https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #13 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to PaX Team from comment #12)
> 2. as for my idea, it's simple: track the context via an artificially
> injected local integer variable (one per context if you want context
> sensitivity) and initi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68532
Bug ID: 68532
Summary: [ARM] Incorrect code result on arm big endian
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68494
--- Comment #2 from Michael Collison ---
Sorry here is the updated test case.
#define NTAPS 4
short taps[NTAPS];
void fir_t5(int len, short * __restrict p, short *__restrict x, short
*__restrict taps)
{
len = len & ~31;
for (int i = 0; i <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68196
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66465
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68196
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 25 05:28:10 2015
New Revision: 230852
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230852&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-25 Paul Thomas
Backport from trunk.
PR fortran/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66465
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 25 05:28:10 2015
New Revision: 230852
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230852&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-25 Paul Thomas
Backport from trunk.
PR fortran/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68454
--- Comment #11 from M Joshua Ryan ---
Created attachment 36831
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36831&action=edit
additional source triggering same error
Having successfully compiled the other file, I have received the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68531
Bug ID: 68531
Summary: incorrect code for VLA in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68450
--- Comment #2 from Ludo ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #1)
> I think I unintentionally fixed this problem in my refactoring branch:
> https://github.com/innocentim/gcc/commits/master
>
> I ran this branch and get the result:
> "Field":
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67755
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68530
Bug ID: 68530
Summary: [C++14] sorry, unimplemented: unexpected AST of kind
loop_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68454
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
This sounds related to GMP/MPFR, can you recompile those?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68454
--- Comment #9 from M Joshua Ryan ---
Investigated the offending source line a little deeper. It now looks to me like
it has to do with mixed floating/integer arithmetic, especially with bizarre
types like `time_t`. Changing the source to use all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68450
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68387
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66131
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67778
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68474
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67106
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68529
Bug ID: 68529
Summary: scev failed for while(i--)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68528
Bug ID: 68528
Summary: Wrong constant folding
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
--- Comment #11 from Joshua Green ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> 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 pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #12 from PaX Team ---
1. there's a (linux) kernel-hardening effort of late that among others will try
to upstream the PaX gcc plugin infrastructure along with some plugins, so the
checker one could be added to that list (but it wasn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68456
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, vaalfreja at gmail dot com wrote:
> And why newlib-stdint header is used in this case? I haven't used any
> newlib-related options in configure. These targets still have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #30 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #29)
> These slides show how to reach 90% of peak:
> http://wiki.cs.utexas.edu/rvdg/HowToOptimizeGemm/
> the code actually is not too ugly, and I think there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68449
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68527
Bug ID: 68527
Summary: ICE with -fdump-ada-spec on invalid C++ 11 code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61692
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68526
Bug ID: 68526
Summary: [6 Regression] gcc.target/powerpc/recip-4.c fails
starting with r230492
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68525
Bug ID: 68525
Summary: bogus use of deleted function error on a template with
a flexible array member
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nenad Vukicevic from comment #9)
> On 11/24/15 12:07 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > So I agree, the root problem is that we are creating something that the
> > newer
> > version of ds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68523
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55606
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-12-09 00:00:00 |2015-11-24
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #11 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #10)
> (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #9)
>
> > > It might help to see exactly where __context__ is used in real code.
> >
> > A few patterns:
>
> Sorry, I wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #10 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #9)
> > It might help to see exactly where __context__ is used in real code.
>
> A few patterns:
Sorry, I wasn't very clear.
It seems to me that __context__ must be us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #9 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #6)
> (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #4)
> > Unfortunate, and I'd love to see GCC handle trailing attributes (does a bug
> > already exist for that somewhere?), b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68524
Bug ID: 68524
Summary: Please support attributes between function definition
and opening brace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68520
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #8 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to PaX Team from comment #5)
> (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #4)
> > Could you represent __context__ as a new GCC builtin? Would that make this
> > any easier?
>
> it can be a builtin or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68520
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Nov 24 21:23:25 2015
New Revision: 230843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
shrink-wrap: Fix thinko (PR68520)
Part of the shrink-wrapping algor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #7 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to PaX Team from comment #5)
> since PaX already has a checker plugin
Why not just contribute that then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #6 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #4)
> Unfortunate, and I'd love to see GCC handle trailing attributes (does a bug
> already exist for that somewhere?), but not something that should block
> *this*
> fea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
--- Comment #9 from Nenad Vukicevic ---
On 11/24/15 12:07 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> So I agree, the root problem is that we are creating something that the newer
> version of dsymutil doesn't understand - it could be we're making a m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68196
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Nov 24 20:40:10 2015
New Revision: 230839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-24 Paul Thomas
Backport from trunk.
