https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #26 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70490
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70492
--- Comment #1 from Marcel Böhme ---
This error was found during fuzzing with a more efficient version of AFL.
Patch and reviews available here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg0.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70492
Bug ID: 70492
Summary: Libiberty Demangler segfaults (2)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70491
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70491
Bug ID: 70491
Summary: slow compilation initializing a VLA
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70490
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70490
Bug ID: 70490
Summary: __atomic_load_n(const __int128 *, ...) generates
CMPXCHG16B with no warning
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68566
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The following additional patchlet does the trick.
Still need to regression test.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/array.c b/gcc/fortran/array.c
index 2fc9dfaf..8fef30ce 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/array.c
+++ b/gcc/fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70250
--- Comment #2 from brijesh singh ---
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.9/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu
4.9.2-0ub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70489
Bug ID: 70489
Summary: ICE in cxx_eval_increment_expression initializing a
VLA in a constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
They should be.
if (x)
#pragma omp for
for (...)
if (y)
...
else
...
and #pragma omp simd and #pragma omp taskloop too.
For C++, perhaps we could just pass around if_p argument to a few more pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70488
Bug ID: 70488
Summary: ICE in tree.c:7345 triggered by warning of placement
new too small
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393
--- Comment #11 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Applied to gcc-5 branch r234653.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Mar 31 20:51:20 2016
New Revision: 234653
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70393
* varasm.c (output_constructor_regular_fie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68566
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70487
Bug ID: 70487
Summary: warn_unused_result attribute doesn't warn when return
type is class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70486
Bug ID: 70486
Summary: Constexpr array captured in lambda function (used via
std::function)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70485
Bug ID: 70485
Summary: Duplicate typedef results in missing debug info
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70248
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Below is a test case (derived from a test discussed in the context of another
bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg01644.html) for another
example of a constexpr function whose use in a constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The difference I see is that LRA chooses alternative "Q,0,Q" and reload chooses
"d,0,R".
For the "Q,O,Q" LRA reports:
2 Spill pseudo into memory: reject+=3
alt=11,overall=9,losers=1,r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70403
--- Comment #9 from Hadula, Tomasz ---
Created attachment 38148
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38148&action=edit
Reduced testcase
I reduced the size of the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65923
Richard Geary changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richardg.work at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
--- Comment #3 from Jörg Richter ---
Well, my real problem is related to coverage analysis. Function coverage will
show the base object constructor as not called. But my concrete test case is
more complex and involves virtual functions and inhe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka ---
Should non-standard constructs be considered in this PR? I noticed that we also
don't warn on
if (a)
#pragma GCC ivdep
while (1)
if (b)
bar ();
else
baz ();
and
if (a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
rn void *malloc (__SIZE_TYPE__);
extern void abort (void);
int main()
{
void *volatile p = malloc(sizeof(long));
int *pi = p;
long *pl = p;
*pi = 1;
*pl = 0;
if (*(char *)pi != 0)
abort();
}
--
Tested on gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Mar 31 17:51:13 2016
New Revision: 234649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234649&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-31 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/70461
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> No objections to deferring this to gcc-7. Not surprisingly, my response
> when this issue was raised on Red Hat's internal IRC was the same -- nobody
> cares abou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70399
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70391
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70399
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Mar 31 17:28:29 2016
New Revision: 234647
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234647&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR hsa/70399
PR hsa/70399
* hsa-brig.c (hsa_op_immed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70483
Bug ID: 70483
Summary: string_view::compare and coparision operators are not
constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67394
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brian.carpenter at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70391
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Mar 31 17:10:48 2016
New Revision: 234644
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234644&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
HSA: handle alignment of string builtins (PR hsa/70391)
PR hsa/70
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70391
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Mar 31 17:10:15 2016
New Revision: 234643
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234643&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
HSA: support alignment for hsa_symbols (PR hsa/70391)
PR hsa/7039
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 38145 [details]
> patch
>
> Attached patch seems to work OK on Linux and removes all string.h includes
> from chkp-str* tests. I believe this should resolve all related issues
> o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #17 from Julien Margetts ---
The following test case still fails with the patch applied (originally bug
70362)
arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv3m -c -o c_compat_x_tst.o
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-4_x.c
The assert in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
No objections to deferring this to gcc-7. Not surprisingly, my response when
this issue was raised on Red Hat's internal IRC was the same -- nobody cares
about x87 math anymore ;-) IMHO it's really just a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70482
Bug ID: 70482
Summary: Opimization opportunity to vectorize basic block for
-mavx target.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
Julien Margetts changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Should it be fixed on gcc-5-branch too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70442
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70442
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Mar 31 15:37:12 2016
New Revision: 234637
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234637&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/70442
* config/i386/i386.c (scalar_cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481
--- Comment #2 from Marcel Böhme ---
These are two distinct bugs. During fuzzing the btypevec bug appears more
often. But it seemed less critical since only NULL is written to the freed
memory:
work -> btypevec[ret] = NULL;
On the other hand, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Mar 31 15:30:33 2016
New Revision: 234636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70393
* varasm.c (output_constructor_regular_fiel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453
--- Comment #7 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Thu Mar 31 15:25:33 2016
New Revision: 234635
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234635&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/70453.
