https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791
--- Comment #23 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #22)
> As the discussion above, on Power any IV should have an extend (sign/zero)
> if its width is less than the GPR width (POINTER_SIZE equivalent here).
> Although we don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89525
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89482
--- Comment #7 from David ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
> I think David (CC'ed) was interested in this?
Well, the news here is mixed.
While I attempted to write this (see
https://www.limegreensocks.com/arm/Extended-Asm.html#AArch64O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89525
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 28 07:17:49 2019
New Revision: 269274
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269274&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/89525
* c-typeck.c (convert_arguments): Call inform_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 28 07:16:38 2019
New Revision: 269273
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269273&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/89520
* convert.c (convert_to_real_1, convert_to_inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89477
Mike Spertus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mike at spertus dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88100
--- Comment #5 from Li Jia He ---
Author: helijia
Date: Thu Feb 28 06:24:57 2019
New Revision: 269272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2019-02-20 Li Jia He
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89477
--- Comment #4 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
libstdc++ passes all my test cases now except this one:
```
// https://godbolt.org/z/kvh9Ih
#include
std::set s;
std::set t(s, std::allocator());
```
The issue is that we humans can logically deduce t's Al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #24 from Yichao Yu ---
Oh, and the test case above was compiled with -O3 (and -g -Wall -Wextra).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
Yichao Yu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yyc1992 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #23 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #21 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02055.html
Did this make it in? If not, have you pinged it lately?
: /home/davide/finished-reducing-gcc/a.out
Breakpoint 1, i () at 3.c:17
17optimize_me_not();
(gdb) p l_1404[0][0]
$1 = 9
$ gcc-trunk --version
gcc-trunk (GCC) 9.0.1 20190227 (experimental) [trunk revision 269248]
Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89529
--- Comment #1 from dcci ---
The breakpoint is set on the line where the decrement happens, so it should
probably print the value before the decrement (at -Og)
62 = 19070
### -O0
Reading symbols from ./a.out...
(gdb) b 6
Breakpoint 1 at 0x400497: file 2.c, line 7.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /home/davide/finished-reducing-gcc/a.out
Breakpoint 1, b () at 2.c:7
7 --l_1862;
(gdb) info locals
l_1862 = 19071
$ gcc-trunk --version
gcc-trunk (GCC) 9.0.
me/davide/finished-reducing-gcc/a.out
Breakpoint 1, n () at 5.c:13
13optimize_me_not();
(gdb) info locals
l_1127 = -65535
$ gcc-trunk --version
gcc-trunk (GCC) 9.0.1 20190227 (experimental) [trunk revision 269248]
Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89527
Bug ID: 89527
Summary: GCC ICE internal compiler error during RTL pass: mach
on arm/thumb2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Feb 28 00:07:06 2019
New Revision: 269267
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269267&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88857 - ICE with value-initialization of argument in tem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89406
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45846
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45846&action=edit
cmd_go-testlog from x86_64-linux on idle box
real3m9.956s
user9m3.231s
sys 0m39.443s
Though, unli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89406
--- Comment #10 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks. In both cases the tests were killed because they ran too long (the
timeout was 11 minutes). Since the tests were killed, they didn't clean up
after themselves.
Can you cd to the gotools directo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89406
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45845
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45845&action=edit
cmd_go-testlog from i686-linux build
Note, this is on 16c32t skylake-avx512 running:
../configure --enable-lang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89406
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45844
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45844&action=edit
cmd_go-testlog from x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89406
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Can you attach the file gotools/cmd_go-testlog from your build directory?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89516
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch turned out to require a small adjustment for scalar MOLD
of size 0, so I posted it for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-02/msg00237.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89406
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, some go tests fail pretty much all the time for me, but with quite high
volatility, so I usually ignore them if there aren't too many. This time
FAIL: ./index0-out.go execution, -O0 -g -fno-var-trackin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89172
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89406
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89172
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Feb 27 22:35:10 2019
New Revision: 269266
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/89172
internal/cpu, runtime, runtime/pprof: handl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89406
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In today's x86_64-linux and i686-linux bootstrap, I see following in /tmp
(remove all non-systemd directories in /tmp before the bootstrap):
340681328
517045444
844331773
cmd-go-test-051806874
cmd-go-test-051
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86969
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 27 21:54:25 2019
New Revision: 269265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86969 - ICE with constexpr if and recursive generic lambdas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89526
Bug ID: 89526
Summary: Diagnose errors in asserts
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89516
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE is triggered by a code path that is executed only when -Wsurprising
is used together with TRANSFER.
