https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #75 from Thomas Koenig ---
To provide some more context, here is the code as
compiled with the patch (correct version):
callintegral_over_z_part_isr.6797
.LVL1464:
.loc 1 3089 0
fldt496(%rsp)
p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
jreiser at bitwagon dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jreiser at bitwagon dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80523
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80523
Bug ID: 80523
Summary: -Wformat-overflow doesn't consider -fexec-charset
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80522
Bug ID: 80522
Summary: Enhancement request:
__attribute((warn_untested_result))
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80521
Bug ID: 80521
Summary: Wrong line reported in error for missing template
argument in friend class declaration.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
Bug ID: 80520
Summary: Performance regression from missing if-conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #74 from Thomas Koenig ---
This part looks wrong:
@@ -19206,8 +19196,9 @@
movq%r11, 112(%rsp)
movq%rax, 96(%rsp)
callintegral_over_z_part_isr.6797
-.LVL1464:
+.LVL1465:
.loc 1 3089 0
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80519
Bug ID: 80519
Summary: if(p)free(p) with -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80513
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Arnaud Desitter from comment #3)
> Interesting reference. Note that "virtual + final" can be useful even if the
> core guidelines discourage its use.
>
> struct A {
> virtual void f() final;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #11 from jonne ---
Doesn't seem to work, it cannot find the symbol.
(gdb) break __asan_init
Function "__asan_init" not defined.
Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) y
(I tried with three underscores too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80513
--- Comment #1 from Richard Smith ---
While we're here, this check for overflow in consume_count is nonsense, and any
decent optimising compiler is going to optimise away the overflow check:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libibert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #73 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41265
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41265&action=edit
Difference in assembly with and without the patch
This is the difference in assembly generated. *.withpatch i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
I believe this all section needs fixing and new testcases:
10793 tree arg00 = TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0);
10794 tree arg01 = TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1);
10795 tree arg10 = TREE_OPERAND
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
--- Comment #4 from ol.rakhimov at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Arnaud Desitter from comment #3)
> Interesting reference. Note that "virtual + final" can be useful even if the
> core guidelines discourage its use.
>
> struct A {
> virtual voi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
--- Comment #3 from Arnaud Desitter ---
Interesting reference. Note that "virtual + final" can be useful even if the
core guidelines discourage its use.
struct A {
virtual void f() final;
};
struct B : A {
// "void f()" cannot be defined
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80518
--- Comment #2 from Arnaud Desitter ---
Interesting. Shame that there is no rationale.
I suppose that "-Wsuggest-override=2" could warn about "override" missing for
destructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks, reproduced, will look into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #12 from Dmitry Babokin ---
int var;
long a;
long foo() {
int i = !(1 & 808U ^ 1 & var) >> 0;
long l = 0 % ((a & 1) != (3053241240409UL & 1));
return i+l;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80497
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80497
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Apr 25 17:58:32 2017
New Revision: 247264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80497 - ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on
x86_64-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70799
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79824
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70799
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 25 17:45:22 2017
New Revision: 247263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70799
* config/i386/i386.c (dimode_scal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80497
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Apr 25 17:40:58 2017
New Revision: 247262
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247262&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80497 - ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on
x86_64-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#Rh-override
says that virtual functions should use exactly one of virtual, override or
final. Which agrees with the suggestion to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80518
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #50 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Started with r225465.
> Something to do with alignment.
> I wonder if it's related to PR69841 ?
Seems to be the same. Maybe PR 80149 too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80486
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80486
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80486
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Apr 25 17:18:39 2017
New Revision: 247261
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247261&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/80486 - spurious -Walloc-size-larger-than and -Wstringop-over
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #49 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 25, 2017 5:20:29 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
>
>--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>It is an ABI change, so I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Apr 25 17:02:27 2017
New Revision: 247260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80349
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc) :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80518
Bug ID: 80518
Summary: -Wsuggest-override does not warn about missing
override on destructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
See also
https://cplusplus.github.io/EWG/ewg-active.html#162
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #48 from Yichao Yu ---
Thanks for fixing this. I didn't follow all the comments since I'm not familiar
with the C++ ABI so just to make sure I understand what's happening is it that
the bug is caused by a inconsistency in C++ ABI for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80482
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7/8 Regression]|[5/6 Regression]
|Misc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #46 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 25 16:47:32 2017
New Revision: 247259
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247259&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77728
* config/arm/arm.c: Include gimple.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 25 16:46:34 2017
New Revision: 247258
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247258&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77728
* config/arm/arm.c: Include gimple.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Apr 25 16:39:57 2017
New Revision: 247257
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247257&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80349
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc) :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80482
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: seurer
Date: Tue Apr 25 16:16:13 2017
New Revision: 247256
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247256&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH, rs6000] pr80482 Relax vector builtin parameter checks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Works for me. That would mean roughly applying the two patches, but instead of
doing else if (res < 0) do if (res) (and something similar for aarch64).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #43 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Hmm, so how about just inserting the warning in the broken compilers?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
But for C++:
[[noreturn]] int main() { while(true) ; }
is warning free in clang++ and icpc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Several of those intrinsics are implemented using vector extensions and
constant propagation works fine on those. What seems to be missing here is
constant folding of the very specific __builtin_ia32_pmovmskb12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #42 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oh, and we surely need to document this in gcc-7/changes.html, and I'd think we
should make sure to also document the earlier ARM ABI change in
gcc-5/changes.html for GCC 5.2 when it has changed and document
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #41 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is true, but we've got only a single bugreport about this since the 5.2
release (21 months), so it doesn't trigger that often. For static data members
the ABI is self-consistent, for some template type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #40 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #39)
> It is an ABI change, so I think it is highly undesirable to backport. It is
> enough that people will have to rebuild many packages built by GCC 7
> prerele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515
--- Comment #6 from Paul Eggert ---
> main always return according to the standard
No, the C standard does not require 'main' to return. It's perfectly acceptable
for 'main' to never return, and many programs are written that way.
