https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68511
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
regression between https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2015-11/msg00711.html:
between r230767 and r230734.
r230755 looks like it could be related:
...
gcc/c-family
PR c++/68001
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68512
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68512
Bug ID: 68512
Summary: Non-deterministic behavior from gcc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68508
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68511
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68511
Bug ID: 68511
Summary: FAIL: obj-c++.dg/property/dotsyntax-11.mm
-fgnu-runtime (test for errors, line 51,59)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68510
Bug ID: 68510
Summary: [concepts] ICE: in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at
gimplify.c:1827
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #2 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #1)
> Created attachment 36815 [details]
> simple version in python
>
> This implements the basics of the checker using the gcc python plugin.
Awesome!
> A few notes on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67984
inferrna changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36523|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68381
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Nov 24 06:43:20 2015
New Revision: 230786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Handle aborts in is_parallel_of_n_reg_sets (PR68381)
Some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68509
Bug ID: 68509
Summary: [6 regression][C++1z] ICE: in check_return_expr, at
cp/typeck.c:8635
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52868
Bug 52868 depends on bug 52272, which changed state.
Bug 52272 Summary: [4.9/5/6 regression] Performance regression of 410.bwaves on
x86.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
Bug 50955 depends on bug 52272, which changed state.
Bug 52272 Summary: [4.9/5/6 regression] Performance regression of 410.bwaves on
x86.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68507
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68507
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Santos ---
According to § 3.2.1 "Registers and the Stack Frame" of the System V
Application Binary Interface for AMD64
Registers %rbp, %rbx and %r12 through %r15 “belong” to the calling function and
the called function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68508
Bug ID: 68508
Summary: Internal compiler error with parentheses around return
value in C++14 with ASan enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51494
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68507
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think there is an ABI difference with respect of xmm6-16 between sysv ABI
> and windows ABIs. Can you provide why you think this is not a bug?
Ehem, uh no. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
--- Comment #3 from Nenad Vukicevic ---
We are getting a similar issue while linking a program with GCC and without
'-flto' switch. We enable 'lto' when configuring languages, which in turn
enables post ld processing inside collect2. This was d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68507
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think there is an ABI difference with respect of xmm6-16 between sysv ABI and
windows ABIs. Can you provide why you think this is not a bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68507
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos ---
Correction: xmm6-15, I can't type today. And here is the output on gcc 4.9.3:
$ objdump -dSr test_case.o
test_case.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
:
0:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68507
Bug ID: 68507
Summary: attribute ms_abi (on Linux) bloats by pushing/popping
xmm6-15 needlessly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68506
Bug ID: 68506
Summary: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68314
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68479
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think there is another bug about this that was closed as invalid as you need
to use the version script to hide all of libstdc++ symbols.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68261
--- Comment #6 from Geir Johansen ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Geir Johansen from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > Note glibc does provide a memcpy which is optimized for each tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68460
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68503
Bug ID: 68503
Summary: [powerpc64le] miscompilation of composite literal
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67984
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68261
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Geir Johansen from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Note glibc does provide a memcpy which is optimized for each target via
> > ifuncs. What version of glibc are you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68261
--- Comment #4 from Geir Johansen ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note glibc does provide a memcpy which is optimized for each target via
> ifuncs. What version of glibc are you running.
2.11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68479
--- Comment #2 from Stefan H. ---
Interesting. So this breakage is expected behavior? I wasn't sure as there were
so many ways to load it differently that didn't seem to exhibit the problems. I
assume the ones I listed (except linking libstdc++ d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68322
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68332
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67677
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 68332 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67677
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68322
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68496
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Nov 23 21:18:03 2015
New Revision: 230777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/68496
reflect: Allocate space for FFI functions r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68496
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68496
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Nov 23 21:17:45 2015
New Revision: 230776
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230776&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/68496
reflect: Allocate space for FFI functions r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68438
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68438
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Nov 23 21:00:13 2015
New Revision: 230775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230775&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR objc/68438 (uninitialized source ranges)
gcc/c/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68194
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 68185 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68328
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68185
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68194
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 68328 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #16)
> For what its worth:
>
> $ gfc pr51119.f90 -lblas -fno-external-blas -Ofast -march=native
> $ ./a.out
> Time, MATMUL:21.2483196 21.25444964601
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33236
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-08-30 21:15:01 |2015-11-23
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68476
--- Comment #2 from Arnout Vandecappelle ---
Created attachment 36813
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36813&action=edit
Preprocessed source file that exposes the bug
Attached preprocessed source file.
Compilation output (wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68314
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop ---
This patch exposes the problem without valgrind:
diff --git a/gcc/graphite-sese-to-poly.c b/gcc/graphite-sese-to-poly.c
index 2054fad..b932dae 100644
--- a/gcc/graphite-sese-to-poly.c
+++ b/gcc/graphite-sese
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36358
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67071
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59302
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59828
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68279
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68493
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67808
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Nov 23 19:25:32 2015
New Revision: 230769
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230769&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-11-23 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483
--- Comment #6 from lvqcl.mail at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> With i?86 I can confirm your observation but I don't see it fixed on trunk.
