https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79400
Bug ID: 79400
Summary: [7 Regression] Confusing 'noexcept' suggestion on
throw (X)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79400
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE with |[5/6 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #46 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
>
> --- Comment #45 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> Created attachment 40683
> --> https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79229
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Assignee|una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78152
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10)
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:39:58PM +, physiker at toast2 dot net wrote:
> >
> > Ifort version 17 (linux) supports coarrays as selectors in an assoc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So an update for gcc-7. Things continue to improve ever-so-slightly.
-O2 -DNAIL_REGS 87 references to %esp
-O2 -UNAIL_REGS 25 references to %esp
But that's still a long way from the best we've had in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Tue Feb 7 02:20:48 2017
New Revision: 245239
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245239&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/79360
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/79360
* typec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79342
--- Comment #6 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Sorry, forgot to mention that Redhat bugzilla has a one line C source program
that does not trip the compiler (no ICE), but obviously generates a wrong dwarf
info. These certainly look related to me.
TIA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79342
ishikawa,chiaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79363
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch submitted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00489.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #23)
> > > Also with profile feedback perhaps you have enough info to tell that the
> > > speculative path is almost as likely as the original placement.
> >
> > M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
More thoughts on how we might approach resolving.
To tackle in the backwards threader I think we need to change the model for how
backwards threading works.
Right now it starts walking up the use-def chain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
The issue is that we no longer inline all calls to ray_sphere which is the
inlining that matters. Declaring trace noinline or ray_sphere always_inline
helps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60615
--- Comment #6 from Pedro Alves ---
Marek, did you ever post a patch for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #7 from Walt Brainerd ---
With GENERIC and PUBLIC statements
ifort says "No visible interface"
gfortran gets an ICE
So I assume the code is wrong, as you suggest, but both give funny
messages
With the other "bug" I filed: pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79399
Bug ID: 79399
Summary: GCC fails to compile big source at -O0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> I don't think so. But I don't know much about that bug, it is something
> with AVX I think? If you are talking about PR79224.
I see, we have separate PR for that, good ;)
>
> > Also with profile feedb
>
> I don't think so. But I don't know much about that bug, it is something
> with AVX I think? If you are talking about PR79224.
I see, we have separate PR for that, good ;)
>
> > Also with profile feedback perhaps you have enough info to tell that the
> > speculative path is almost as likely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79398
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79398
Bug ID: 79398
Summary: misleading error static constexpr member function
called in a constant expression before its definition
is complete
Product: gcc
Version: 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79397
Bug ID: 79397
Summary: AltiVec spelled incorrectly in rs6000.opt
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: transla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71107
--- Comment #9 from Bitterblue ---
Still broken in GCC 6.3.1...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #20)
> There was also regression on cray for x86-64
> https://gcc.opensuse.org/c++bench-czerny/c-ray/
> Is it the same issue?
I don't think so. But I don't know m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Scheduling should never move very expensive instructions to places they
> are executed more frequently. This patch fixes that, reducing the
> execution time of c-ray by over 40% (I tested on a BE Power7 sys
> Scheduling should never move very expensive instructions to places they
> are executed more frequently. This patch fixes that, reducing the
> execution time of c-ray by over 40% (I tested on a BE Power7 system).
>
> This introduces a new target hook sched.can_speculate_insn which returns
> whet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71193
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 6 21:12:13 2017
New Revision: 245223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71193 - incomplete types in templates
* parser.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66144
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66144
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Feb 6 21:07:37 2017
New Revision: 245222
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245222&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-02-06 Michael Meissner
PR target/66144
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79372
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] ICE with |[6 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79379
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #45 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 40683
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40683&action=edit
reduced testcase that exhibits problem on a cross build (function crapola)
This pre-processed source is misco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78303
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
The problem is the tests use initialization (both static and auto
initialization). Unfortunately, when initializing a vector, the -maltivec=be
option is not checked when laying out the structure in memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #44 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #43)
> I upgraded GDB on gcc119 with GDB 7.9.1 + IBM patches. It may work a little
> better.
FWI, the gdb on /opt/freeware/bin/gdb is even worse now. I can't put an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79376
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79396
Bug ID: 79396
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE (verify_flow_info failed) with
-fnon-call-exceptions -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79379
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 6 20:06:16 2017
New Revision: 245220
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245220&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79379
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79377
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 6 20:05:09 2017
New Revision: 245219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79377
* tree.c (build_min_non_dep_op_overload): For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79372
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 6 20:03:15 2017
New Revision: 245218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79372
* decl.c (cp_finish_decomp): On error set dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79395
Bug ID: 79395
Summary: Compile error with -mcpu=power9 and
__builtin_vec_vcmpne_p
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Feb 6 19:19:49 2017
New Revision: 245215
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245215&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sched: Do not move expensive insns speculatively (PR68664)
Schedul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79284
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 6 19:15:36 2017
New Revision: 245214
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245214&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79284
* tree-vectorizer.h (VECT_SCALA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79332
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
That would be the %e / %n extraction intended for spec strings. In this
case, I think splitting the string constant between the % and the n should
avoid the %n extraction without affecting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #6 from Walt Brainerd ---
You are probably right, but I have done all this on my home computer,
so I need to look at things again this evening. I do have ifort there and
will let you know.
