https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
--- Comment #22 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Mar 31 06:26:02 2016
New Revision: 234609
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234609&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] reload_vsx_from_gprsf splitter
This is PR68973 part 2, caused by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
--- Comment #21 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Mar 31 06:24:40 2016
New Revision: 234608
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234608&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] reload_vsx_from_gprsf splitter
This is PR68973 part 2, caused by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70459
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||chaoskeeper at mail dot ru
--- Comment #19 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70471
Bug ID: 70471
Summary: Superfluous move instructions in floating-point
instruction sequence
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66830
Carlos O'Donell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70470
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70428
hongxu jia changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47609
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ossman at cendio dot se
--- Comment #18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64977
--- Comment #2 from ytj000 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> I'm not 100% sure this example is valid. It seems to me that the rejected
> initializer "e" is invalid because it's not
> a core constant expression. I.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70470
Bug ID: 70470
Summary: std::min uninitialized value
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on a multidimensional |ICE on a multidimensional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55943
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICEs initializing VLAs |ICE on a multidimensional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #1)
> Created attachment 38141 [details]
> updated test-case
>
> Fails with -O1, passes with -O2.
>
> The problem is that this loop nest:
> ...
> for (zh = 0; zh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38141
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38141&action=edit
updated test-case
Fails with -O1, passes with -O2.
The problem is that this loop nest:
...
for (z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #14 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
Is it related to this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00896.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Well, tests were not supposed to check object_sizes pass capabilities.
> But allowing misoptimized code means we don't test functionality
> we wanted to test. I think these tests may use __builtin_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Summary|[4.9/5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #25 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Wed Mar 30 20:47:45 2016
New Revision: 234600
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234600&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-30 Jerry DeLisle
Dominique d'Humiere
c/nightly/install-mips-mti-elf/mips-mti-elf
--with-build-sysroot=/scratch/gcc/nightly/install-mips-mti-elf/mips-mti-elf
Thread model: single
gcc version 6.0.0 20160330 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-save-temps' '-v' '-T' 'mti32.ld' '-mplt&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #13 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
Now as i got a c++ compiler but no libstdc++ on the target, i try to use the
gentoo tools to emerge (compile) the complete gcc on the target. Let it run
over night whatever is needed. It is just a st
-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160330 (experimental) [trunk revision 234546] (GCC)
$
$ g++-4.7 -c small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -c small.cpp
small.cpp: In instantiation of ‘A< >::A() [with
= S]’:
small.cpp:22:3: re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70201
--- Comment #4 from Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi ---
Created attachment 38139
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38139&action=edit
Patch adding new flag in order to dump information about template
instantiations.
Hi,
the attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #12 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
I purged all temporary build data, added
"--with-sysroot=/opt/aarch64-none-linux-gnu" to the configure line and rebuild
again. The same error.
/usr/aarch64-none-linux-gnu/usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
Bug ID: 70467
Summary: Useless "and [esp],-1" emitted on AND with uint64_t
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment
: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160330 (experimental) [trunk revision 234546] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk small.cpp
small.cpp:1:21: error: conflicting declaration ‘class T’
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab ---
You should use --with-sysroot to configure your cross compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #10 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
Components to build the "aarch64-to-aarch64" gcc/g++:
-
sha1sum + filename
f10c64e92d9c72ee428df3feaf349c4ecb2493bd binutils-2.25.tar.gz
2dc70313e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40625
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
Hi,
I have been given these e-mail addresses by Nick Clifton after reporting
a bug on binutils here:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19877 . The bug is in
libiberty, according to him.
The bug boils down to this command (and objdump, and lldb) crashing:
c++filt
_ZSt4move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70458
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, fw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70458
>
> --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465
Bug ID: 70465
Summary: Poor code for x87 asm
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #9 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
This is the previous result as i tried this:
make[4]: Leaving directory
'/home/georg/intern/Dokumente/Entwicklung/rpi3/src/gcc/build-gcc/aarch64-armv8a-linux-gnueabi/libitm/testsuite'
make[4]: Enteri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #7 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #5)
> I usually use the target aarch64-none-linux-gnu, but aarch64-linux-gnu
> should work too.
