https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62016
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Seems to be fine with GCC 5:
[jh@gcc2-power8 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B ./ -O3 t.c -Q
fn1 fn2 main
Analyzing compilation unit
Performing interprocedural optimizations
<*free_lang_data>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61525
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61933
--- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele
---
Hi Jerry,
thanks for the fix, but this seems to break code to find a free unit, like
such:
MODULE M
CONTAINS
FUNCTION get_unit_number(file_name) RESULT(unit_number)
CHARACTER(LEN=*), INTENT(IN)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64610
--- Comment #1 from Chengnian Sun ---
I have another test case, for which either -Wtype-limits or -Wbool-compare does
not warn.
$: cat s.c
void f(int b) {
(b == 1) >= 0UL;
}
$:
$: gcc-trunk -Wtype-limits -Wbool-compare -c s.c
$:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64325
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
--- Comment #34 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Whee, fun, finally getting a chance to investigate this BZ. Namely why does
canonicalization of equivalences in DOM effect correctness of jump threading.
BB12 is what's interesting here. It's the head of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64625
--- Comment #1 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Current gcc trunk on x86_64 Fedora 15 produces...
$ nm e.50.1.o | grep OFF
w __OFFLOAD_TABLE__
for the same testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Wonder if this one is fixed, too...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64378
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Jan 16 04:45:53 2015
New Revision: 219705
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219705&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/62053
* tree.c (build_cplus_array_type): La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64378
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
The bug is that ipa-cp disagrees about ipa-prop whether the call is speculative
or not. I am testing:
Index: ipa-prop.c
===
--- ipa-prop.c (revi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64481
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
excess errors of the form...
spawn /sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc-5-20150115/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/examples-4/e.50.1.c
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64624
Bug ID: 64624
Summary: ppc64 build failure, ISA_2_7_MASKS_SERVER not declared
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64622
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64622
Bug ID: 64622
Summary: convoluted loop codegen for __strcspn_c1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64621
Bug ID: 64621
Summary: MIssed tail call oppurtunity
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64620
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64620
Bug ID: 64620
Summary: Missing changes from libffi upstream
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libffi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59710
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Fri Jan 16 00:43:24 2015
New Revision: 219700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Sandra Loosemore
PR target/59710
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64619
Bug ID: 64619
Summary: No -Wsign-conversion warning
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64572
--- Comment #26 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #25)
Thanks for applying the fix to trunk. FYI, the current state of libffi head on
x86_64-apple-darwin14 is described in...
https://sourceware.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 15 23:11:49 2015
New Revision: 219696
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219696&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/64612
* ipa-inline-transform.c (can_remove_node_now_p): Fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64583
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64618
Bug ID: 64618
Summary: Missing GCC changes in libffi
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libffi
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64601
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Actually there is no need for inlining.
struct A { int i; };
void f(struct A *a){ *&a->i=0; }
void g(struct A *a){ int*p=&a->i;*p=0; }
The main difference seems to be that the first one gets through fold-cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63283
--- Comment #3 from roc at ocallahan dot org ---
Thanks!!!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64581
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64583
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
> In the testcase the symbol in question seems to be optimized out because it
> is comdat and unused. That looks valid. Does possibly fix for PR64612 help
> he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63283
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 63283, which changed state.
Bug 63283 Summary: constexpr function called by templated function is not
treated as constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63283
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64607
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64583
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Oops, wrong if
Index: ipa-inline-transform.c
===
--- ipa-inline-transform.c (revision 219674)
+++ ipa-inline-transform.c (working copy)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am testing
Index: ipa-inline-transform.c
===
--- ipa-inline-transform.c (revision 219674)
+++ ipa-inline-transform.c (working copy)
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59366
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 15 21:02:15 2015
New Revision: 219689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219689&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59366
* name-lookup.c (pushdecl_maybe_friend_1): Hide frien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64572
--- Comment #25 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 15 21:01:21 2015
New Revision: 219688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libffi/64572
* include/ffi.h.in (FFI_TYPE_LAST): Set to COM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64572
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #24 from Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64356
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 15 20:46:09 2015
New Revision: 219687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64356
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_binary_expression): Fix pasto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63283
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 15 20:46:03 2015
New Revision: 219686
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219686&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63283
* constexpr.c (potential_constant_expression_1): Hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63755
--- Comment #2 from camden lindsay ---
Failure does not appear to occur with gcc-4.8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #18 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Jan 15 20:26:19 2015
New Revision: 219683
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219683&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/64110
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Seems like dup of PR64583
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64603
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Further reduced test case:
template constexpr int find_longest_name()
{
return sizeof("Main") - 1;
}
template ()> void create_all_loggers()
{}
int main()
{
create_all_loggers<1>();
}
$ g+
-1000/gcc-5-20150115/libffi/testsuite/config/default.exp
as tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc-5-20150115/libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/call.exp
...
Running
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc-5-20150115/libffi/testsuite/libffi.complex/comple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64601
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It's indeed that GCC only sees int accesses based on w and v and thus has to
> consider they might alias.
