https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80567
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2017-08-18 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83828
--- Comment #10 from Kirill Yukhin ---
HJ, I cannot reproduce this fail on recent SDE.
Here's what I have in gcc.log:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /export/kyukhin/gcc/bld-svn/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/kyukhin/gcc/bld-svn/build-x86_64-linux/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84156
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
--- Comment #2 from Daryl Haresign ---
See also bug 79817.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
--- Comment #1 from Daryl Haresign ---
Additionally, any external use of a static method of a deprecated class should
probably (but does not currently) emit a warning (Clang emits a warning).
class [[deprecated]] C {
public:
void fn() {}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
Bug ID: 84222
Summary: [[deprecated]] class complains about internal class
usage
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50477
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84212
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84221
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84221
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84221
Bug ID: 84221
Summary: spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning on a variable
of a template type declared unused
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83369
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83369
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Feb 5 22:45:04 2018
New Revision: 257400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83369 - Missing diagnostics during inlining
gcc/Chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Feb 5 22:37:13 2018
New Revision: 257399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257399&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Disable SHF_MERGE on Solaris 10/x86 (PR bootstrap/84017)
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Feb 5 22:35:08 2018
New Revision: 257398
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257398&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Disable SHF_MERGE on Solaris 10/x86 (PR bootstrap/84017)
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84178
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW, in both cases the ICE started with r240865.
I have a fix for the ICE in comment #0, but not yet for the one in comment #2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84156
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84204
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84178
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #2)
> Trivial change to the testcase also makes gcc-8 ICE in
> mark_block_for_update():
Thanks; yes, I see this one segfault both trunk and gcc 7; gcc 6 is unaffected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84217
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84218
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84219
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84220
Bug ID: 84220
Summary: rs6000 builtin __builtin_vec_sld() ICEs on invalid 3rd
argument
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83743
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83743
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon Feb 5 19:17:37 2018
New Revision: 257392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Back port from mainline
2018-02-01 Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
--- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon Feb 5 19:17:37 2018
New Revision: 257392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Back port from mainline
2018-02-01 Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #37 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #36)
> I'll take care of it.
Fine. I published my build here https://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/manulix/other/GCC/
And they’re on “rs6000” too (;
manulix@ftp-osl ~]$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
--- Comment #25 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alexander Nesterovskiy from comment #24)
> Yes, it looks like more time is being spent in synchronizing.
> r256990 really changes the way autopar works:
> For r253679...r256989 the mos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #25 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> Aldy - these easiest thing for now would be to unilaterally relax the
> alignment
> test in Handle_Store_Double and see if that allows you to get further with
> your
> tests.
We're debugging past each
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #24 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #22)
> (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #21)
> > Hi Aldy,
> >
> > >>> instruction. :-( Looking at the code in Handle_Store_Double() in
> > >>> sim/arm/arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84219
Bug ID: 84219
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Invalid expression in
gfc_target_interpret_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #23 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Guys,
>> But, as you have just discovered, (r5 + 12) is not 64-bit aligned...
>
> But from ARMv7 onwards it only has to be 4-byte aligned, which it is. And
> this
> code was build for cortex-a9, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84218
Bug ID: 84218
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in free_expr0, at
fortran/expr.c:451
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84217
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
When configured with --enable-checking=release, an additional -ftrapv
is necessary :
$ gfortran-8-20180204 -c z1.f90 -fopenacc
$
$ gfortran-8-20180204 -c z1.f90 -fopenacc -ftrapv
during RTL pass: expand
z1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84217
Bug ID: 84217
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #22 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #21)
> Hi Aldy,
>
> >>> instruction. :-( Looking at the code in Handle_Store_Double() in
> >>> sim/arm/armemu.c, I think that the reason is probably because the a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84187
--- Comment #2 from Liu, Rong2 ---
Created attachment 43342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43342&action=edit
preprocess file
I attached preprocessed file. Also this one maybe related to this bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #21 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Aldy,
>>> instruction. :-( Looking at the code in Handle_Store_Double() in
>>> sim/arm/armemu.c, I think that the reason is probably because the address
>>> for the store is not double word aligned. Wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #20 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Aldy,
>>> for the store is not double word aligned. Which leads me to wonder,
>>> what value is stored in r5 when the STRD instruction is being executed ?
>>
>> 1: x/i $pc
>> => 0x8c24 : strdr2,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #19 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #16)
> (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> > Hi Aldy,
> >
> >
> > > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc
> > > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b
> > >
> > > I took a peek a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84195
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #35 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #34)
> And this https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00181.html
By merging that patch this issue is okay to close as resolved
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #34 from Douglas Mencken ---
And this https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00181.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #33 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #32)
> Yes, run "make -k check" (add -jN to taste if you have multiple CPUs).