>
> Note that GCC requires a C++ compiler to build, so trying to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #6 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
Created attachment 38137
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38137&action=edit
config log of the attempt to compile gcc on the raspberry pi3
This is the complete config.log of the at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Mar 30 17:08:08 2016
New Revision: 234580
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234580&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Forward-port gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c from 5 branch (PR
testsui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Mar 30 17:05:06 2016
New Revision: 234579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c with Solaris as (PR
testsuite/7035
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70428
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, hongxu.jia at windriver dot com wrote:
> Do you mean the combination of using *"relative path" source to compile*
> and *"absolute path" in -fdebug-prefix-map to remap*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Schmidt ---
I think you could/should also remove the code looking for REG_LABEL_OPERAND
entirely, it seems irrelevant now. Otherwise looks good, so preapproved with
that change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to georg from comment #0)
> During our approach to get the raspberry pi3 and gentoo with an aarch64
> kernel and userland running i tried to cross compile a "native compiler for
> aarch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #4 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
Pi_3 64_bit ~ # grep int64_t /opt/cross/aarch64-linux-gnu/include/stdint.h
typedef long intint64_t;
typedef long long int int64_t;
typedef unsigned long int uint64_t;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55635
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70398
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #3 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
I tried on the Raspberry pi 64 bit with the "C only gcc":
Pi_3 64_bit ~ # cat main.c
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
printf("sizeof int64_t=%d\n",sizeof(int64_t));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, what about:
--- gcc/ira.c.jj2016-03-21 10:12:32.0 +0100
+++ gcc/ira.c 2016-03-30 18:42:46.095091159 +0200
@@ -3885,18 +3885,27 @@ indirect_jump_optimize (void)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #2 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
I also tried various target triplets
aarch64-linux-gnu and aarch64-armv8a-linux-gnueabi. Nut as far as i know
aarch64-linux-gnu is right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
--- Comment #1 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
Created attachment 38136
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38136&action=edit
script to "cross compile the native compiler"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464
Bug ID: 70464
Summary: [arch64] create a self hosting compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69917
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.* |i386-pc-solaris2.*
|x86_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69917
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Mar 30 16:25:06 2016
New Revision: 234578
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234578&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Respect transparent alias chains of assembler names (PR target/69917)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70364
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70439
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70449
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at pr46755.f, e.g. on x86_64 with -m32 -O -fpic I see in asmcons:
(insn 3 2 60 2 (set (reg/f:SI 91 [ gotovar.7_6 ])
(plus:SI (reg:SI 87)
(const:SI (unspec:SI [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Can we change it to just use SET_SRC (single_set (...))?
I don't think the new pass was intended to handle anything new, only to
disentangle the logic in ira. Alan mentioned gfortran.dg/pr46755.f as the only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #28 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Mar 30 15:58:10 2016
New Revision: 234577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234577&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-30 Vladimir Makarov
Backported from the mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70446
--- Comment #6 from ivanbili at gmail dot com ---
Is there anything I can do to help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps we can try to delegitimize the SET_SRC of def_insn or something similar
to handle at least some -fPIC case where we'd want to turn indirect jumps into
direct ones.
Alan, do you have particular testcas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70463
Bug ID: 70463
Summary: always use first element of mutex pool in
src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
Bug ID: 70462
Summary: Unnecessary "base object constructor" for final
classes
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38133|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70444
--- Comment #4 from Hubert Matthews ---
Doh, mea culpa. My apologies.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70454
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
By default, gcc uses the same -march=xxx for both -m32 and -m64 on x86-64
unless --with-arch-32= is used. There is no need for -march=i486 for -m32
on x86-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461
Bug ID: 70461
Summary: [6 Regression] Performance regression after r234527
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Kirill Yukhin from comment #3)
> I am reg-testing trivial patch
Ehm, the attached one is for PR70325.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 Regression] |[4.9/5/6 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
Bug ID: 70460
Summary: [6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux
starting with r234101
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Created attachment 38133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38133&action=edit
Proposed patch
I am reg-testing trivial patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69927
--- Comment #6 from jb999 at gmx dot de ---
Bug still remaining when compiling ffmpeg 3.0.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, started with r217664.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70459
--- Comment #1 from chaoskeeper at mail dot ru ---
Created attachment 38132
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38132&action=edit
Minimal test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70459
Bug ID: 70459
Summary: regex segfault on long sequences
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #20)
>
> Interesting, so it seems the observation you made in the previous comment is
> a result of somehow reverting the changes in PR 67391.
The changes in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70333
Bug 70333 depends on bug 70450, which changed state.
Bug 70450 Summary: [6 Regression] Wrong code with -O0 and -O1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70450
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 14:14:02 2016
New Revision: 234570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70421
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_vector_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Hashtable lookups are from location/block remapping done. I _think_ that if
all the copy_body stuff we do for constexpr evaluation would just "drop"
locations for the copy we'd still be fine constexpr wise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #21 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #18)
>
> The GCC testsuite results look OK. However, CSiBE shows
>
> sum: 3342539 -> 3351695+9156 / +0.273924 %
>
> which is not so nice. For example, in bzip2/blo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 30 14:06:51 2016
New Revision: 234569
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234569&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70421
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_vector_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #20 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
> This PR here seems to be a regression that has been caused by the patches
> for PR 67391.
Interesting, so it seems the observation you made in the pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo ---
This PR here seems to be a regression that has been caused by the patches for
PR 67391.
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