PR fortran/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66465
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Nov 24 20:40:10 2015
New Revision: 230839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-24 Paul Thomas
Backport from trunk.
PR fortran/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68523
Bug ID: 68523
Summary: CFG Expansion Computes Incorrect Block Frequencies for
Nested Loops
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #5 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #4)
> (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #3)
> (As a vaguely related aside, how does GCC disambiguate whether an attribute
> preceding the function declaration or definiti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> > Maybe line 820 should pass 'false' as this is the case similar to LTO
> > not being enabled?
>
> That seems reasonable a first blush, we should _not_ call dsymuti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #4 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #3)
> (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #2)
>
> > > The attribute syntax in the test case doesn't work with gcc. The
> > > attributes
> > > on the function defini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nenad Vukicevic from comment #6)
> On 11/24/15 9:27 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
I suspect we have two issues here:
> Maybe line 820
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:48:19PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
>
> --- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Not sure how the gcc/test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Not sure how the gcc/testsuite got on the end. Oh well, the
> testcase won't hurt anything.
[Book15] f90/bug% gfca /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr68227.f90
/opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> Ok, I'll dig up the details later today. It may well be related to a
> command line tools upgraded corresponding to Xcode 7.x.
Here's what I found: in stage2, linking gcj fails with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:07:44PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
>
> --- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Added:
> > trunk/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68521
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68416
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Added:
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr68227.f90
Is it intended?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Unreopen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Nov 24 18:58:28 2015
New Revision: 230832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-24 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68486
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67089
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 36830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36830&action=edit
gcc6-pr67089.patch
Untested patch for matching hand written unsigned addition/subtraction overflow
checks as {A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68252
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |rejects-valid
Summary|regires
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68278
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Nov 24 18:30:02 2015
New Revision: 230828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-24 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/68278
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68278
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68388
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68388
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Nov 24 18:16:26 2015
New Revision: 230827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-24 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/68388
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68059
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
--- Comment #6 from Nenad Vukicevic ---
On 11/24/15 9:27 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
>
> --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> We are getting a similar issue while linking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67984
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68388
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
This again compiles fine. I'm going to add a testcase and close the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68394
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68395
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68411
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68429
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68434
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68437
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #29 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #27)
> (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #22)
> If the compiler turns out not to be reasonably smart, file a bug report :-)
what is needed for large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68449
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68512
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Just as an update: the series is now tested and hopefully ready to post. I
just need to clear a few things first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68513
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
A slightly different, but equivalent testcase:
int i;
unsigned u;
volatile unsigned int *e;
void
fn1 (void)
{
(short) ((i ? *e : 0) & ~u | i & u);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> 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.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 36829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36829&action=edit
Reduced test case for gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90
With the attached test the warnings with '-g -flto' ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #28 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Janne Blomqvist from comment #25)
>
> But, that is not particularly impressive, is it? I don't know about current
> low end graphics adapters, but at least the high end GPU cards (Tesla) are
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #27 from Guille ---
(In reply to Guille from comment #26)
> In the case below (fails to compile ssl.h on OSX 10.9.5),
> I could simply go to ssl.h lines 337 and 339 and comment out the
> 'DEPRECATED_IN_MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_7_AND_LAT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68487
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68451
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #26 from Guille ---
In the case below (fails to compile ssl.h on OSX 10.9.5),
I could simply go to ssl.h lines 337 and 339 and comment out the
'DEPRECATED_IN_MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_7_AND_LATER'..
then it compiled no problem.
(In r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68464
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68515
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it's a front-end problem, it (rightly) says that F(X) is not a valid
function type, because functions can't return abstract types. The problem is
that we don't really have (or want) a function of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52251
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk. Should we backport to 5 branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67438
--- Comment #11 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
In fact, the problem is quite different although it is caused by non-profitable
pattern matching ~X CMP ~Y -> Y CMP X. In general this pattern may be helpful
if we can delete not operation, e.g.
x1 = ~x;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This one fails for me with -O2 ...
You don't need any optimization to reproduce. The ICE comes from the nested
CSHIFT.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68469
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68475
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68515
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68522
Bug ID: 68522
Summary: [6 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 435.gromacs miscomparison
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68518
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
