https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63995
--- Comment #11 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Tue Dec 9 07:53:17 2014
New Revision: 218506
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218506&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR bootstrap/63995
* tree-chkp.c (chkp_ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55351
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes it was. Thanks for fixing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63347
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Larmour ---
I have also now submitted bug 64233 which is about a different testcase which
also gets misoptimised. This may or may not be related, but could well be since
-fschedule-insns is what makes a difference, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64233
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Larmour ---
Created attachment 34228
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34228&action=edit
Annotated partial disassembly of main() in testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64233
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Larmour ---
Created attachment 34227
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34227&action=edit
h2.c source code used to support build of h1.c testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64233
Bug ID: 64233
Summary: [m68k coldfire] Another misoptimisation with
-fschedule-insns
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64204
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Dec 9 03:56:28 2014
New Revision: 218505
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218505&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-08 Michael Meissner
PR target/64204
* config/rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #4 from Sandra Loosemore ---
In case it's also relevant, my GCC was configured with:
Configured with: /scratch/sandra/aarch64-fsf/src/gcc-mainline/configure
--build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=aarch64-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #3 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Created attachment 34225
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34225&action=edit
preprocessor output (gzipped)
Preprocessor output attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64185
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to zaz from comment #4)
> > > this:
> > > struct PascalString
> > > {
> > > int length;
> > > char data[0];
> > > };
> > > And then just allocate necessary memory block and able access to someth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64185
--- Comment #4 from zaz at ua7 dot net ---
> > this:
> > struct PascalString
> > {
> > int length;
> > char data[0];
> > };
> > And then just allocate necessary memory block and able access to something
> > like:
> > ps.data[100] - if allocate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63801
Ryan Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64232
Bug ID: 64232
Summary: Derived class with implicitly declared assignment
operator is std::assignable though base class is not
std::assignable
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Hopefully this is enough info to track it down?
We need the preprocessed source really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I was able to build glibc just with Friday's GCC sources with glibc as of
Friday too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
Bug ID: 64231
Summary: SIGSEGV building glibc on aarch64-linux-gnu from
r217852
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
--- Comment #5 from Cameron Tacklind ---
Pardon my brevity. Yes, I'd seen that.
I was trying to comment on this list seemingly missing a reference to that
particular difference. Or that if it is listed, it is difficult to find.
https://gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.2/cpp/System-specific-Predefined-
> Macros.html#System-specific-Predefined-Macros
When the -ansi option, or any -std optio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.2/cpp/System-specific-Predefined-Macros.html#System-specific-Predefined-Macros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
--- Comment #2 from Cameron Tacklind ---
Ah, I had not seen a reference to the -std making a difference. You are right
that adding -std=c99 removes the extra define.
Of note, I'm finding it difficult to find where this behavior (the define being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64185
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to zaz from comment #2)
> But this is deliberate out-of-bands. IE in this test application searchDict2
> lookup all KV fields in dict structure in loop based on kv1 offset:
> kv1 + 0 - this is point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64185
--- Comment #2 from zaz at ua7 dot net ---
But this is deliberate out-of-bands. IE in this test application searchDict2
lookup all KV fields in dict structure in loop based on kv1 offset:
kv1 + 0 - this is pointer to kv1
kv1 + 1 - this is pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64224
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Might be better to just deprecate -mapcs; it's a feature of the old ABI anyway,
so there's not much point in trying to make it fully conform to the latest
specs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Mon Dec 8 23:47:39 2014
New Revision: 218497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218497&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64226
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_secondary_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60561
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Related to, if not duplicate, of pr54070.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ondrej.certik at gmail dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64229
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60782
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard ---
Author: mark
Date: Mon Dec 8 22:32:23 2014
New Revision: 218496
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218496&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DWARFv5 Emit DW_TAG_atomic_type for C11 _Atomic.
This implements the DW_TA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61692
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Dec 8 21:58:23 2014
New Revision: 218494
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61692
* cfgexpand.c (expand_asm_operands): Count all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64230
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51891
--- Comment #2 from Larry Campbell ---
Is anyone going to fix this? It is quite debilitating and there is no good
workaround. Prior to gcc 4.6 one could include
objc/deprecated/struct_objc_class.h and inspect ivar_list yourself before
calling cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #48 from Alexander Varnin ---
Created attachment 34224
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34224&action=edit
config.log for compiler with the bug
Here is my config.log from cross compiler build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510
--- Comment #4 from Tavian Barnes ---
I have a testing tool that automatically inserts operator new failures, to help
test exception safety and check for leaks. This bug causes all kinds of
spurious failures that I have to work around, since any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64230
Bug ID: 64230
Summary: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference in a
compiler-generated finalizer for a complicated type
hierarchy when a polymorphic variable is allocated in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
--- Comment #19 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This patch caused PR64213.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
--- Comment #27 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Dec 8 19:31:45 2014
New Revision: 218490
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218490&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/63854: Introduce xstrdup_for_dump
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR jit/63
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64229
Bug ID: 64229
Summary: internal compiler error when assigning allocatable
arrays of character(:)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 34221
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34221&action=edit
Somewhat reduced testcase
Somewhat reduced, still over 1000 lines of code.
