https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78110
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
oh, I am using eCos and that is based on newlib but on a very very old one.
I don't know what happens when I dont use --with-newlib, but I can try...
configure.ac has this:
# First, test for "known" syste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78110
Bug ID: 78110
Summary: freestanding libstdc++ fails to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43515
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43750
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78086
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-10-25, at 8:29 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
>> However, 'cannot open data file, assuming not executed' message is very
>> suspicious.
>
> The .gcda files are not being generat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Wow.
look at this:
Index: arm.md
===
--- arm.md (revision 241539)
+++ arm.md (working copy)
@@ -448,7 +448,7 @@
(plus:DI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78105
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
> -O3 -mtune=cortex-a53 -fomit-frame-pointer -fipa-pta -march=armv8-a+crc
> -ftree-vectorize
Can you show the exact command line which you used to configure GCC? And the
output of env?
A normal bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78105
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, wrong-code
--- Comment #5 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78109
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78109
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
That's what a PIE is: an ET_DYN that can be directly executed. There is
no bug here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78107
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #15 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #14)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #13)
> > I am still trying to understand why thumb1 seems to outperform thumb2.
> >
> > Obviously thumb1 does not have the sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45516
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Oct 25 20:37:05 2016
New Revision: 241539
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241539&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-25 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/45516
* class.c (gfc_f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78106
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 25 20:15:20 2016
New Revision: 241537
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241537&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/78106
* gcc.dg/asan/pr78106.c: Add -ffat-lto-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34212
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42195
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.0
--- Comment #2 from Pawel Sikora ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78109
Bug ID: 78109
Summary: ld with -pie creates a shared library instead of an
executable
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78108
Bug ID: 78108
Summary: Generic type-bound operator conflicts
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #14 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #13)
> I am still trying to understand why thumb1 seems to outperform thumb2.
>
> Obviously thumb1 does not have the shiftdi3 pattern,
> but even if I remove these from thum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > > Why would we be not able to tailcall in an interupt handler?
> >
> > We n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I am still trying to understand why thumb1 seems to outperform thumb2.
Obviously thumb1 does not have the shiftdi3 pattern,
but even if I remove these from thumb2, the result is still
not par with thumb2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46577
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77974
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77309
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29304
Andrew John Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnu_andrew at member dot
fsf.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52609
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.0
--- Comment #5 from Pawel Sikora ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63746
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.2, 5.4.1, 6.2.1
--- Comment #2 from P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54548
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77473
Rimvydas (RJ) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72770
--- Comment #8 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Tue Oct 25 17:01:58 2016
New Revision: 241528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-10-25 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 regression] GCC |[5/6 regression] GCC
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78107
Bug ID: 78107
Summary: verify_gimple failed ICE caused by Gimple loop
splitting patch
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 25 16:26:12 2016
New Revision: 241525
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241525&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78102
* optabs.def (vcondeq_optab, vec_cmpeq_op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48097
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #12)
> GCJ has been removed from GCC 7. But on the other hand this isn't really so
> much a java bug itself as it is an unwinding bug that java just happened to
> be the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48097
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
GCJ has been removed from GCC 7. But on the other hand this isn't really so
much a java bug itself as it is an unwinding bug that java just happened to be
the one to tickle. So is it worth keeping this bug o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29304
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
GCJ has been removed from GCC 7. So "wontfix"?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65452
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
And another
#include
struct S {
int val;
};
int
f (struct S *sym1, struct S *sym2 __attribute__((unused)))
{
return memcmp (&sym1->val, &sym1->val, sizeof (sym1->val));
}
#define N 0
#define M 0
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65452
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Testcase:
#include
#define STR1 "str"
#define STR2 "str"
#define S1 (s)
#define S2 (s)
int
f (const char *s)
{
int r = 0;
r += strcmp (s, s) == 0;
r += __builtin_strcmp (s, s) == 0;
r += strcmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65452
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Created attachment 39880
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39880&action=edit
Wsame-arguments
I'm attaching a patch to implement a warning for this, named -Wsame-arguments.
The problem is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77982
--- Comment #10 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Pawel Sikora from comment #9)
> (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #8)
>
> > Hm, perhaps environment issue. What version of Glibc do you use?
>
> glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64
Reproduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61439
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Or, if we are ok that for SSE4.1 (and not SSE4.2) the vectorizer just won't
> be able to use those V2DI equality (and gt?) comparisons, then revert part
> of the r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > Why would we be not able to tailcall in an interupt handler?
>
> We need to verify that the only instruction in an int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Why would we be not able to tailcall in an interupt handler?
We need to verify that the only instruction in an interrupt handler
is a tail call to another interrupt h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > Can ICF turn foo1 into a tail call to foo2 when foo2 has an interrupt
> > attribute?
>
> Problem here is that comp_type_attributes returns 1 as
>
> $18 = {name = 0x1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78106
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78058
--- Comment #1 from Andrzej Krzemienski ---
Fore some background, the bug is caused by GCC correctly implementing p0032r2.
