https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84057
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84048
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84056
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Where is the bug? Did you read the documentation for operator[]?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84057
Bug ID: 84057
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
can_remove_branch_p)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84056
--- Comment #1 from Alper Ce ---
output:
a => 1
b => 2
Map after if condition(a new pair ['c':0] inserted in map!):
a => 1
b => 2
c => 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84056
Bug ID: 84056
Summary: map insertes a pair when check a value
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84052
--- Comment #2 from pino ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Plugins issues like this should reported to the plugin author and not to gcc.
I don't know gcc internals, from my very limited understanding about gcc & that
plugin, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
--- Comment #2 from Kip Warner ---
Created attachment 43250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43250&action=edit
Assembly listing of minimal.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
--- Comment #1 from Kip Warner ---
Created attachment 43249
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43249&action=edit
Pre-processed intermediate form of minimal.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
Bug ID: 84055
Summary: warning: ignoring attributes on template argument
‘cl_uint {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wignored-attributes]
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84054
Bug ID: 84054
Summary: seems -fno-bounds-checking no longer supported
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
following results:
Running /ssd/src/gcc/git/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp ...
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes465
# of expected failures 18
/ssd/build/hppa-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc-git/gcc/xg++ version 8.0.1 20180125
(experimental) (GCC)
Can you please try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83911
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84052
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84053
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84053
Bug ID: 84053
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds accessing a struct array member
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84052
Bug ID: 84052
Summary: Using Randomizing structure layout plugin in linux
kernel compilation doesn't generate proper debuginfo
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051
Bug ID: 84051
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds access via
an array pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
>> This kernel AT_PLATFORM name should strip the '+' off:
>> .platform = "power7+", -> "power7"
>
> We probably should have a -mcpu=power7+, we have power5+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84050
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84050
Bug ID: 84050
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds accessing a struct array member
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #39 from Mike Lothian ---
I can confirm it fixes things for me too.
Is that the final patch in Comment 36? If so I'll try and get the Gentoo devs
to include it in the GCC ebuilds
Will this be added to GCC 8.1 and 7.4?
Thanks again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84049
Bug ID: 84049
Summary: libgomp.c++/for-[56].C and libgomp.c/for-[56].c take a
long time to run
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84048
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
r256935 was okay.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Trebbien ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> Also, if boost::optional had a noexcept move constructor it would work fine.
> This is a boost bug.
>
> The part of the patch addressing PR 83982 seems righ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83982
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Trebbien ---
Created attachment 43247
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43247&action=edit
Patch for PR 83982 alone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84048
Bug ID: 84048
Summary: [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/tls/run-ld.c -O0
-pie -fPIE execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Trebbien ---
https://wg21.link/lwg2158 looks relevant, particularly this part:
"This requirement is not sufficient if an implementation is free to select copy
constructor when !is_nothrow_move_constructible::value &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84045
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84033
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Jan 25 23:57:18 2018
New Revision: 257070
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257070&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR84033, powerpc64le -moptimize-swaps bad code with vec_vbpermq
vbpermq pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] missing |[6/7/8 Regression] missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83662
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Adding this is simple, but I'm worried it will cause issues on Windows, where
detection of that function doesn't seem to work properly (see PR 78565).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
char_traits shouldn't need to be uglified, because it's a reserved name anyway,
due to std::char_traits. That means users can't define macros with that name.
If they get ambiguities due to "using namespace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
Bug ID: 84047
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on a negative offset into a
string
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84046
Bug ID: 84046
Summary: global zero-sized objects may have same address
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83985
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, #c6 made me think you wanted to do something else. I didn't look close
enough, sorry. That patch looks good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> Perhaps Daniel can comment, since he wrote the resolution of lwg 2033.
>
> Daniel, if the intent was that vector::resize(size_type) must only move,
> even i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> I don't think your patch is correct. The whole point of the "move if
> noexcept" utilities is that they handle this correctly. If the type is
> nothrow movab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71501
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84044
--- Comment #2 from Geoffrey Allott ---
Or even simply
A a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83959
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84044
--- Comment #1 from Geoffrey Allott ---
I discovered that in b.cpp a free function
A get() {
return A();
}
also triggers the error. Struct B is not necessary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also, if boost::optional had a noexcept move constructor it would work fine.
This is a boost bug.
The part of the patch addressing PR 83982 seems right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83985
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, I do, see #c5. Successfully bootstrapped/regtested (without go which
seems to be broken right now) on powerpc64le-linux and bootstrapped on
powerpc64-linux, will post once regtest (-m64/-m32) on the lat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84045
Bug ID: 84045
Summary: ICE when is_nothrow_default_constructible is used
before #include
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think your patch is correct. The whole point of the "move if noexcept"
utilities is that they handle this correctly. If the type is nothrow movable,
then move. Otherwise if it is copyable, then copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84044
Bug ID: 84044
Summary: Spurious -Wodr warning with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #25 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
A few other variations that enable it to work even with a power8 configuration:
Compiling with -fdisable-ipa-cp prevents the ICE.
OR
Using the //go:nosplit directive before the function identifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
My bisect script cannot find the commit that introduced the problem with
-fno-vect-cost-model, because the build was broken for quite some time.