> what you ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80482
--- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: seurer
Date: Tue Apr 25 15:22:40 2017
New Revision: 247250
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH, rs6000] pr80482 Relax vector builtin parameter checks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is an ABI change, so I think it is highly undesirable to backport. It is
enough that people will have to rebuild many packages built by GCC 7
prereleases, if it is backported, they would have to rebuild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80218
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Apr 25 15:02:23 2017
New Revision: 247247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR80218: Call CDCE fails to update the block profile
tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
I've got a fix for Comment 7.
(In reply to Dmitry Babokin from comment #8)
> I also see crashes reporting problems with ^ operator.
Please provide a complete testcase, I've been unable to reproduce another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Paul Eggert from comment #4)
> > main() has an implicit return 0.
>
> That's irrelevant to the purpose of the warning. The warning is there to
> catch the common typo of a function contain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515
--- Comment #4 from Paul Eggert ---
> main() has an implicit return 0.
That's irrelevant to the purpose of the warning. The warning is there to catch
the common typo of a function containing a return statement even though it is
declared 'noretur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80474
--- Comment #4 from Jan Smets ---
For the reduced testcase :
$ mips64-linux-gnuabi64-gcc --version
mips64-linux-gnuabi64-gcc (Ubuntu 6.3.0-12ubuntu2) 6.3.0 20170406
mips64-linux-gnuabi64-gcc -O2 -fno-reorder-blocks -march=mips2
-fno-inline-sm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
Bug ID: 80517
Summary: [missed optimization] constant propagation through
Intel intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 25 13:56:10 2017
New Revision: 247241
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247241&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77728
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (struct aarch6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 25 13:52:33 2017
New Revision: 247239
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247239&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77728
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (struct aarch6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:08:30AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
>
> --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
> Author: rguenth
> Date: Tue Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80177
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80177
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Apr 25 13:34:50 2017
New Revision: 247233
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247233&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix spelling suggestions for reserved words (PR c++/80177)
gcc/cp/Chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78845
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78845
--- Comment #4 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Author: charlet
Date: Tue Apr 25 12:44:16 2017
New Revision: 247214
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247214&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/78845
* a-ngcoar.adb, a-ngrear.adb (Inverse): c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 25 12:15:44 2017
New Revision: 247208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/80492
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80516
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80464
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Tue Apr 25 11:18:52 2017
New Revision: 247191
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247191&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: PR80464: Split MEM->GPR vector moves
We do this already for TI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79895
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Tue Apr 25 11:15:44 2017
New Revision: 247190
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247190&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: PR79895: Fix TImode constant handling
The P constraint letter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80500
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Tue Apr 25 11:11:48 2017
New Revision: 247189
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247189&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: PR80080: Optimize atomic patterns.
The attached patch optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80501
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] Wrong|[6 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79814
Bug 79814 depends on bug 80509, which changed state.
Bug 80509 Summary: ICE in cc1 during selftests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 25 10:07:58 2017
New Revision: 247171
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247171&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-25 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/80509
* pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
Arnaud Desitter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arnaud02 at users dot
sourceforge.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80516
Bug ID: 80516
Summary: No error for bad type-specifier-seq in template
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80474
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
How to configure a cross? --target=mips-o32 isn't valid.
For the reduced testcase what are we looking for?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79814
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79201
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so sinking now handles calls but the testcase still isn't fixed because PRE
interferes (testsuite disables PRE).
Still mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79201
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 25 09:26:37 2017
New Revision: 247159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247159&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/79201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41264
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41264&action=edit
gcc7-pr77728-aarch64.patch
Similarly adjusted AArch64 patch.
In the earlier AArch64 patch, warning_alignment d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41262|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul.hua.gm at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
>
> Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
> >
> > --- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
>
> --- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> But I really wonder if it is ok to omit constraints from the asm marking
> the register variable as changed.
The register is not changed in the asm, please note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Ugh. Another thing is that the tree aliasing machinery tells us that the two
copies of 'reg' do not alias because they are "distinct" VAR_DECLs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41261|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