I was trying all kinds of variations and can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79394
Bug ID: 79394
Summary: Possible rejects-valid problem
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
Bug ID: 79393
Summary: [7 Regression] cc1plus rejects valid code with
noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #43 from David Edelsohn ---
I upgraded GDB on gcc119 with GDB 7.9.1 + IBM patches. It may work a little
better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Further work needed. I did not fix the actual issue in vectorizer because I am
really lost in the new prologue code. I hope Bin will chime in and help me ;)
The situation is not that bad overall, but it could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Walt,
My reading of the situation is that since, in this version, the
generic procedure is typebound in a public derived type, the PUBLIC
attribute is already accorded it. I thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71144
--- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt ---
The ICE (s390x) has gone away with this commit:
2017-01-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/77318
* graphite-sese-to-poly.c (extract_affine): Fix assert.
(create_pw_aff_from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79392
Bug ID: 79392
Summary: MinGW-w64 backend: programs built with --coverage do
not create *.gcda files
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70448
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70448
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Feb 6 17:49:31 2017
New Revision: 245213
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245213&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-06 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/70448
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78480
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Why is this a gcc bug? newlib is not part of gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79372
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79149
--- Comment #11 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I've submitted a workaround for the kernel now, addressing the stack usage
warning on MIPS, as well as performance on ARM and others:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9555183/
The patch has two different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79391
Bug ID: 79391
Summary: sh ICE in in eligible_for_delay, at
config/sh/sh.md:564
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78480
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill ---
Still occurs on:
gcc (GCC) 7.0.1 20170205 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #4 from Walt Brainerd ---
Sorry, I forgot to remove the extraneous USE statement
which cutting down from the original code.
I am not good with this new stuff; please explain what
the syntax error is? If the PUBLIC statement is not co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79371
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79323
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Feb 6 16:39:56 2017
New Revision: 245211
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245211&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix test failure at -O0 by pruning output
PR libstdc++/79323
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> The test compiles and executes if I remove the line
>
>public :: write (formatted)
Hi Walt and Dominique,
Should this be a syntax error or a quiet ign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79372
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71144
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
This no longer happens with current trunk. The warnings are still present, but
the ICE is gone:
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #1)
> I get (pprobably) the same ICE on s390x with today's devel branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79388
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79087
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #17 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Feb 6 15:14:09 2017
New Revision: 245210
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245210&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 78348: Limit amount of unrolling in test.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79379
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40680
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40680&action=edit
gcc7-pr79379.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79316
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79383
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348
--- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 40679
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40679&action=edit
test outpu
Full test output attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79134
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #16 from Dominik Vogt ---
Patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00424.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79389
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Please note that clang if-converts:
if ( x*x + y*y <= 1.0)
under_curve ++;
to SETcc + ADD:
5,64 │ movsd (%rsp),%xmm1
│ mulsd %xmm1,%xmm1
│ mulsd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #15 from Dominik Vogt ---
Yep. I'll post a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #13)
> It still fails with
>
> /* { dg-options "-O3 -fdump-tree-ldist-details --param max-unroll-times=8" }
> */
Hmm, so maybe it was --param max-completely-peel-tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt ---
It still fails with
/* { dg-options "-O3 -fdump-tree-ldist-details --param max-unroll-times=8" } */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79379
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think that commit is related. Those symbols where added by r232454 and
are defined when this condition is true:
+#if __cplusplus >= 201103L && _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI \
+ && _GLIB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79359
--- Comment #2 from Raphael C ---
As an additional data point in relation to Part 2 (that is without
-ffast-math). In gcc 7 -O3 -ffinite-math-only gives
f:
movqQWORD PTR [rsp-16], xmm0
movss xmm3, DWORD PTR [rsp-12]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #11)
> Fails if configured with "--with-arch=zEC12", passes without that.
The innermost loop is fully unrolled. Looks like somebody bumped
--param max-unroll-times f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348
--- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt ---
All right, but what is the cause of that? The commit that git-bisect found
seems to be completely unrelated(?)
Examples:
--
4
_ZGTtNSt11range_errorC2EPKc
transaction clone for std::range_error::range_error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
On trunk I see with -fno-split-paths:
.L5:
movq(%r14,%rdx,8), %rcx
vmovsd (%rcx,%rbx), %xmm0
vandpd %xmm3, %xmm0, %xmm0
vucomisd%xmm1, %xmm0
jbe .L4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79311
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Reduced test:
module tensor_recursive
implicit none
type, public:: tens_signature_t
contains
final:: tens_signature_dtor
end type tens_signature_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #3 from krister.walfridsson at gmail dot com ---
Correction: -fno-split-paths does not help the trunk compiler. But it restores
the result when using the r242550 compiler...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #2 from krister.walfridsson at gmail dot com ---
No, I get the same reduced performance when using -fno-split-paths
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78634
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
It fails with -march=zEC12 but not with -march=z900. It seems to be a tuning
issue of the branch cost in the backend; a colleague is working on that and
will mave a patch at some time in the future. So, I th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79386
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
