https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61931
--- Comment #2 from Ishiura Lab Compiler Team ---
We are sorry for having reported an error program with undefined behavior.
We have redone minimization. The resulting program is as follows.
$ cat test.c
int a = 1;
int b = 0;
int c = 1;
int d =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58623
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Evandro,
There is specific PR for this issue. But as we know, fwprop often corrupts
optimizations on address expression, for below example:
add rb, r1, r2
ldr rx, [rb]
add rb, rb, #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62178
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62178
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Dec 18 02:53:42 2014
New Revision: 218855
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218855&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/62178
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63851
--- Comment #10 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> Results with the patch in comment 5 at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg02164.html.
>
> Note that the test gfortran.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64347
Bug ID: 64347
Summary: constructor priorities are not supported in avr-gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
--- Comment #3 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For AutoFDO, we actually needs symbols from the symbol table because indirect
call promotion needs the symbol name to find the right callee.
You are right, ICF also causes trouble to AutoFDO profil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>_ZN3ABCC4Ev
That is the internal name of the function (it demangles to ABC::ABC() anyways)
and the symbol does not need to be in the symbol table at all.
We are going to run into this more with ICF also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64157
tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64047
tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
Bug ID: 64346
Summary: gcc generates incorrect debug info for ctor/dtor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #83 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #71)
>
> * The RTL pass does the treg combine only when there is a conditional
> branch. It should also handle conditional move insns (-mpretend-cmove).
>
It does now. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #82 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Dec 17 23:08:14 2014
New Revision: 218850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218850&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh_treg_combine.cc (is_conditiona
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > Looking at the generated assembly, I see there:
> > movw%di, -80(%rbp)
> > vpbroadcastw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #30 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #29)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #28)
> > Assuming fixed.
>
> builtin-arith-overflow-14/17 are fixed with the patch, but
> builtin-arith-overflow-1/10/11 stil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #81 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Dec 17 22:52:21 2014
New Revision: 218847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh_treg_combine.cc (sh_treg_combi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64345
Bug ID: 64345
Summary: [SH] Improve single bit extraction
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61265
--- Comment #3 from Chris Manghane ---
Sorry for the noise, responding with new information as I discover it.
The above patch doesn't really work (it fails a few tests) because this isn't a
problem with zero-sized array types, but rather a probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39570
Kai-Uwe Eckhardt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kuehro at gmx dot de
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #13 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Looking at the generated assembly, I see there:
> movw%di, -80(%rbp)
> vpbroadcastw-80(%rbp), %ymm1
> vmovdqa %ymm1, -80(%rbp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63851
--- Comment #9 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> Results with the patch in comment 5 at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg02164.html.
>
> Note that the test gfortran.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've just fixed the problem reported by H.J.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Dec 17 21:12:42 2014
New Revision: 218834
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218834&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-17 Janus Weil
PR fortran/64173
* trans-array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53987
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
It seems that converting unsigned values to signed values, i.e. replacing
zero-extensions with sign-extensions and recombining sign-extensions with loads
could make sense in general.
For example, the following c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64333
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64333
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 17 20:41:18 2014
New Revision: 218832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64333
* constexpr.c (cxx_bind_parameters_in_call): non_cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||valeryweber at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61952
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Thank you for the missing externally visible attribute.
>
> I've been testing following patch:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf.c b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
> index b193200..0685019 100644
> --- a/gcc/ipa-icf.c
> +++ b/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61263
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you for the missing externally visible attribute.
I've been testing following patch:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf.c b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
index b193200..0685019 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-icf.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64011
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61265
--- Comment #2 from Chris Manghane ---
A slightly smaller program can reproduce this as well:
package main
var a = [1][0]int{B}[0]
var B = [0]int{}
func main() {}
This error occurs because in Gcc_backend::fill_in_array, the type of B, [0]int,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64344
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64325
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64343
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64344
Bug ID: 64344
Summary: [5 Regression] [UBSAN] ICE with
-fsanitize=float-cast-overflow [ICE in
-fsanitize=float-cast-overflow]
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64343
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is intended change. Compiling with -O0 -flto and linking with -O3 will not
really give you -O3 optimized code in earlier compilers either; you will not
get any of early optimizations and inlining will not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64343
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64343
Bug ID: 64343
Summary: [5 Regression] lto compile options
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
Bug ID: 64342
Summary: [5 Regression] Tests failing when compiled with '-m32
-fpic' after r216154.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63908
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Olivier Hainque referred to having a 4.9 version of his patch, I suggest
you ask him.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63336
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64341
Bug ID: 64341
Summary: [5 regression] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at
expr.c:7718
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64341
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64331
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Is it just REG_USED/REG_DEAD notes, or is register liveliness
> (df_regs_ever_live_p etc..) also not guaranteed to be up to date?
