https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
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=71231
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
-fwrapv seems to fix it. As far as I can tell, the multiplication is done in 32
bits, VRP detects that the numbers are nonnegative, so zeroing the sign bit of
the result of the mult+add can be assumed to be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> This code has the following warning:
> !CRAY - The following multiply must be done with 64 bits (not 46 bits)
> ! The algoritm depends on the overflow charac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 38548
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38548&action=edit
Missing include file
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> By the way the source does not compile as you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
Bug ID: 71252
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed : definition in
block 7 does not dominate use in block 6
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71123
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> Author: jvdelisle
> Date: Tue May 24 06:16:00 2016
> New Revision: 236629
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236629&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2016-05-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #22 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
> Author: jvdelisle
> Date: Tue May 24 06:11:21 2016
> New Revision: 236628
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236628&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2016-05-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71123
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue May 24 06:16:00 2016
New Revision: 236629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/71123
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue May 24 06:11:21 2016
New Revision: 236628
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/70684
* i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71243
--- Comment #2 from Michele Caini ---
According to https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx14, GCC5 should
fully implement the C++14 rules. Am I wrong?
Anyway, tested on debian sid (unstable), g++ v5.3.1-20 and it works.
I guess this can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71193
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue May 24 04:15:39 2016
New Revision: 236627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/66461
* scann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 24 03:37:10 2016
New Revision: 236626
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236626&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70344 - ICE with recursive constexpr
* constexpr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 24 03:34:55 2016
New Revision: 236625
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70344 - ICE with recursive constexpr
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71249
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Ah, right, my mistake. But there is a false positive there, despite my initial
test case not demonstrating it. Changing the first of the compound statement
to some other non-label statement such as a declara
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71251
Bug ID: 71251
Summary: ICE on invalid code, with unusual template name
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
By the way the source does not compile as you did not include 'rnfprm.h'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70896
Akihiko Odaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akihiko.odaki.4i at stu dot
hosei.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71249
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The warning is correct that is i = 0; can never be executed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
This code has the following warning:
!CRAY - The following multiply must be done with 64 bits (not 46 bits)
! The algoritm depends on the overflow characteristics of
! a 32 or 64 bit multiply.
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71170
--- Comment #10 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Tue May 24 00:14:13 2016
New Revision: 236619
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236619&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-05-24 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71201
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon May 23 23:42:52 2016
New Revision: 236617
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236617&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-05-23 Michael Meissner
PR target/71201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250
Bug ID: 71250
Summary: -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is
incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The difference in _optimized dumps is:
$ diff -u rnflow.f90.210t.optimized rnflow.f90.210t.optimized_
--- rnflow.f90.210t.optimized 2016-05-23 23:44:55.327695414 +0200
+++ rnflow.f90.210t.optimized_ 2016-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71249
Bug ID: 71249
Summary: -Wswitch-unreachable false positive for a compound
statement containing a used label
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 38547
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38547&action=edit
rnflow source and data file
Compile with -Ofast to see the failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Actually, rnflow gets miscompiled, but scripts doesn't detect the failure.
Current mainline produces following results:
0: 0:24.469 -> Compare results
45 , 53 38523934
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71248
Bug ID: 71248
Summary: crash on in-class initializer of array of pointer to
member
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71204
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71247
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Maybe a missing :s or this could be just increasing register pressure.
:s would have no effect, you would need to do it manually
(simplify
(bit_and SSA_NAME@0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71247
Bug ID: 71247
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in expand_expr_real_1, at
expr.c:9651
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70584
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 23 21:21:24 2016
New Revision: 236616
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236616&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70584 - error with parenthesized builtin arg
* cp-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70735
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 23 21:21:18 2016
New Revision: 236615
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236615&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70735 - generic lambda and local static variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Reverting r236338, the -Ofast runtime on my x86_64-linux-gnu box goes from
> 0m24.650s to 0m15.037s.
