https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
__vic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.v.a at ngs dot ru
--- Comment #18 from __vic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38573
--- Comment #13 from Frederic Marchal ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #12)
> (In reply to Frederic Marchal from comment #11)
> > I suspect a misunderstanding here. Forgive me if I state the obvious.
> >
> > The fix is not to move the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #28 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Created attachment 41028
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41028&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #27 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Created attachment 41027
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41027&action=edit
patch proposal
Now I've prepared a patch. It reverted r227423 (but preserved its testcase)
and used a more confor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79509
Waldemar Brodkorb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wbx at openadk dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80157
Bug ID: 80157
Summary: Spurious "Wsign-conversion" warning with const,
size_t, array.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38573
--- Comment #12 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Frederic Marchal from comment #11)
> I suspect a misunderstanding here. Forgive me if I state the obvious.
>
> The fix is not to move the translation mark around.
I think moving the translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80153
--- Comment #3 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
Thanks for looking at this.
If there's anything I can do to help feel free to ask, but from my understand
this isn't a RISC-V backend problem so I'm not going to put this on my TODO
list unless something ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78543
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|bergner at gcc dot gnu.org |meissner at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79838
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Wed Mar 22 22:04:27 2017
New Revision: 246409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246409&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Also fixed by revision r246391.
2017-03-22 Dominique d'Hum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79838
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80072
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80072
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 22 21:52:13 2017
New Revision: 246408
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246408&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80072
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (struct o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79509
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79853
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80011
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79602
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79844
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79859
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80156
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Confirmed. This a regression which appeared between revisions r245767
> (2017-02-28, compiles) and r246000 (2017-03-09, error),
> likely r245596 (pr79382).
^^^obviously wrong!-(
I did n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80156
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80156
Bug ID: 80156
Summary: Generic DTIO interface reported missing if public
statement preceeds the interface block
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39239
--- Comment #14 from koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: koenigni
Date: Wed Mar 22 19:12:24 2017
New Revision: 246406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246406&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-12 Nicolas Koenig
PR fortran/39239
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39239
--- Comment #13 from koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: koenigni
Date: Wed Mar 22 19:08:36 2017
New Revision: 246405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-22 Nicolas Koenig
PR fortran/39239
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79864
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79863
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
Bug 47344 depends on bug 63191, which changed state.
Bug 63191 Summary: [5/6 Regression] 32-bit gcc uses excessive memory during
dead store elimination with -fPIC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80110
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] error: |[6 Regression] error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80129
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80141
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80141
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 22 18:53:47 2017
New Revision: 246403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80141
* semantics.c (finish_omp_clause) : Call mayb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78158
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 22 18:46:54 2017
New Revision: 246402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/78158
* tsan/tsan_interface_atomic.cc: Cherr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80129
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 22 18:45:48 2017
New Revision: 246401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80129
* gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr_rhs) : Cle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80110
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 22 18:35:43 2017
New Revision: 246400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80110
* doc/invoke.texi (-fsanitize=thread):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80110
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 22 18:34:44 2017
New Revision: 246399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246399&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80110
* tsan.c: Include tree-eh.h.
(i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 22 18:33:37 2017
New Revision: 246398
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246398&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/63191
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_dele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80088
--- Comment #2 from Wojciech Migda ---
It might be that this is Linaro-only bug. Please do what you feel is best.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80123
--- Comment #2 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: acsawdey
Date: Wed Mar 22 17:47:55 2017
New Revision: 246394
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246394&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-21 Aaron Sawdey
PR target/80123
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80123
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80088
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80153
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is actually the *-lib.c files that should be -fno-lto.
But it seems all the source files are compiled/linked using one driver
invocation, so I have no idea how to do -fno-lto just for one file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, is there a way to request -fno-lto compilation of the
gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/lib/*.c TUs? The rest probably can stay -flto
when testing lto.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79863
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80153
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Dröge ---
Because the value of uninitialized variables is implementation-defined, and as
such gcc can freely set it to anything that it wants? That would explain it
then, yes. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Sebastian Dröge from comment #3)
> But even after optimization, there would be the argc!=1 code path left,
> which uses the uninitialized foo.
