https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66782
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Related to PR 57003 [1]. Somewhere, CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE processing is
missing.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003#c23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66798
Bug ID: 66798
Summary: "internal compiler error: in timevar_start, at
timevar.c:344" with using namespace
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
Jesus Cea changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #9 from Casey Webster ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:10:48PM +, casey.webster at gmail dot com
> wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
> >
> > --- Comment #7 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58493
--- Comment #5 from vgrebinski at gmail dot com
---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #4)
> Checked that this works with current gcc-6/5/4.9. Can this be closed now?
I'm fine to close it since the bug is fixed in 4.9 and up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66797
Bug ID: 66797
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr65447.c scan-tree-dump-not
ivopts "\\nuse 5\\n"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66796
Bug ID: 66796
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/hppa/shadd-1.c scan-assembler-times
sh.add 1
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66777
dongkyun.s at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66795
Bug ID: 66795
Summary: Incorrect and missed optimizations of
__builtin_frame_address
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66777
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66782
--- Comment #4 from marcus at jet dot franken.de ---
(actually not sure this is the same issue that my wine colleagueds are seeing,
but it also a miscompilation)
--enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150707 (experimental) [trunk revision 225501] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:18:10: warning: function returns address of local variable
[-Wreturn-local-addr]
return *c;
^
small.c:12:7: note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66782
--- Comment #3 from marcus at jet dot franken.de ---
Created attachment 35927
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35927&action=edit
testcase-min.i
gcc -S -fPIC -O2 -g testcase.i -o testcase.s
there will be a pattern to spot the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 35926
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35926&action=edit
A partially cooked patch to complete the implentation of submodules
The attached is a first attempt to complete t
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150707 (experimental) [trunk revision 225501] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c
$ gcc-5.1 -Os small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:18:1: error: control flow in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64036
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #3)
> else if (flag_exceptions)
> {
> if (flag_schedule_insns && global_options_set.x_flag_schedule_insns)
> warning (0, "ignoring -fschedul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Jul 7 20:39:28 2015
New Revision: 225526
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225526&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66780
* config/sh/sh.md (symGOT_load): Revert a part of 2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #9)
> >
> > I will work on the patch and commit it on next week.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> I tried this patch:
>
> https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:10:48PM +, casey.webster at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
>
> --- Comment #7 from Casey Webster ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66783
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jul 7 19:29:58 2015
New Revision: 225523
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225523&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/66783: prevent use of opaque structs
gcc/jit/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66779
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jul 7 19:22:01 2015
New Revision: 225522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225522&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/66779: fix segfault
gcc/jit/ChangeLog:
PR jit/66779
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #7 from Casey Webster ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:23:17PM +, casey.webster at gmail dot com
> wrote:
> >
> > Also, while I'll agree that "Unclassifiable statement" is better
> > than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
--- Comment #11 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No, but one has to get RM approval. Should be easy enough to get that, as long
as the work gets done before they make the last snapshot.
Does someone have the regression test done on the release b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
--- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth ---
I assume we have missed the window for gcc 5.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:23:17PM +, casey.webster at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> Also, while I'll agree that "Unclassifiable statement" is better
> than "Invalid character in name", it would be nicer to see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56829
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66792
Bug ID: 66792
Summary: Document sort template in bits/list.tcc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
(:,iter))
1
Error: Invalid character in name at (1)
This was confirmed with gcc built this morning (gcc version 6.0.0 20150707)
Also, while I'll agree that "Unclassifiable statement" is better than "Invalid
character in name", it would be nicer to see "Unbalanced parenthesis".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=887
--- Comment #9 from Aaron Graham ---
Thanks. I had already patched our gcc so that gthreads cond always gets
initialized with CLOCK_MONOTONIC, then I switched __clock_t in
condition_variable to steady_clock. It was a very simple change and works
we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66642
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Jul 7 16:25:22 2015
New Revision: 225521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add empty loop exit block in transform_to_exit_first_loop_alt
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66791
Bug ID: 66791
Summary: Replace builtins with gcc vector extensions code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #3 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Created attachment 35925
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35925&action=edit
Part of the reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #2 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Created attachment 35924
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35924&action=edit
Part of the reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #1 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Created attachment 35923
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35923&action=edit
Part of the reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
Bug ID: 66790
Summary: Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
--- Comment #9 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok. Ok for all active release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41861
--- Comment #10 from Mike Crowe ---
(In reply to Mike Crowe from comment #9)
> 3. condition_variable should support wait_until using at least steady_clock
> (CLOCK_MONOTONIC) and system_clock (CLOCK_REALTIME.) Relative wait
> operations should us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41861
--- Comment #9 from Mike Crowe ---
It seems that there's been lots of talk about this but no firm solution. Here's
some interesting links:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2999.html
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
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=66789
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Forgot to mention, bisection showed that it started with:
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jan 26 23:42:39 2015 +
PR libstdc++/64368
* config/locale/gnu/numeric_members.cc (numpunc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66789
Bug ID: 66789
Summary: FAIL: tr1/8_c_compatibility/complex/50880.cc (test for
excess errors) on bare-metal targets
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66703
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Yulia Koval from comment #2)
> Why zero-extend with and is better than zero-extend with movz? Why it's ok
> to clobber the flags?
