https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68688
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kerukuro at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63586
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #2)
> ;; Function f4 (f4, funcdef_no=3, decl_uid=4162, cgraph_uid=3,
> symbol_order=3)
>
> ;; 1 loops found
> ;;
> ;; Loop 0
> ;; header 0, latch 1
> ;; depth 0, outer -1
> ;;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65745
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68693
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2015-12-4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68693
Bug ID: 68693
Summary: [6 Regression] ice: in harmful_stmt_in_region, at
graphite-scop-detection.c:1052
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68529
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68692
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2015-12-4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68692
Bug ID: 68692
Summary: [graphite] ice: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68550
--- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Sebastian Pop from comment #5)
> fixed
BTW, with this fixed, I can compile our CP2K code with -floop-nest-optimize at
various -Ox and all seems correct. Thanks!
I'll try to integrate '-fl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26724
--- Comment #2 from Anton Blanchard ---
This issue is still present. The workaround Andrew suggests is good:
static inline int baz(void)
{
return 0;
}
void bad()
{
int i = baz();
if (!__builtin_constant_p(i))
: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151203 (experimental) [trunk revision 231219] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O2 -g -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -m64 -O3 -g -c small.c
$ gcc-5.2 -m32 -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53548
--- Comment #4 from Mike Frysinger ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
that's fine. thanks !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68550
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68613
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg00511.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68478
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68689
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg00511.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68690
Bug ID: 68690
Summary: PowerPC64: TOC save in PHP core loop results in load
hit store
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68689
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68689
Bug ID: 68689
Summary: flexible array members in unions accepted in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57180
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Eric, apologies for the slow response, I'm in the middle of an all-week trip
with little Internet access.
I think the best course of action is to adjust gimple_can_coalesce_p so that it
returns false for R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68665
--- Comment #7 from Robert Shuler ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Robert Shuler from comment #5)
> > I just did a from-scratch installation on a different computer (at the
> > office) with Win7 of cygwin-64 GCC and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sebastian Pop from comment #6)
> I do not see the error on today's trunk at r231233. Could you please verify
> that this has been fixed by our changes from yesterday?
I can confirm it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68688
Bug ID: 68688
Summary: segmentation fault on regex matching long strings
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68687
Bug ID: 68687
Summary: C compiler options to ignore all const qualifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68665
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Robert Shuler from comment #5)
> I just did a from-scratch installation on a different computer (at the
> office) with Win7 of cygwin-64 GCC and the quad math package. The results
> are exactly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68665
--- Comment #5 from Robert Shuler ---
I just did a from-scratch installation on a different computer (at the office)
with Win7 of cygwin-64 GCC and the quad math package. The results are exactly
the same. Built-in _float128 works, but identical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Pop ---
I do not see the error on today's trunk at r231233. Could you please verify
that this has been fixed by our changes from yesterday?
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63586
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the intention is to have multiplication by power-of-2?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68665
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try:
-lquadmath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68686
--- Comment #2 from kahrl at gmx dot net ---
Created attachment 36909
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36909&action=edit
Code that compares tgamma and tgammaq. Link with -lm -lquadmath.
When run, generates the two files tgamma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63586
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68686
--- Comment #1 from kahrl at gmx dot net ---
Created attachment 36907
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36907&action=edit
Generated by gcc -v -save-temps -o tgammaq-bug tgammaq-bug.c -lquadmath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #14 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry I missed this. I posted patch which was OKed but in further testing I
found an issue. I am testing a modified patch and will post for review soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68612
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Regueiro ---
That’s good to know. Do we have a suitable developer to take on this project? I
would do it myself, but I’m not really qualified enough.
I suppose trunk won’t be in bug-fixing mode too long…
> On 1 Dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68686
Bug ID: 68686
Summary: tgammaq(x) is always negative for noninteger x < 0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68685
Bug ID: 68685
Summary: LTO build hits ICE in copy_to_mode_reg, at
explow.c:595
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 36902 [details]
> Make the intrinsic procedure declarations less context-dependant
>
>I can't test this right now (bootstrap broken).
Sorry about that. Anything serious?
> It ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68665
--- Comment #3 from Robert Shuler ---
Created attachment 36904
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36904&action=edit
search of all quad-related files in the Cygwin installation showing dll's with
libquadmath functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68665
--- Comment #2 from Robert Shuler ---
Results of that suggestion:
$ gcc -lcygquadmath -o test128a test128a.c
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/4.9.3/../../../../i686-pc-cygwin/bin/ld: cannot
find -lcygquadmath
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68684
Bug ID: 68684
Summary: gcc/fortran/resolve.c:8748: bad if test ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > Well, it is not how I read
> >
> > static integer(kind=4) C.3452 = 4;
> > ...
> > D.3451 = &x;
> > D.3453 = &C.3452;
> > _gfortran_shape_4 (&parm.2, D.3451, D.3453);
> >
> > There
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68159
camden.mannett at protonmail dot ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||camden.mannett at pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 68434, which changed state.
