https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77692
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77739
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77739
Bug ID: 77739
Summary: internal compiler error: in create_tmp_var, at
gimple-expr.c:524
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
--- Comment #4 from Anton Blanchard ---
Created attachment 39683
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39683&action=edit
Another bitop LHS test case
Here's another issue found in the Linux kernel. Seems like this should be a
singl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77727
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Patch available: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01777.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77727
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68733
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin ---
Similar fails:
FAIL: c-c++-common/gomp/clauses-2.c (test for errors, line 51)
FAIL: c-c++-common/gomp/clauses-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: c-c++-common/gomp/clauses-2.c -std=c++98 (test for er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77738
Bug ID: 77738
Summary: Invalid initialisation of ar.lc register
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77737
Bug ID: 77737
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-5.c scan-tree-dump-times
optimized "&a" 1
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77736
Bug ID: 77736
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-2.c (test
for warnings, line 50)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77730
--- Comment #5 from PeteVine ---
OK, I hacked the last two to use -mcpu=cortex-a53 (the first one got switched
to -mtune) and the result looks like this:
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1609258-LO-FORTRANAA63
Not exactly the original issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77735
Bug ID: 77735
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c (test
for warnings, line 358)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77733
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
When template argument deduction is involved and the list of candidates is
displayed, the fixit becomes more useful, as the relevant function can get lost
in the list of failed overload resolution candidate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77734
Bug ID: 77734
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-1.c
-fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for excess
errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77733
Bug ID: 77733
Summary: Add fixit hint suggesting to use std::move
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77732
Bug ID: 77732
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipcp-cstagg-7.c scan-ipa-dump-times
cp "Discovered an indirect call to a known target" 3
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77731
Bug ID: 77731
Summary: Parameter pack expansion doesn't work when used to
define argument list
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77593
--- Comment #10 from n8tm at aol dot com ---
Jerry ,
Thanks for the efforts and apparent progress. I will return to wired internet
territory and the win10 box next weekend. I have the win8.1 laptop here.
Sent via the ASUS PadFone X mini, an AT&T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77593
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to tprince from comment #8)
> I show my configure parameters in my test results posts. At some time in
> the past, each of them has been important. I don't know if the parameters
> quoted by cygwi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Sep 25 18:46:28 2016
New Revision: 240477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240477&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/77429
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76957
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Similar fail on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu:
FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/scop-dsyrk.c scan-tree-dump-times graphite "number of
SCoPs: 1" 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77694
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77694
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Sep 25 17:30:27 2016
New Revision: 240476
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240476&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-22 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/77694
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71767
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #24)
> The patch in comment 20 (and SDK 10.9) causes the failures of the tests
> gcc.dg/torture/darwin-cfstring-3.c and g++.dg/torture/darwin-cfstring-3.C
> with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77730
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #3)
> What about ARMv7?
>
> http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1609253-LO-MERGE859124
Similar point there. I have seen cortex-a7 and a9 acting way different.
Also withou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77730
--- Comment #3 from PeteVine ---
What about ARMv7?
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1609253-LO-MERGE859124
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77621
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77621
--- Comment #22 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Sep 25 17:07:37 2016
New Revision: 240475
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240475&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-09-21 Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77730
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77730
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
One thing I noticed is the generic vector cost model sucks for almost all
cores. It causes to emit ld2/ld3 in cases where it would be more expensive than
if doing it scalar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77730
Bug ID: 77730
Summary: Fortran performance on aarch64 (6/7 regression
heads-up)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
--- Comment #9 from Julian Andres Klode ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> This looks like missing removal of casts.
>
> Note in C, char_var|32 is really the same as ((int)char_var)|32
Well. The loads of the byte are already zero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
This looks like missing removal of casts.
Note in C, char_var|32 is really the same as ((int)char_var)|32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77411
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sun Sep 25 15:12:05 2016
New Revision: 240472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240472&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-25 Bernd Edlinger
backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
--- Comment #6 from Julian Andres Klode ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Note this testcase needs to be improved as I have a patch which converts a
> switch with just one case and a default into anew if statement.
FWIW, The issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
--- Comment #5 from Julian Andres Klode ---
Created attachment 39678
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39678&action=edit
ppc64le
Hmm, AFAICT the same seems to happen on powerpc64le:
lbz 9,0(3) # L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
--- Comment #3 from Julian Andres Klode ---
Created attachment 39677
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39677&action=edit
arm (thumb2) output at -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
--- Comment #2 from Julian Andres Klode ---
Created attachment 39676
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39676&action=edit
Aarch64 output at -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
--- Comment #1 from Julian Andres Klode ---
Created attachment 39675
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39675&action=edit
C reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
Bug ID: 77729
Summary: aarch64 inserts unneeded uxtb after ldrb, orr ...32
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
Richi, if you're not going to backport any patches, maybe close this one as
fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58122
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
This issue seems to be working just fine. Not sure what kind of test case to
add for this though... just scanning final assembler code for some expected hex
or dec constant?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77558
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77725
Tamir Aviv changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tamiraviv at mail dot tau.ac.il
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65122
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17)
> I think this is fixed for GCC 7 with -std=c++17 support.
No, it isn't. new T[10] will give suitably aligned memory, but not
std::allocator. Only the core part of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77719
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to kugan from comment #5)
> Sent a patch to fix this at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01760.html.
Thanks, add this line before the first IF statement to silence the warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71767
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The patch in comment 20 (and SDK 10.9) causes the failures of the tests
gcc.dg/torture/darwin-cfstring-3.c and g++.dg/torture/darwin-cfstring-3.C with
-m32, see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #87 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Sep 25 06:59:37 2016
New Revision: 240471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240471&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
This fixes a fallout that actually goes back to 5.0 but went unnoticed.
Th
52 matches
Mail list logo