According to Intel Pentium optimization guide, zero-extend with and is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66787
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
5 words: temporary whose address is taken
Due to c++ references.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #12 from stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
The glibc bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18508
is fixed upstream with commit
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=890b7a4b33d482b5c768ab47d70758b80227e9bc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64036
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
> An example function, compiling with -O2 -m4:
>
> int test_0 (unsigned short* x, int y, int z)
> {
> return
> (x[0] + x[1] + x[2] + x[3] + x[4] + x[5] + x[6]
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64036
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
I've just tried the following example on the AMS branch:
float fun (float* x)
{
return x[0] + x[1] + x[2] + x[3];
}
no AMS:
mov r4,r1
add #4,r1
fmov.s @r4,fr0
fmov.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #2)
> Could this also be the cause for PR66312 and PR66563 after all?
My 2 cents.
I've just revert the problematic part on trunk after usual test.
I'll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Jul 7 12:29:16 2015
New Revision: 225512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225512&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66780
* config/sh/sh.md (symGOT_load): Revert a part of 2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Not sure what is correct behavior here (Jakub points out mangling ignores
> the over-alignment).
Even ignoring the over-alignment, const cl_ulong& and cl_ulon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5, 6.0
--- Comment #5 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Reduced testcase:
#include
#include
typedef uint64_t cl_ulong __attribute__((aligned(8)));
std::deque args_qualifier;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.2 |4.9.4
Summary|[5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66787
--- Comment #1 from Minjae Kim ---
Oops, I swapped `create` and `print`. gcc does tail call elimination on
`create` but it doesn't on `print`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
>
> --- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> So address space info is kept and c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So address space info is kept and checked in base object's type of MEM_REF. As
in function expand_expr_real_1:
case TARGET_MEM_REF:
{
addr_space_t as
= TYPE_ADDR_SPACE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Bug ID: 66788
Summary: [5 Regression] Rejects instantiation of class
std::deque with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-vali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66787
Bug ID: 66787
Summary: gcc fails tail call elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #18 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Tue Jul 7 11:10:12 2015
New Revision: 225507
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225507&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-07-07 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66759
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14940
--- Comment #49 from Martin Richter ---
(In reply to Martin Richter from comment #47)
My apologies, that patch is incorrect - `VirtualAlloc` still uses
`pch_VA_max_size` instead of `size`.
Some discussion about this bug and the reasoning behind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65991
--- Comment #5 from Дилян Палаузов ---
The problem does not appear anymore, since I upgraded gcc 4.9.2 -> 4.9.3 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66703
--- Comment #2 from Yulia Koval ---
Why zero-extend with and is better than zero-extend with movz? Why it's ok to
clobber the flags?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1)
> It turned out that the fix for PR65249 causes this problem.
> The codes for stack protect can be inserted after some function
> call returning a val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> IVOPTs seems to carry address-space info on 'type' here (in fact if I amend
> tree dumping with address-space dumping on memory references I fail to ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66784
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66786
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66733
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
--- Comment #10 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Tue Jul 7 07:56:10 2015
New Revision: 225503
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225503&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Cleanup arch file directive.
PR target/52144
* config/arm/elf.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 7 07:46:57 2015
New Revision: 225502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225502&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-07 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/66739
* mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66538
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66786
Bug ID: 66786
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
81 matches
Mail list logo