>
> TBAA cannot be strengthened easily here because the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63755
camden lindsay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||camden.lindsay at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #8)
> The ICE is in the wide-int bit_and code when trying to process the rtx:
>
> (and:SI
> (const_int 4294963215 [0xf00f])
> (const_int 4111 [0x100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64572
--- Comment #22 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
I did a quick and dirty test in the i386/libffi build directory of rebuilding
and rerunning make check as I reverted each source file and header being
compiled on darwin to the pre-r184997 c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Part of the patch in comment #16 was committed as r219676 for PR 58023.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63870
--- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm doing some of the ARM work atm, but not sure how far I'll get before stage
4 starts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:28:02 2015
New Revision: 219676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Janus Weil
PR fortran/58023
* resolve.c (
ran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150115 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions:
r219632 - ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971
--- Comment #6 from Tejas Belagod ---
Author: belagod
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:17:23 2015
New Revision: 219674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Tejas Belagod
PR target/63971
* gcc.target/aarch6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64314
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, I do not see how target expr can work here.
The assert simply tests that in constructor all variables are wrapped within
ADDR_EXPR as taking an address of variable is the only way gimplified ctor can
reffe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
Bug ID: 64616
Summary: Redundant ldr when accessing var inside and outside a
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64365
--- Comment #9 from Cong Hou ---
Thanks for the fix, Richard!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
--- Comment #7 from Joel Sherrill ---
DJ.. do you think the patch from Bernd can be applied to the 4.9 branch? and
maybe the head?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64360
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64360
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:03:20 2015
New Revision: 219673
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219673&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make test2/test1 static in libitm.c/stackundo.c
libitm.c/stackundo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64615
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 34457
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34457&action=edit
complete test case
member functions
are accessible, however the non-default ctor is not, g++ complains that it's
protected.
g++ 4.9 and 5.0 (20150115) give the same error messages.
cmdline:
g++-5.0.0 -Wall -std=c++11 20150115-using_base_ctor.cpp
8<---8<---8<---8<---
class B
{
protected:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11814
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvoosten at bankai dot nl
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64068
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64068
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 15 17:29:23 2015
New Revision: 219672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix for PR64068 and PR64559.
* g++.dg/ipa/pr64068.C: New test.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64614
Dr. David Alan Gilbert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bogus used initialized |bogus used initialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64559
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 15 17:29:23 2015
New Revision: 219672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix for PR64068 and PR64559.
* g++.dg/ipa/pr64068.C: New test.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64068
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 34456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34456&action=edit
Fix with new 2 testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
camden lindsay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||camden.lindsay at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64068
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm that the patch can compile all Chromium source files
(unfortunately I hit another issued during LINK phase: PR64583).
Apart from that, both testcases from this issue and PR64559 work (I prepared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64614
--- Comment #2 from Dr. David Alan Gilbert ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> We have tons of these -W*uninitialized bugs, so there's likely a dup.
Yep, it's possible - I couldn't find an obvious match; but two things to note
that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #14 from Tejas Belagod ---
Also, I'm unable to build x-gcc with glibc at
1400983e04d7b4b5a92db79ab27b0d0ec7d8bdef due to an error:
bin-trunk-linux/obj/glibc/intl/hash-string.os
plural.c:182:5: error: conflicting types for ‘__gettext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64614
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611
--- Comment #3 from J. van Oosten ---
Yes, that works. Surprising simple solution, but I'm still wondering if this is
a bug or a feature
Thanks for the reply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64614
Bug ID: 64614
Summary: bogus used initialized warning (in gcc 4.9.2 not in
4.8.3); switch statement versus &
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63704
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 15 16:02:28 2015
New Revision: 219663
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219663&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-11-27 Richard Biener
PR middl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63704
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 15 16:03:05 2015
New Revision: 219664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-11-27 Richard Biener
PR middl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64605
Ilya Verbin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iverbin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #9 from Joel Sherrill ---
I don't build with checking enabled.
The normal recommended configuration for an RTEMS toolchain is long since we
build newlib at the same time and have iconv options. When I do git bisect, I
usually drop t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
--- Comment #14 from Dave Johansen ---
Could you please point me to how I can reproduce the issue with "RTLD_LOCAL
with multiple loaded objects depending on the same library"? I would like to
see if I can reproduce that issue with clang++ and icp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 15 15:02:11 2015
New Revision: 219662
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61743
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63743
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15184
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.preudhomme at arm dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
In the size estimation we have
BB: 46, after_exit: 0
size: 1 _319 = MEM[(double *)c0_188(D) + 16B];
size: 1 _321 = i_171 >> 2;
Constant expression will be folded away.
size: 2 if (_321 != 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #13 from Tejas Belagod ---
(In reply to Sandra Loosemore from comment #12)
> I'm using a 4.7.3 based gcc as the host compiler (built from one of our own
> CodeBench release branches).
>
> Regardless of whether the actual failure is r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64416
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||EH
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #5)
> Confirmed - svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@219641
>
> Passed in a build I had from 13/01/2015.
>
> This is a regression.
now that I re
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