> And then run contrib/test_summary. See if that is as expected (compare
> it to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84195
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84212
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #24 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks so much for looking in to this Jan!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
What do you mean by "random results?" Can you post some output? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84191
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84145
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84216
Bug ID: 84216
Summary: std::get_time fails to parse output from
std::put_time, but strptime can parse them (c++11)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #17)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #12)
>
> > along with the isub8 subroutine, and continue chopping things similarly
> > upward until you get to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215
Bug ID: 84215
Summary: Random results in go/libgo tests
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, nickc at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
>
> --- Comment #11 from Nick Clifton ---
> Hi Richard,
>
> > If the backend doesn't sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84179
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78497
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Patrick.Schluter at ec dot
europa.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84214
Bug ID: 84214
Summary: recip and slp passes conflict
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #17 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #12)
> along with the isub8 subroutine, and continue chopping things similarly
> upward until you get to the abort that fails. Then see if you can chop
> non-depe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> Hi Aldy,
>
>
> > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc
> > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b
> >
> > I took a peek at the executable being run with "/my-arm-build/objdudump -D
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Sebastian Peryt from comment #1)
> I'm not sure if that can be treated as duplicate but that performance
> degradation looks like is related to PR84149.
I guess it will be a different story as it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #15 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #14)
> (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> > Hi Aldy,
> >
> >
> > > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc
> > > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b
> > >
> > > I took a peek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed, thank you Martin for reporting that. I was able to reproduce that on
Zen.
I see ~25% regression on train size and reverting following predictor helps for
me:
-DEF_PREDICTOR (PRED_LOOP_EXIT, "loop e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 43340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43340&action=edit
Patch in am testing
This patch transitions the info to merged tree and adds sanity check that we
miss no resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84213
Bug ID: 84213
Summary: 521.wrf_r from SPEC 2017 fails to build (link) with
LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> Hi Aldy,
>
>
> > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc
> > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b
> >
> > I took a peek at the executable being run with "/my-arm-build/objdudump -D
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I don't remember if the const was needed. I guess if the testcases added in
r217553 still pass even without the const then we can get rid of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84170
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
When the code was written it was definitely beneficial to manually unroll, as
measurements at the time showed.
Any change would have to be based on measurements, not just unverified
assumptions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84186
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I would have thought it's needed too. The other compilers I tried accept
it with or without the 'template' keyword.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the bug reproduces with tree.c changes reverted and I see what is going on.
We have two files in res file we get:
2
lines.o 7
245 4d647b2020ca5815 PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY _Z8validatev
334 4d647b2020ca5815
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84191
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63688
Allan Jensen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linux at carewolf dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84196
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63311
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-09-22 00:00:00 |2018-2-5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84197
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208
--- Comment #4 from Akhilesh Kumar ---
Please find Patch and test Case
I tried but unable to attached patch as Attachment :(
My Changes for address-use-after-scope which is working for X86 but not for ARM
target
---
gcc/asan.c | 30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
--- Comment #11 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Richard,
> If the backend doesn't support mixing of -msingle-float/-mno-single-float
> within a compilation unit then this will only work if the user didn't mix TUs
> with conflicting setting at link-time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64501
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84204
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The limit you set to scev-max-expr-size is quite low but I expect it just needs
a more complicated testcase to trigger this with larger values.
We apply this limit in tree-chrec.c very inconsequential so I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Should(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #14)
> The new test fails on arm and aarch64:
> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects scan-ipa-dump icf "Equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #13 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Aldy,
> pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc
> pc: 4, instr: ea00089b
>
> I took a peek at the executable being run with "/my-arm-build/objdudump -D
> the-executable.exe", and I see we are failing in
> initialise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84212
Bug ID: 84212
Summary: -Wno-* does not disable warnings from -flto link stage
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka ---
> It's really fixed on trunk since r257023.
Seems like it just went latent. I do not see how that change can fix the
problem.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84211
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Ryabinin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. Note that I'm not sure it makes no sense - it just means the
> function has no side-effect besides not returning ;)
>
Well, GCC docs say that con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84211
Bug ID: 84211
Summary: [avr] Perform a post-reload register optimization pass
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #11)
> My setup uses armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf (as opposed to armeb-eabi as you
> report). I have never tried armeb-eabi.
>
> I am also using qemu as simulator (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
When you will be revisiting your cost-model for loops, please also take a look
on this code. test2 has one assignment moved to separate loops, and it is about
twice as fast as test1 function (for gcc 4.8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 43338
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43338&action=edit
Proposed patch against v7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|gjl at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
