https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70014
--- Comment #2 from collison at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: collison
Date: Thu Mar 3 07:42:02 2016
New Revision: 233927
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233927&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-03 Michael Collison
PR target/70014
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70055
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
--- Comment #18 from Dominik Vogt ---
Which dumps do you need?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45179
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66709
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69990
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70058
Bug ID: 70058
Summary: Segmentation fault when open file with existing file
and status = "UNKNOWN"
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65501
--- Comment #6 from Yaakov Selkowitz ---
Created attachment 37849
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37849&action=edit
patch for gcc-5
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> Fixed on the trunk by the change for 68271.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70024
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70057
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
> The C++ FE has the tendency to give diagnostics very deep in the call stack,
> where there is little knowledge of the context. It would be much better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70024
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Mar 3 01:40:29 2016
New Revision: 233926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233926&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libffi/70024
* Makefile.am (libffi_version_script): Look in cwd fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Leon Winter from comment #7)
> Maybe a better solution is to hint the compiler that the loop body will be
> run at least once. A do-while seems to imply that (and the compiler does not
> pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70034
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67856
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70057
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #3)
> The C++ errors become even more entertaining when you add -fpermissive:
>
> 69972-b.cc:2:16: warning: integer overflow in expression [-Woverflow]
> 69972-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69972
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70057
Bug ID: 70057
Summary: duplicate integer overflow diagnostic in constant
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67903
--- Comment #5 from Yucheng Low ---
After some deep investigation on a related issue, I think might finally have a
root cause.
Introduction
- We compile as a shared library to be imported into Python as part of a
python
module.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69942
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62184
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-11-12 00:00:00 |2016-3-3
--- Comment #7 from Manue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69942
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Mar 3 00:11:03 2016
New Revision: 233922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233922&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69942
* gcc.dg/ifcvt-5.c: Use "word_mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70056
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Juan Arrieta from comment #1)
> Possibly related to bug 65719.
Not only related but an exact dup as you said:
> The original code (with the unary minus) compiles and runs fine using
> clang 3.6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65719
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Juan.Arrieta at jpl dot
nasa.gov
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69942
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So the radical differences in coalescing are due to PROMOTE_MODE & friends, so
essentially they're expected. I expect there's several other ports exhibiting
the same behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70056
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70056
--- Comment #1 from Juan Arrieta ---
Possibly related to bug 65719.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70056
Bug ID: 70056
Summary: Linker error when using variable template
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70055
Bug ID: 70055
Summary: gcc.target/i386/chkp-stropt-16.c is incompatible with
glibc 2.23
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69942
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70024
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Mar 2 23:28:11 2016
New Revision: 233921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libffi/70024
* Makefile.am (libffi_version_script): New.
(libffi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70024
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68621
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #83 from Bill Seurer ---
I tried that patch and the 416.gamess test still fails on power.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70054
Bug ID: 70054
Summary: GCC 6 gives a strict-aliasing warning on use of
std::aligned_storage
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70053
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to bug 30271, bug 38532, bug 69493. There might be more bugs too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70053
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
One interesting point is if we delete the "return result;" that is within the
then clause and fall thru to the end "return result;" with is logically
identical, then we get the code we want:
D256_add_finite:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70053
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-linux
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70053
Bug ID: 70053
Summary: Returning a struct of _Decimal128 values generates
extraneous stores and loads
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I've fixed the ChangeLog entry. It's safe to assume I added the -1 to the
testsuite name because I suspect there's going to be more tests around this BZ
in the future :-)
I may end up restricting the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052
Bug ID: 70052
Summary: ICE compiling _Decimal128 test case
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
afomin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||afomin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
--- Comment #16 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Mar 2 21:09:54 2016
New Revision: 233916
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233916&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-opt/67145
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_plus_minus): Allow reass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69879
Gabriel Ibarra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabriel.ibarra@tallertechno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69687
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
The policy of GNU software is to avoid arbitrary implementation limits whenever
possible.
(In reply to Marcel Böhme from comment #4)
> with n=2*(length of decl + length of arg) characters. Since n is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #16 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #14)
> Author: amker
> Date: Wed Mar 2 14:10:56 2016
> New Revision: 233907
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233907&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
>
> PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70051
Bug ID: 70051
Summary: ubsan doesn't detect VLA overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Thanks Richard, that is a much safer solution for now.