The regression seems to have been introduced between r197671
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83985
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #38 from Manuel Lauss ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #36)
Your patch does fix my llvm issue. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84043
--- Comment #2 from Johan Alfredsson ---
bash> g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/local/products/gcc/7.2.0/bin/g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/products/gcc/7.2.0/lib/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/7.2.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-suse-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84043
--- Comment #1 from Johan Alfredsson ---
Created attachment 43245
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43245&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84043
Bug ID: 84043
Summary: -fsanitize=alignment leads to massive compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84038
Arnd Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83985
--- Comment #7 from Arnd Bergmann ---
*** Bug 84038 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81122
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
Summary|parsing f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #37 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #33)
> and it should work. The last case would be right now:
> SI:N+1 = SI:N &~ SI:N+2; SI:N+2 = SI:N+1 &~ SI:N+3;
> and is again wrong, but we could again swap:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, bmi, not bmi2. And the =r <- (r, r) alternative might be best first.
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj 2018-01-16 09:28:19.721432394 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.md 2018-01-25 20:58:18.382378827 +01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, what about following?
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj 2018-01-16 09:28:19.721432394 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.md 2018-01-25 20:58:18.382378827 +0100
@@ -9250,14 +9250,14 @@ (define_split
})
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #34 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #33)
> At least with a smarter splitter we don't really need to avoid no overlap at
> all for the r <- (r, r) bmi case, we can choose which of the two 32-bit
> andn's w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #31)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #30)
> > So, I'll bootstrap:
>
> Maybe we can also allow &r <- (r,r) for BMI, to be safe (c.f. comment #23):
>
> (define_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #32 from Manuel Lauss ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #31)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #30)
> > So, I'll bootstrap:
>
> Maybe we can also allow &r <- (r,r) for BMI, to be safe (c.f. comment #23):
>
> (define_in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81672
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81672
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 25 19:19:29 2018
New Revision: 257066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257066&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
jit: remove some unused fields from recording::union_ (PR jit/81672)
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83999
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for the OK and the help in getting the padding sorted out.
Committed as Committed revision 257065.
Paul
On 24 January 2018 at 20:26, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
> H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37577
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Jan 25 19:09:40 2018
New Revision: 257065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257065&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-25-01 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/37577
* array.c (gfc_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84040
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #31 from Uroš Bizjak ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84040
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #30 from Uroš Bizjak ---
So, I'll bootstrap:
(define_insn "*andndi3_doubleword"
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r,&r")
(and:DI
(not:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "0,r"))
(match
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 71304, which changed state.
Bug 71304 Summary: missing strlen optimizations after string truncation by
assigning NUL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71304
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71304
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #29 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #25)
> I believe for double-word pseudos the RA will not do that, CCing Vlad about
> it.
I start to worry about it due to allocated:
0x080a96c3 <+1347>: andn (%e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #23)
> (The earlyclobber of non-BMI case is needed due to separate not insn).
It is not needed. I have added earlyclobber in r243202 without much thought.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #27 from Manuel Lauss ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #21)
> Following patch should fix the problem:
>
> --cut here--
> Index: i386.md
> ===
> --- i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #26 from Mike Lothian ---
Is this the patch you want us to test then:
diff -ur a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md 2018-01-16 11:17:49.509247000 +
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Trebbien ---
So as not to break testsuite/23_containers/vector/capacity/resize/moveable2.cc
for C++11, I decided that it would be best to keep the use of
std::__uninitialized_move_if_noexcept_a() when compiling as C++11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Trebbien ---
Created attachment 43243
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43243&action=edit
Patch for PR 83981 and PR 83982
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #24 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #22)
> Wonder though if it wouldn't give the RA more choices by also including
> another
> &r <- (r, m) alternative with bmi2 isa attribute.
This would be worse than r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The above patch builds on the promise, that with (=r,r,r) alternative, the
register allocator won't allocate (=r1,=r2) = ~(r0,r1) & (r2,r3). This would
again clobber the r1 too early:
r1 = ~r0 & r2
r2 = ~r1 &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83821
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Leslie Zhai from comment #3)
In the case of mips64 (and a number of other targets) the missing optimization
is due to pr83543.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84042
Bug ID: 84042
Summary: IVOPTS doesn't optimize int indexes on some PowerPC
code.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Will do, for now I'm including it with my normal options bootstraps (testing
other patches and need the same baseline), then will try some
--with-arch/--with-tune).
Wonder though if it wouldn't give the RA m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51677
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
It should be easy to white-list the main function in the -Wsuggest-attribute=
checker. At the same time, I'm not sure it's necessary or that the problem is
unique to main. The reasons noted in comment #0 app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #21 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Following patch should fix the problem:
--cut here--
Index: i386.md
===
--- i386.md (revision 256935)
+++ i386.md (working copy)
@@ -925
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #20 from Manuel Lauss ---
Created attachment 43242
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43242&action=edit
preprocessed source
preprocessed source of file that contains the function
"llvm::TypeInfer::EnforceSmallerThan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83862
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83862
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Jan 25 17:36:47 2018
New Revision: 257060
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257060&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-01-25 Michael Meissner
Back port from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Haven't managed to reproduce it e.g. with
long long
foo (long long *p, int q, unsigned r1, unsigned r2)
{
int t, u;
asm ("" : "+a" (p), "+b" (q), "+d" (r1), "+c" (r2), "=S" (t), "=D" (u));
unsigned lon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83055
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 25 17:24:06 2018
New Revision: 257059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83055
* predict.c (drop_profile): Do not pu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83985
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In the end this was really caused by r241060.
Not deleting unmarked insn is a bad idea, because we might not have marked any
instructions it needs, so instead we need to mark such instructions as not
deletabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 330 matches
Mail list logo