gcc/
* config/i386/sse.md (define_mode_att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453
--- Comment #6 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Thu Mar 31 15:23:29 2016
New Revision: 234634
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234634&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/70453.
gcc/
* config/i386/sse.md (define_mode_att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70404
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38142|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #49 from Akim Demaille ---
It looks like this story is missing an end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
Akim Demaille changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akim.demaille at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64411
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fails at O0 in this case, I cannot type. I still think this is a tail from
PR62254 and that should just be reopened.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69307
--- Comment #10 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 14:50:57 2016
New Revision: 234629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-03-12 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69032
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70476
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I haven't checked for other relevant rules in the standard, but Clang and EDG
give the same result as G++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #5 from Julien Margetts ---
Yes, I applied both patches, and the test failure is still present, but on
closer inspection, it is no longer a segfault, but an internal compiler error:
The new assertion in the patch is firing:
gcc_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70292
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 14:37:08 2016
New Revision: 234627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70292
* gcc.c-torture/pr70292.c: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70292
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64411
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tarasevich at cs dot
uni-saarland.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481
Bug ID: 70481
Summary: [Regression] Libiberty Demangler segfaults
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70297
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] GCC|[5 Regression] GCC
|Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70297
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 31 14:29:15 2016
New Revision: 234626
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234626&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/70297
* c-decl.c (merge_decls): Also set TYPE_ALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Julien Margetts from comment #3)
> Are you suggesting you confirmed the patch associated with bug 62254 fixes
> this issue?
>
> As far as I can tell, in isolation at least, it does not
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70480
Bug ID: 70480
Summary: Reduce RTTI code bloat for specified types
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> Patch applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2016-03/msg00740.html - just in case someone
wants a link to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69102
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 14:16:18 2016
New Revision: 234625
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-03-21 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #3 from Julien Margetts ---
Are you suggesting you confirmed the patch associated with bug 62254 fixes this
issue?
As far as I can tell, in isolation at least, it does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70184
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |6.0
--- Comment #15 from Ramana R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70479
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> You mean we fail to handle ternary associative tree codes in GIMPLE reassoc?
> Yes, that's true. It's not going to be easy to retro-fit there
> implementation-w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69032
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 14:01:22 2016
New Revision: 234624
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234624&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-03-15 Andrey Belevantsev
Philippe Daouadi writes:
> 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) crash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmargetts at ocz dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #11 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 13:55:36 2016
New Revision: 234622
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234622&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-03-15 Andrey Belevantse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64411
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 13:50:15 2016
New Revision: 234620
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234620&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-03-15 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
I benchmarked the patch in comment#17 with a full three-run on all_cpp
on a Haswell machine with -Ofast -march=native (peak is patched).
Estimated Es
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70479
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
You mean we fail to handle ternary associative tree codes in GIMPLE reassoc?
Yes, that's true. It's not going to be easy to retro-fit there
implementation-wise. With rebalancing you mean handling reassoc-w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70479
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin ---
(In reply to Kirill Yukhin from comment #0)
> Compile:
> GCC: g++ -march=haswell -Ofast -flto -fopenmp-simd -fpermissive m.cpp -o
> m.gcc
> ICC: icpc -O3 -ipo -fpermissive -xAVX2 -qopenmp m.cpp -o m.icc
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70479
Bug ID: 70479
Summary: FMA is not reassociated causing x2 slowdown vs. ICC
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 31 13:21:43 2016
New Revision: 234618
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70460
* ira.c (indirect_jump_optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 31 13:13:13 2016
New Revision: 234617
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234617&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70460
* ira.c (indirect_jump_optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63874
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1)
> Sounds like this might be confusion between weak definitions and weak
> references. If we have a weak reference to the object, we cannot convert it
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 31 13:00:52 2016
New Revision: 234614
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234614&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70460
* ira.c (indirect_jump_optimize)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is correct expectation, but the problem is that no pass that uses it
actually manages to update the insn.
As I said earlier, the combiner doesn't trigger, because there is just a single
insn, nothing to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Created attachment 38145
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38145&action=edit
patch
Attached patch seems to work OK on Linux and removes all string.h includes from
chkp-str* tests. I belie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Maybe the ABI mandates these nevertheless.
Right, the ABI doesn't say anything about final classes. Note that the extra
symbol is only an alias; there aren't t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70292
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
So, we don't optimize at -O2
long foo (int a)
{
return (long)(a + 1) - 1;
}
Note that (T)(A +- CST1) +- CST2 -> (T)A +- CST3 thus the combined
addition in general needs to be done in the larger type _un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #10)
> Created attachment 38144 [details]
> Tentative patch for VRP and loop-doloop
>
> Meanwhile I found the time to implement a pattern for VRP which seems to do
> the job
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
