https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65317
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
It seems this is a general problem. Combine would sometimes synthesize and try
to introduce new constants. But because most of the SH insn patterns reject
general constants (e.g. arith_reg_operand) combine fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52628
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
To catch cases such as
int test_01 (int a, int b, int c)
{
return c << (a > b ? 1 : 0);
}
a shift with treg_set_expr can be implemented. Combine is looking for this
pattern:
Failed to match this instruction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36396|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #21 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
No new failures with -mlra here too. The test without -mlra is still
running, though there is a new failure:
/home/ldroot/dodes/xsh-gcc/gcc/xgcc -B/home/ldroot/dodes/xsh-gcc/gcc/
-fno-diagnostics-show-ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
--- Comment #2 from Brett Neumeier ---
Thanks for your swift comment!
I disagree that the bug is in ISL. The problem is that gmp, although the build
appears successful, is *not* correctly built. Six object files that should be
compiled and lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #16)
> Created attachment 36396 [details]
> Another trail, works with LRA
>
> I've tested this patch with
> make -k check
> RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |bootstrap
Summary|Build fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716
--- Comment #15 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #14)
> Yes, there are issues. I've created PR 67723.
Ah, you are right. I forgot -m optimization options at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
Bug ID: 67728
Summary: Build fails when cross-compiling with in-tree GMP
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67727
Bug ID: 67727
Summary: [concepts] parameterized constraint not being checked
for unused variables
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67617
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > Both Clang/libc++ and MSVC/Dinkumware reject it for the same reason.
>
> I notice that the Dinkumware version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67721
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sat Sep 26 20:34:39 2015
New Revision: 228170
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228170&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix missing deep copy when assigning a DT constructor to an array
This ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67617
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #3)
> [..] I believe the wording for associative containers is not as clear as
> it should be. For unordered containers 23.2.5 p11 speaks of "possibly const
> value"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67726
Bug ID: 67726
Summary: std::condition_variable::wait can throw, but should
terminate.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67678
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, it might be an intentional GNU extension. Older versions of Clang warned
about it with the -Wgnu option rather than -Wredeclared-class-member.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67319
--- Comment #1 from Roland B ---
Using the terse notation works fine, btw:
// -
template
concept bool Any()
{
return true;
}
struct my_struct
{
auto sample(Any... args) -> void;
};
int main()
{
my_struct{}.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67617
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Both Clang/libc++ and MSVC/Dinkumware reject it for the same reason.
I notice that the Dinkumware version associated with Visual Studio 2015 accepts
the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67567
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Fixed as 'obvious' in revision: 228169.
Cheers
Paul
2013-09-26 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/67567
* resolve.c (resolve_fl_procedure): For module procedures, take
the parent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67567
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67567
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Sep 26 17:52:24 2015
New Revision: 228169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-26 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/67567
* resolve.c (res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67617
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67725
Bug ID: 67725
Summary: all gcc versions has hardcoded LD path with bootstrap
on illumos platform
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67687
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67678
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67724
--- Comment #1 from Julius Schmidt ---
Created attachment 36398
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36398&action=edit
Testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67724
Bug ID: 67724
Summary: internal compiler error in stl_vector.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #49 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #47)
> Another cosmetic issue that I've noticed is that an extra newline is added
> after every quoted comment.
This problem has been reported upstream, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67722
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67723
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #0)
> Instead they should be enabled in
> TARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS_AFTER_CHANGE
Alternatively, the insn conditions could check the flags directly via a
function instead of modi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #13)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #12)
> > Maybe we should move some
> > more of the sh_option_override things sh_override_options_after_change? I
> > don't kn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67723
Bug ID: 67723
Summary: [SH] fsrra/fsca not working with #pragma GCC optimize
("fast-math")
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67722
Bug ID: 67722
Summary: Misplaced #endif in libgo/runtime/lfstack.goc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #16)
> Then, there's is messy thing with 3 addsi3 patterns ... the order is very
> important. They must be in exactly this order, or else we don't get the
> code size improve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716
--- Comment #13 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #12)
> Maybe we should move some
> more of the sh_option_override things sh_override_options_after_change? I
> don't know ...
I thought the same thing too. From the i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #17)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #16)
> > Kaz, does this patch fix the issue in c#11 ?
>
> Yep, it fixes that ICE. Thanks!
> My 36387 trial patch can cause a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #11)
> Created attachment 36397 [details]
> patch for targetm.override_options_after_change
>
> Could you try this patch?
>
> What is going on:
>
> 1. align_jumps (gl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67644
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
Possibly related: PR 50521, PR 56997
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67721
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, wrong-code
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67721
Bug ID: 67721
Summary: deep copy missing when assigning a derived type
constructor to an array
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #17 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #16)
> Kaz, does this patch fix the issue in c#11 ?
Yep, it fixes that ICE. Thanks!
My 36387 trial patch can cause a similar problem with PR64533 when sp
is taken as t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716
--- Comment #11 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 36397
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36397&action=edit
patch for targetm.override_options_after_change
Could you try this patch?
What is going on:
1. align_jumps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #16 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36396
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36396&action=edit
Another trail, works with LRA
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
>
> I'm now trying to come up with somethi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 36395
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36395&action=edit
reduced test case
This one fails with the same asm error with my sh-elf c++ for -g -O1.
It looks that
#pragma
44 matches
Mail list logo