These REG_UNUSED/REG_DEAD notes are special because they are not maintained
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64010
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64010
--- Comment #13 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Since this has been in mainline for two weeks without reported issues, and it
should in general be a safe change, I've backported the patch to 4.9 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64010
--- Comment #12 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Wed Dec 17 15:07:28 2014
New Revision: 218821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218821&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-17 Ulrich Weigand
Backport from mainline
2014-12-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This breaks ada: ...
It is now pr64340.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, is
> this fix acceptable to the reporter?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #16 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Dec 17 14:22:57 2014
New Revision: 218818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218818&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add -malign-data={abi|compat|cachineline}
Add -malign-data={abi|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043#c11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
Bug ID: 64340
Summary: [5 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/lto8.adb (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63851
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Results with the patch in comment 5 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg02164.html.
Note that the test gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_10.f90 fails at run time when
compiled with '-O2 -funro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64254
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64336
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yes, this patch seems to work...
But why did this only cause problems with template expansions and nothing else
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48026
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64339
Bug ID: 64339
Summary: reject unsafe options in pragma GCC optimize
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, is this fix acceptable to the reporter? The explanation in the combiner is
that in the first testcase you have multiple uses of the load of 0x1L
constant and therefore it is not attempted to be c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64328
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64328
--- Comment #4 from Tejas Belagod ---
Author: belagod
Date: Wed Dec 17 12:15:36 2014
New Revision: 218817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/64328
* gcc.dg/addr_equal-1.c: Not supported for -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #12 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #11)
> (In reply to thopre01 from comment #10)
> >
> > I have the same gimple and for me the bswap is correctly detected. Can you
> > break at find_bswap_or_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Dec 17 11:48:33 2014
New Revision: 218816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218816&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/63568
* match.pd: Add (x & ~m) | (y & m) -> ((x ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier ---
The regression starts from this commit:
trunk@200103
commit f82f0ea592c2d78077e03f5a1a3b9b40751cc116
Author: law
Date: Fri Jun 14 18:52:32 2013 +
* gimple.h (gimple_can_coalesce_p): Prototy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62642
--- Comment #5 from M8R-ynb11d at mailinator dot com ---
I originally put the barriers there in a futile attempt to work around the bug.
Can anyone tell me whether I actually need them, or whether the intrinsic
carries with it an implicit built-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
Bug ID: 64338
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE in swap_condition, at jump.c:628
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64303
--- Comment #2 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Dec 17 10:27:21 2014
New Revision: 218814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-17 Tim Shen
PR libstdc++/64302
PR libstdc++/64303
Bac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64302
--- Comment #2 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Dec 17 10:27:21 2014
New Revision: 218814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-17 Tim Shen
PR libstdc++/64302
PR libstdc++/64303
Bac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64337
Dmitry Vyukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at google dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64337
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Bartosiewicz ---
There is a very similar bug report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57507
but the code from that one does not trigger a warning with gcc 4.9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64337
Bug ID: 64337
Summary: ThreadSanitizer: std::thread + lambda false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64336
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 17 09:29:12 2014
New Revision: 218812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64322
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_from_binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64289
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 17 09:26:49 2014
New Revision: 218811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218811&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/64289
* c-convert.c: Include ubsan.h.
(convert):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64303
--- Comment #1 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Dec 17 09:25:44 2014
New Revision: 218810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64302
PR libstdc++/64303
* include/bits/regex.h (mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64302
--- Comment #1 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Dec 17 09:25:44 2014
New Revision: 218810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64302
PR libstdc++/64303
* include/bits/regex.h (mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64336
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
hmm...
in this example at tsan.c, instrument_expr()
is exiting twice here:
if (TREE_READONLY (base)
|| (TREE_CODE (base) == VAR_DECL
&& DECL_HARD_REGISTER (base)))
return false;
be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at the generated assembly, I see there:
movw%di, -80(%rbp)
vpbroadcastw-80(%rbp), %ymm1
vmovdqa %ymm1, -80(%rbp)
I'd have expected
vmovd %edi, %xmm1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63637
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
97 matches
Mail list logo
