorphic-call.c:1593
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64054
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Doh, so it is, I misread the test code.
Rainer, what does this print (when compiled with -std=c++11)?
#include
#include
int main()
{
auto d = std::stod("0x1.1p+8");
printf("%f %a\n", d,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63718
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #15 from vri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Created attachment 34103
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34103&action=edit
"bad" dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Created attachment 34102
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34102&action=edit
"good" dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
Bug ID: 64058
Summary: Performance degradation after r216304
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63970
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63657
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63658
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63135
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62117
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to fail|4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61294
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63965
--- Comment #10 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #6)
> Author: meissner
> Date: Fri Nov 21 18:03:09 2014
> New Revision: 217940
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217940&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2014-11-21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64054
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
6 is the output from "cout << os.precision() << endl;", not the value of d.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rohit from comment #12)
> Created attachment 34100 [details]
> Proposed patch
> Can you please test the attached patch?
In this case you could test just by building a cc1 for powerpc-apple-darwi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61527
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61294
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63671
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
The ICE will probably go away with
Index: ipa-prop.c
===
--- ipa-prop.c (revision 217980)
+++ ipa-prop.c (working copy)
@@ -2155,7 +2155,7 @@ i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #23 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63671
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
The performance regression seems solved on my setup (Trevor, can you double
check?).
-Ofast -fdevirtualize:
Time spent in iteration: 4.11598
-Ofast -fno-devirtualize
Time spent in iteration: 4.17063
-Ofast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
It was caused by r215898.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63671
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> Author: hubicka
> Date: Mon Nov 24 16:15:46 2014
> New Revision: 218024
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218024&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
--- Comment #12 from Rohit ---
Created attachment 34100
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34100&action=edit
Proposed patch
Francois,
Can you please test the attached patch?
2014-11-24 Rohit
[gcc]
PR bootstrap/63703
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64024
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Usually it is only that which is hard to recompute, the base is pretty much
stable. But of course you never know. You could also simply add
a vec to the stmt vinfo struct ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64024
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > Generally calling SCEV analysis again during the transform phase asks for
> > trouble
> > (though it may work in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64051
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Pierre Ossman from comment #6)
> Just to make sure I understand you perfectly. This is not supported:
>
> ../configure --build=A --host=B --target=B
By itself yes this is not supported.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64054
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Weird. Somehow the double variable 'd' is getting set to 6 after it is
(correctly) written to the stream, so converting "0x1.1p+8" back to
a double doesn't compare equal to it, because 272. != 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64024
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Generally calling SCEV analysis again during the transform phase asks for
> trouble
> (though it may work in most cases). This means that the simple_iv calls
>
1 - 100 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