Technically GCC is compliant with N4604, however the tags as specified in 20.2
are buggy, as can be seen in the initial exa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78106
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Oct 25 14:16:10 2016
New Revision: 241511
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix not caught use-after-scope with -O1 (PR sanitize/78106)
PR sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77982
--- Comment #9 from Pawel Sikora ---
(In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #8)
> Hm, perhaps environment issue. What version of Glibc do you use?
glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64
--enable-linux-futex --enable-threads=posix
> --enable-shared --with-pic --enable-gold --enable-__cxa_atexit
> --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-initfini-array --enable-languages=c,c++
> --enable-checking=release --with-long-double-128 --disable-cld
> --disable-bootstrap
> Thread m
le-128
--disable-cld --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161025 (experimental) (GCC)
~/src/gcc-install/usr/local/bin/g++ -fuse-ld=gold -g2 -Og -fsanitize=address
-Wl,-rpath,/home/pawels/src/gcc-install/usr/local/lib64 -flto s.cpp -shared -o
s.so -fPIC -pthread
~/src/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78086
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-10-24, at 4:53 AM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> However, 'cannot open data file, assuming not executed' message is very
> suspicious.
The .gcda files are not being generated. Inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78099
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78099
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Oct 25 12:20:19 2016
New Revision: 241510
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241510&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix 2 typos in IPA ICF pass
* gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-32.c: Removed on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78106
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Patch has been just sent:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02010.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78105
--- Comment #4 from PeteVine ---
That helped, running gdb --args manually wasn't working obviously:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
_Unwind_GetGR (index=29, context=0x7fae00) at
../../../libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:240
240
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78106
Bug ID: 78106
Summary: ASAN can't find heap-use-after-free with -O1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78105
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Please try to add following to your compile flags:
-wrapper gdb,--args
However I guess the problem is that build-lto/./gcc/xgcc binary is somehow
miscompiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78105
--- Comment #2 from PeteVine ---
I've run the command in gdb but there's no stack after reproducing the crash -
suggestions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041
--- Comment #17 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #15)
> FYI: You could merge the two alternatives into one.
>
> =?r,?&r
> 0, r
> i, i
>
> is equivalent to
>
> =?&r
> 0r
> i
Yes, that seems po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78105
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041
--- Comment #16 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wilco
Date: Tue Oct 25 10:25:28 2016
New Revision: 241508
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241508&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
With -fpu=neon DI mode shifts are expanded after reload. DI mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041
--- Comment #15 from Bernd Edlinger ---
FYI: You could merge the two alternatives into one.
=?r,?&r
0, r
i, i
is equivalent to
=?&r
0r
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 39878
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39878&action=edit
Untested patch for the middle-end bits
Will try to add the expanders to sse.md now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78105
Bug ID: 78105
Summary: ICE during LTO bootstrap on AARCH64
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041
wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78103
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I wouldn't introduce a builtin, that would be user accessible, perhaps
> internal function + corresponding optab and just pattern match it.
Yeah, IFN + optab is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78103
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, now that optabs are looked up using a binary search, the argument
that conv optabs are very expensive doesn't hold any longer, plus we could
arrange for only defining vcond_eq and vec_cmpeq if
corr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> A separate optab for equality compares would maybe work (if the difference
> between 4.1 and 4.2 is really equality vs. relational compares).
> vcond_eq (handlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78103
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
A separate optab for equality compares would maybe work (if the difference
between 4.1 and 4.2 is really equality vs. relational compares).
vcond_eq (handling both signed/unsigned obviously).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> How would it expand? Repeat all the vector condition/comparison lowering
> code from tree-vect-generic.c on RTL? Compared to that I think it would be
> simpler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
For fixing the regression I'd suggest to revert the intrinsic header change
(for the branches).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71678
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71676
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
>
> > I'm not sure it is a good idea. Then expand_vec_cond_expr_p will return
> > true, vectorizer will use them heavi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> Let's see what breaks with the attached patch. The test compiles OK.
As expected, fails following test with -msse4.1:
--cut here--
typedef long long __m128i __attr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71678
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Oct 25 08:35:17 2016
New Revision: 241504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
New avt target pass to work around performance loss by PR fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71676
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Oct 25 08:35:17 2016
New Revision: 241504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
New avt target pass to work around performance loss by PR fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64431
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71678
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Oct 25 08:26:59 2016
New Revision: 241503
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241503&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/71676
PR target/71678
* config/avr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71676
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Oct 25 08:26:59 2016
New Revision: 241503
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241503&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/71676
PR target/71678
* config/avr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or, if we are ok that for SSE4.1 (and not SSE4.2) the vectorizer just won't be
able to use those V2DI equality (and gt?) comparisons, then revert part of the
r217608 change and fold the builtin into generic v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 39877
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39877&action=edit
Patch to enable generic expanders for sse-4.1
We need to enable a couple of expanders for sse-4.1. Hopefully midd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> Can ICF turn foo1 into a tail call to foo2 when foo2 has an interrupt
> attribute?
Problem here is that comp_type_attributes returns 1 as
$18 = {name = 0x19d357b "interrupt", min_length = 0, max_length = 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> This means using GCC vector extensions in the header for the intrinsic was
> a bad idea in this particular case.
Yes, the simplest fix is to revert to using the b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78099
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Why would we be not able to tailcall in an interupt handler?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78099
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78100
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78102
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78104
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0)
> > A simple example:
> >
> > int main() {
> > int *ob = new int();
> > delete ob;
> > }
> >
> > clang op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55233
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
98 matches
Mail list logo