No, the optimization sets foo to 1 always, and argc i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80141
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79853
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Wed Mar 22 16:29:30 2017
New Revision: 246391
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246391&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-22 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/79602
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79859
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Wed Mar 22 16:29:30 2017
New Revision: 246391
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246391&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-22 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/79602
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79844
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Wed Mar 22 16:29:30 2017
New Revision: 246391
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246391&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-22 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/79602
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80011
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Wed Mar 22 16:29:30 2017
New Revision: 246391
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246391&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-22 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/79602
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79602
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Wed Mar 22 16:29:30 2017
New Revision: 246391
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246391&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-22 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/79602
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71796
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|dominiq at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80011
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-03/msg00086.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79859
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-03/msg00086.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79844
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-03/msg00086.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79853
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-03/msg00086.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79602
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-03/msg00086.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80154
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Storing into 10 bytes is not possible. For 80bit precision, only 96 or 128 bit
as the storage unit is available.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80154
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Gutson ---
Documentation is confusing:
-m96bit-long-double
-m128bit-long-double
These switches control the size of "long double" type.
...
-mlong-double-64
-mlong-double-80
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79804
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|inline-asm |target
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79804
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80154
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80142
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77498
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org|
--- Comment #13 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
Bug ID: 80155
Summary: [7 regression] Performance regression with code
hoisting enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80142
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Mar 22 15:20:17 2017
New Revision: 246388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-22 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80142
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Dröge ---
But even after optimization, there would be the argc!=1 code path left, which
uses the uninitialized foo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80154
Bug ID: 80154
Summary: sizeof(long double) == 16 even with -mlong-double-80
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80153
Bug ID: 80153
Summary: ivopt generate wrong code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79604
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Another inconsistency is that when the noreturn attributes decorates a function
parameter that is a pointer to a function, C considers it to be a part of the
function's type while C++ does not. That means tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79587
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Mar 22 14:59:44 2017
New Revision: 246387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r245647
2017-03-22 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79587
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80046
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slomo at coaxion dot net
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80142
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 80152, which changed state.
Bug 80152 Summary: Not warning anymore about usage of uninitialized variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
Bug ID: 80152
Summary: Not warning anymore about usage of uninitialized
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66295
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66295
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Mar 22 14:32:42 2017
New Revision: 246385
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r246119
2017-03-22 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79587
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Mar 22 14:32:24 2017
New Revision: 246384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r245647
2017-03-22 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66295
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Mar 22 14:31:55 2017
New Revision: 246383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r245155
2017-03-22 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80128
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80148
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
> Why doesn't the kernel use atomic builtins instead?
There was a recent discussion here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kasan-dev/3sNHjjb4GCI
In short:
---
Trivially, The C++ model doesn't feature
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80121
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80148
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80029
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80128
--- Comment #7 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Mar 22 13:59:01 2017
New Revision: 246382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/80128
compiler: check backend alignment for memeq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80150
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80029
--- Comment #4 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Wed Mar 22 13:52:10 2017
New Revision: 246381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80029
gcc/
* gimplify.c (is_oacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80128
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
Works with a cross compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80072
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Comment on attachment 41020
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41020
gcc7-pr80072.patch
Looks good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Jakub, thanks for the confirmation that force_gimple_operand is unnecessary.
Christophe, thanks for testing. Thus I am now regstrapping:
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr79908.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
--- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt ---
The patch has a performance regression on s390x.
.L1
lr %r3,%r1
cs %r1,%r4,0(%r2)
jne .L1
becomes
.L1
cs %r1,%r3,0(%r2)
ipm %r4
sra %r4,28
cijne %r4,0,.L1
Alth
1 - 100 of 224 matches
Mail list logo