Maybe a missing :s or this could be just increasing register p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70972
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] Inheriting |[6 Regression] Inheriting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70972
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 23 20:50:10 2016
New Revision: 236614
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236614&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-05-23 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/70972
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71244
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69095
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69095
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 23 19:24:22 2016
New Revision: 236610
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236610&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-05-22 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/69095
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71246
Bug ID: 71246
Summary: "+g" assembly constraint causes error: inconsistent
operand constraints in an 'asm'
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71240
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To be precise, it should instead force it into a temporary SSA_NAME.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70735
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71240
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For non-INTEGRAL_TYPE_P guess we need to first VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR it to
corresponding integral type. Though, even that looks wrong.
src_stmt in this case is
_4 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
and bswap_type and load_type a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71245
Bug ID: 71245
Summary: std::atomic load/store bounces the data to the
stack using fild/fistp
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71240
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Cleaned up testcase:
struct L { unsigned int l[2]; };
union U { double a; struct L l; } u;
void
foo (double a, struct L *p)
{
u.a = a;
struct L l = u.l, m;
m.l[0] = 0;
m.l[1] = (((l.l[0] & 0xff00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71244
Bug ID: 71244
Summary: ice in zero_one_operation, at tree-ssa-reassoc.c:1230
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #22)
> This patch, by itself, fixes the whole issue.
>
Yes, it's OK to commit for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71240
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71234
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon May 23 16:31:14 2016
New Revision: 236598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 71234] Avoid valgrind warning in ipa-cp
2016-05-23 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71243
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The code is not valid in C++11, only C++14, and it seems that GCC 5 doesn't
implement the C++14 rules fully.
Since it's already fixed in GCC 6 I think this can be closed as FIXED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71243
Bug ID: 71243
Summary: Implicitly defined assignment operator is not
constexpr even though it should be
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71242
Bug ID: 71242
Summary: [ia64] Missing built-in functions for float128 NaNs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71241
Bug ID: 71241
Summary: [x86] Missing built-in functions for float128 NaNs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49859
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon May 23 15:37:09 2016
New Revision: 236597
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236597&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/49859
* common.opt (Wswitch-unreachable): New opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49859
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71240
--- Comment #1 from Roger Orr ---
(The example code compiles with gcc revision 236175, dated 20160512)
ault-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160523 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65567
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon May 23 14:54:04 2016
New Revision: 236594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236594&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libffi/65567] libffi: Fix, and simply libffi_feature_test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65567
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon May 23 15:00:41 2016
New Revision: 236595
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libffi/65567] libffi: Fix, and simply libffi_feature_test
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65567
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon May 23 15:03:08 2016
New Revision: 236596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libffi/65567] libffi: Fix, and simply libffi_feature_test
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71239
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 38544
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38544&action=edit
Candidate patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71239
Bug ID: 71239
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in operand_equal_p
(fold-const.c:2769)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71238
Bug ID: 71238
Summary: Undeclared function message imprecisely points to
error column
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70677
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
You can follow the bug reporting instructions an provide the preprocessed code
and the compiler output as described in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
Just add -v -save-temps to the compiler's command line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70676
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
You can follow the bug reporting instructions an provide the preprocessed code
and the compiler output as described in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
Just add -v -save-temps to the compiler's command line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 14:09:35 2016
New Revision: 236591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71230
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57284
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is there any progress concerning this bug? I'm trying GCC-5.3.
Usual answer: what did you do to fix it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #19 from Andre Vieira ---
> First of all please open a new bug for the FAILs. Second, the fix will
> be mostly adjusting the testcase expectations (eventually disabling LIM
> for example if we want to test SCCP abilities).
Opened a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71237
Bug ID: 71237
Summary: scev tests failing after pass reorganization
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57284
Benedict changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||holysword at inbox dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 12:51:29 2016
New Revision: 236588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 12:51:29 2016
New Revision: 236588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70347
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 12:51:29 2016
New Revision: 236588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68142
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 12:51:29 2016
New Revision: 236588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70972
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71236
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71190
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70919
Bug 70919 depends on bug 70884, which changed state.
Bug 70884 Summary: [6 regression] 2nd SRA pass confused by load from constant
pool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70884
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70884
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70884
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon May 23 11:27:14 2016
New Revision: 236584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 70884] Constant pool SRA fix
2016-05-23 Martin Jambor
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71236
Bug ID: 71236
Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71235
Bug ID: 71235
Summary: march=silvermont turns on aes by default
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
You are right, sorry for not double-checking the list provided by James:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01014.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #8)
> I'll take your comment as approval and install on gcc-5 as well.
Ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69239
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 10:41:35 2016
New Revision: 236583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 10:41:35 2016
New Revision: 236583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.0, 6.1.0
Summary|[4.9/5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.0, 6.1.0
Summary|[4.9/5
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