trippels@gcc20 boost_root % g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64198
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63578
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64228
Bug ID: 64228
Summary: compile error not accurate expected ; before string
constant
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61022
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
--- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk ---
Ah, GCC does not treat format(printf) and format(__printf__) as equivalent, and
the built-in declaration uses format(printf). With custom functions, two
warnings can also be generated:
int myprintf (const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Dec 8 18:30:15 2014
New Revision: 218487
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218487&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-08 Bernd Edlinger
PR ipa/64049
* ipa-poly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61971
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63996
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64073
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64095
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64198
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Dec 8 18:05:30 2014
New Revision: 218485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218485&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64198
compiler: Don't crash on invalid ++.
Modified:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62212
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64171
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64169
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64178
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63989
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34220
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34220&action=edit
gcc5-pr63989-wip1.patch
So, for start, this untested patch deals with #c1 f1 case. Still need to
extend handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Expanding x * x (or any such multiplication) to a call to pow is
inherently dubious because the semantics of multiplication never include
clobbering errno, though maybe it's OK with -funsaf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maxim.yegorushkin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64085
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, harald at gigawatt dot nl wrote:
> I do not know if the problem is in the headers (that they should not be
> specifying the format attribute), or in GCC (that it should b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64227
Bug ID: 64227
Summary: Forwarding an argument of a function template to a
generic lambda causes a compiler crash
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59491
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Looks useful.
Lots of time has elapsed, but I checked a recent Linux kernel and it would find
about three bugs.
I also checked about 9,500 packages of Fedora
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
Uli mentioned in private email:
"I think the piece of code quoted above from rs6000_secondary_reload_inner
is wrong; it should not call create_TOC_reference unconditionally.
"Other places that use TOC-rela
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 34219
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34219&action=edit
Work-in-progress patch to fix this
The attached patch implements the ideas we talked about (needs some comments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
Bug ID: 64226
Summary: Secondary reload incorrect TOC address
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
> fold-const.c has a comment in the relevant case that says:
> /* Canonicalize x*x as pow(x,2.0), which is expanded as x*x. */
I think this comment is mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #47 from Damien Buhl (daminetreg)
---
So our GCC with the problem has been configured and built by yocto-poky the
following way :
```
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=arm-poky-linux-gnueabi-gcc-4.8.1
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
fold-const.c has a comment in the relevant case that says:
/* Canonicalize x*x as pow(x,2.0), which is expanded as x*x. */
So we should look at why is it not being expanded as such unless
-fno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #5 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've seen similar behavior on an HPC benchmark I was looking at.
The problem here is the interaction between fold-const.c, other passes, and
-fmath-errno.
Take this testcase:
void
foo (doub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Add -fno-math-errno removes the call to pow. We've seen similar issues before
with other math builtins. The problem is that the midend/frontend generates the
pow call without remembering that by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #1 from Bernard Ogden ---
Created attachment 34218
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34218&action=edit
-v output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
Bug ID: 64225
Summary: -funsafe-math-optimizations generates call to pow
where multiply instruction would do
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64224
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64224
Bug ID: 64224
Summary: [ARM] -mapcs -marm uses deprecated forms (as of
ARMv7-A) of LDM in epilogues
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > It also seems that DCE cannot remove the empty loop with the clobber,
> > because
> > it's marked useful and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> The tree-vect-stmts.c change is fine of cours
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The tree-vect-stmts.c change is fine of course. As for loops not being DCEd if
they have only clobbers in them that preclude that, isn't that optimized away
by RTL optimizers anyway? Or perhaps we could do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> It also seems that DCE cannot remove the empty loop with the clobber, because
> it's marked useful and thus its SSA requirements are marked useful (we
> explici
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, I'm afraid it is a bad idea, you'll get rid of too many clobbers and they
are really desirable, both for DSE, expansion etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I thought we've added handling of gimple_clobber_p in 4.9 -
> vect_determine_vectorization_factor / vect_analyze_loop_operations /
> vect_transform_loop should i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It also seems that DCE cannot remove the empty loop with the clobber, because
it's marked useful and thus its SSA requirements are marked useful (we
explicitely exclude the VDEF but _not_ the SSA uses on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64208
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64193
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