FWIW, your original patch regressed at least code generation for
0xULL - a on powerpc (-m32), and various other
things change (al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Alexander,
Can you comment on how serious this regression is for whatever benchmark your
test was derived from?
Can you also indicate whether or not similar issues have been seen with x86_64
(the report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30417
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson ---
I can clean up the rs6000 some more to avoid some objections
that Segher raised -- by-hand rtl generation etc.
Or, I've just about finished testing the simplify-rtx-only
patch suggested in
https://gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69555
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 2 19:16:14 2016
New Revision: 233913
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233913&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/69555
* gimplify.c (gimplify_decl_expr): For de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70023
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm with rth here, I think we should apply his patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69987
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Mar 2 18:45:26 2016
New Revision: 233912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233912&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69987
* gfortran.dg/pr69987.f90: Use "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70008
--- Comment #2 from Michael Collison ---
Richard,
As discussed upstream you are correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69694
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70050
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70050
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70046
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I checked "-Ofast -march=native/-march=haswell" for GCC@230647 on Xeon, there
is no regression. I also checked "-Ofast -mtune=core-avx2" for GCC@230689,
there is no regression either.
I looked into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70050
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe missing INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -293,7 +293,8 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
/* X % -Y is the same as X % Y. */
(simplify
(trunc_mod @0 (convert? (n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The call to a member function before all base classes are initialized is
undefined behaviour:
12.6.2 [class.base.init] p16
Member functions (including virtual member functions, 10.3) can be called for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70049
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70050
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70050
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70050
Bug ID: 70050
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_type
or enumeral_type or boolean_type or real_type or
fixed_point_type, have vector_type in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70018
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #9 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70049
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69685
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
FYI, as you are using Newlib (and not avr-libc as all the folks does) you want
to configure with --with-avrlibc=no.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69685
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62184
imitrichev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||imitrichev at muctr dot ru
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69481
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37834|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70049
Bug ID: 70049
Summary: [6 Regression] Error: operand size mismatch for
`vpextrw' (wrong assembly generated) with -masm=intel
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68187
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68087
--- Comment #11 from Christophe Lyon ---
gcc-5-branch fixed by r233903.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Martin said almost exactly what I was going to say :-)
Compilers are allowed to accept this, as Clang does, but they are not required
to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69972
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70029
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
In other words, build_ref_qualified_type creates method_type T with
TYPE_CANONICAL (t) = t;
but
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (t) is not t (it differs because the main variant doesn't
have FUNCTION_RVALUE_QUALIFIED and F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #5 from Wilco ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> > Started with r233136.
>
> That's why I forced base+offset out of memory reference and kept register
> scaling in in the first place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68714
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
I find it strange that we do all operations on masks and not on "booleans" for
vectors.
typedef int T;
T f(T a,T b,T c,T d){
return (a:
_3 = a_1(D) < b_2(D);
_6 = c_4(D) < d_5(D);
_7 = _3 & _6;
_8 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55936
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 37843
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37843&action=edit
patch
So I am testing the following.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55936
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
The main issue is that the PHI merging i and i = baz () has both edges
executable.
Visiting statement:
if (i_22 < 0)
Visiting conditional with predicate: if (i_22 < 0)
With known ranges
i_22: [j_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
I don't think it is forbidden. The C standard allows some latitude for
constant expressions in initializers, so I think we could accept code as in
Comment 5, i.e. evaluate it to an arithmetic constant expres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
--- Comment #20 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Mar 2 15:10:34 2016
New Revision: 233909
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233909&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle addr_expr and component_ref in graphite-ast-to-ast
2016
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Started with r233136.
That's why I forced base+offset out of memory reference and kept register
scaling in in the first place. I think my statement still h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64402
--- Comment #4 from Yaakov Selkowitz ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #3)
> Created attachment 37172 [details]
> Patch to fix ICE and make interrupt restore r0
That allows me to finish the --without-headers build of 5.3.0 and subsequ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70040
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Could be r233797 .
It is.
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