Sorry, the GCC 6.x compiler that I downloaded was built with --with-arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68496
--- Comment #2 from İsmail Dönmez ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #1)
> I can not recreate this problem. It works fine for me.
>
> The stack trace is incomplete for some reason so I don't know what is going
> wrong.
>
> If you c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67550
--- Comment #5 from Jason Wyatt ---
When parsing the initialisation of const TestStruct var:
store_init_value ends up calling split_nonconstant_init, so that only the
constant part of the initialisation of var is stored in DECL_INITIAL(t).
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68496
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I can not recreate this problem. It works fine for me.
The stack trace is incomplete for some reason so I don't know what is going
wrong.
If you cd into x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgo, you can run
make G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55077
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
> Created attachment 33637 [details]
> untested patch
>
> Untested patch. Bonus points if we show the value before and after
> conversion like clang does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 08:10:19PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Attached is an expanded test case. Could someone review and confirm this is
> valid. I need to work some code in interface.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #21)
> > Hidden behind a -fexternal-blas-n switch might be an option. Including GPUs
> > seems even a tad more tricky. We have a paper on GPU (small) matrix
> > multip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
I've posted a candidate patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02771.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68314
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68493
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Pop ---
Passes on ISL 0.14, fails with 0.15.
This patch fixes it: we will bootstrap and commit.
diff --git a/gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c
b/gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c
index 30c3a21..2783ac4 100644
--- a/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68279
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Sebastian Pop from comment #5)
> After fixing the graphite fail, I get these warnings from the testcase in
thanks, these are due to reducing the testcase stripping variable definitions.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68455
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Nov 23 17:18:36 2015
New Revision: 230768
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230768&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/68455
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68279
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop ---
After fixing the graphite fail, I get these warnings from the testcase in
comment4:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr68279.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/work/spop/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #5 from ktka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Sedach ---
Adding "static" to "volatile" "solves" the problem:
static int * volatile x = _x;
I'm using this trick to avoid aggressive optimization when measuring the time
of execution. The compiler does not skip cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
GCC thinks bar2 will be executed more often that bar1; the code
it generates is perfectly fine for that.
If you think GCC's heuristics for branch prediction are no good,
could use some improvement, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
No, I was wrong again.
The locus and start of the range are here:
(gdb) call
inform(line_table->location_adhoc_data_map.data[0x17].src_range.m_start,
"m_start")
pr68473-1.c:13:12: note: m_start
TEST_EQ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67089
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Mon Nov 23 15:55:58 2015
New Revision: 230767
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230767&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add uaddv4_optab and usubv4_optab
PR target/67089
* opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68502
Bug ID: 68502
Summary: [6 Regression][i686] spec2000/179.art runfails after
r222914
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68492
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #5)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > r230743 still fails for me. Can you show me your linking command line
> > for 465.tonto build?
>
> Here it is. Works OK for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Oops; I think line 6 above should read:
6if ((long)FUNC##l(xl,xl) != (long)xl) \
^FINISH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
It's attempting to print this source range:
(gdb) p *range
$8 = {m_start = {m_line = 13, m_column = 12},
m_finish = {m_line = 6, m_column = 26},
m_show_caret_p = true,
m_caret = {m_line = 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68363
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Nov 23 15:25:36 2015
New Revision: 230765
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230765&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/68363 Check that argument is real INSN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68363
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68498
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68465
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed the issue where this originally was observed in (oacc-kernel passes)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68465
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 23 15:21:32 2015
New Revision: 230764
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230764&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68465
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68363
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Nov 23 15:20:42 2015
New Revision: 230763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/68363 Check that argument is real INSN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68492
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> r230743 still fails for me. Can you show me your linking command line
> for 465.tonto build?
Here it is. Works OK for today's trunk (revision 230759).
gfortran -Of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68059
--- Comment #3 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Mon Nov 23 15:17:55 2015
New Revision: 230762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/68059 libgcc should not use __write for printing fat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68363
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Nov 23 14:56:03 2015
New Revision: 230760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/68363 Check that argument is real INSN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66574
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I'm a little worried because I'm not 100% confident that clock_gettime is
available in the standard library on all systems. I don't want to break GCC 5
is that is the case. Admittedly I haven't seen any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66721
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So I have a "solution" that I hope to prettify a bit still. The basic issue
is that SLP is "broken" in that it builds a tree of operations instead of a
graph.
That is, it un-CSEs all n in the testcase:
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68499
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68501
Bug ID: 68501
Summary: [6 Regression] sqrt builtin is not used anymore
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Sedach ---
The "store" pointer could be not only volatile, but also static or global with
same error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68492
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #3)
> Looks like a duplicate of PR68327. r230743 fixed 465.tonto build for me.
r230743 still fails for me. Can you show me your linking command line
for 465.tonto build?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #20 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> (In reply to Chen Gang from comment #17)
> > I guess the diff below should be OK, I shall give a make check test.
>
> I would rather have the C front-end behavior
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