Bug 68434 Summary: [concepts] function tsubst sets TYPE_CANONICAL before
setting a type's PLACEHOLDER_TYPE_CONSTRAINTS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68434
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68290
Bug 68290 depends on bug 68434, which changed state.
Bug 68434 Summary: [concepts] function tsubst sets TYPE_CANONICAL before
setting a type's PLACEHOLDER_TYPE_CONSTRAINTS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68434
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68434
ryan.burn at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
Summary|[5/6 regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 36902
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36902&action=edit
Make the intrinsic procedure declarations less context-dependant
I can't test this right now (bootstrap broken).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68683
Bug ID: 68683
Summary: [concepts] function
satisfy_argument_deduction_constraint modifies a type
tree node but leaves TYPE_CANONICAL unchanged
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 68677 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68680
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68682
Bug ID: 68682
Summary: [6 Regression] [graphite] loop interchange no longer
working after r227277
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
The commit implements removal of stores to write only variables. I suppose that
makes them unused. This could trigger more warnings
though of course they should honnor -Wno-unused
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68671
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 36901
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36901&action=edit
gcc6-pr68671.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68676
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #2)
> Note, I see the problem on i386-*-freebsd, and I do not
> see the problem on x86_64-*-freebsd. So, it appears to
> a 32-bit vs 64-bit pointer issue (ie., someone is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68679
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68676
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 01:02:02PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> See the thread starting at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-12/msg00030.html.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68668
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Looks like this fixed it and passes dg.exp testsuite:
--- a/gcc/c/c-decl.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
@@ -6417,6 +6417,8 @@ grokdeclarator (const struct c_declarator *declarator,
{
/* Transfer const-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68681
Bug ID: 68681
Summary: testcase gcc.dg/vect/pr45752.c fails on AArch64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68680
Bug ID: 68680
Summary: On-stack VLA does not cause instrumentation with
-fstack-protector-strong
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68679
Bug ID: 68679
Summary: gcc-5.2.1 ICE in C++11 anon union of structs with
template fns, OK in gcc <= 4.9.3
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> In this case, the argument _is_ present, so it's not removed in the procedure
> declaration. This seems to be done on purpose (grep for ignore_optional) but
> I
> must admit that I don't understand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68668
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I'm using slightly adjusted testcase:
typedef const int T[];
int
fn1 (T p)
{
return p[0];
}
It looks like grokdeclarator creates a wrong type for PARM_DECL "p". It says
its type is "const int[] *", but t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68599
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> > I think the problem is that it's actually working. The optional arguments
> > are
> > removed... When they are not present, the procedure declaration al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68599
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Dec 3 15:40:08 2015
New Revision: 231231
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231231&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR tree-optimization/68599] Avoid over-zealous optimization with
-funsafe-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65745
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe this is intentional and has been discussed in the past.
E.g. one of the often used noreturn functions is abort and its callers, in that
case we better not sibcall to that, as it will be harder to fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
--- Comment #6 from Sergey Organov ---
For reference, the work-around for the problem is __attribute__((gnu_inline)),
i.e., effectively turning inlining mode back to pre-c99.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68673
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68678
Bug ID: 68678
Summary: Initialization of pointer by constant expression using
static ctor.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
It's a feature for debugging of abort()-like calls. And in this case it's
a tailcall as well (which is probably what you are after).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|manu at gcc dot gnu.org|
--- Comment #10 from Manue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36897|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
Bug ID: 68677
Summary: Sibcall doesn't work on function with no return
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Well, why don't you answer these questions yourself?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And no, precomputing the permutations isn't going to work, there are just too
many of them, and the amount of permutation instructions on i?86 is huge too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #6)
> > Perhaps you need to try with -Wunused-const-variable ? There may be some
> > problem with TREE_R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Further reduced test
REAL*8 :: a8(16),b8(4,4), c8(16), d8(4,4)
c8=RESHAPE(b8,(/16/))
d8=RESHAPE(a8,(/4,4/))
END
> Notice the difference in size of the records.
How do they relate to the array siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68472
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Thu Dec 3 14:17:35 2015
New Revision: 231228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix some issues with the ROP patch (PR 68471, 68472)
PR target/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I think the problem is that it's actually working. The optional arguments are
> removed... When they are not present, the procedure declaration also loses
> them.
Well, it is not how I read
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68471
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Thu Dec 3 14:17:35 2015
New Revision: 231228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix some issues with the ROP patch (PR 68471, 68472)
PR target/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68620
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Does that mean we need to define a movv4hf pattern?
Isn't *neon_mov providing this (with the VDX iterator)
I think what's not matching here is (set (subreg:SI (reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #6)
> Perhaps you need to try with -Wunused-const-variable ? There may be some
> problem with TREE_READONLY (decl).
There is no -Wunused-const-variable in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #6 from Man
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68009
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Dominique
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