I'm currently testing the following patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/check.c
=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Comment #70 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
> We could add a NATIVE_ENCODE_RANGE_EXPR that encodes a contiguous range of
> bytes in native target representation. Of course that has to be kept
> throughout GIMPLE.
(Just a silly spitballing here ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89525
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r266194.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Most likely started with r81269.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89525
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45843
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45843&action=edit
gcc9-pr89525.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89525
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89525
Bug ID: 89525
Summary: [9 Regression] inform messages from
-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch even with -w
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Comment #69 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 27, 2019 8:52:12 PM GMT+01:00, fche at redhat dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
>
>--- Comment #68 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
>(In reply to Jakub Jeli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45842
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45842&action=edit
gcc9-pr89520.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
--- Comment #36 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Feb 27 20:14:55 2019
New Revision: 269264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-27 Bernd Edlinger
PR rtl-optimization/89490
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89397
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89519
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matt Whitlock from comment #0)
> test.cpp:9:4: warning: ignoring packed attribute because of unpacked non-POD
> field 'S P::s'
I think this diagnostic would be improved if it said "ignoring pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83057
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89519
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matt Whitlock from comment #3)
> For instance, the ABI of std::string differs between C++98 and C++11.
No it doesn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/using_dual_abi.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57553
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Comment #68 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #67)
> Are the values completely random or are there big chunks with the same
> values?
I'd suspect pretty random, considering that gzip of the
generated source c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89524
Bug ID: 89524
Summary: -Wno-error doesn't work with warnings from newer
versions of GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #67
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89397
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Feb 27 19:33:15 2019
New Revision: 269263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89397
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_atomic_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89511
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89511
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Feb 27 19:07:18 2019
New Revision: 269262
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269262&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89511 - ICE with using-declaration and unscoped enumera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89519
Matt Whitlock changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80916
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88235
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 45841
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45841&action=edit
Heavy handed fix
This patch fixes the verification because it stores to cgraph_node
information that the node i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89506
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Using the expressions valgrind uses for ARM to compute flags from ADDS and SUBS
instructions and a program that simulates it on just 8-bit values instead of
32-bit ones, it seems the only problematic values w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87089
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89519
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Matt Whitlock from comment #3)
> ABI compatibility isn't guaranteed across C++ language standards anyway, is
> it? For instance, the ABI of std::string differs between C++98 and C++11.
What you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
--- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig ---
> Could you check r269249 on trunk? It's a bit different to the patch I
> suggested earlier, but should still solve the problem.
I can confirm that this solves the problem for me.
Thanks a lot!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #34)
> Passed bootstrap/regtest on powerpc64le-linux, on powerpc64-linux passed
> bootstrap, regtest still ongoing.
Successfully regtested (-m32/-m64) on powerpc64-li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89506
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I meant adds r0, r0, #imm and subs r0, r0, #-imm of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89506
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45840
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45840&action=edit
gcc9-pr89506.patch
If 0x8000 is the only immediate in which adds r0,r0,#imm and adds
r0,r0,#-imm differ in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87089
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70341
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 27 18:11:26 2019
New Revision: 269260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70341
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (casesi): Cre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89434
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45839
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45839&action=edit
gcc9-pr89434.patch
I'm testing this separately.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89519
--- Comment #3 from Matt Whitlock ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> If there is a change, then using two sources one compiled with -std=c++98
> and one with -std=c++11 (or later) will not be ABI compatible.
ABI compatibility isn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89506
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
int main () {
for (long long j = -__INT_MAX__ - 1; j <= __INT_MAX__; j++)
{
int t, t2, c, c2;
int i = j;
asm volatile ("adds %0, %2, #1; mrs %1, apsr" : "=r" (t), "=r" (c) : "r"
(i) :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89519
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
If there is a change, then using two sources one compiled with -std=c++98 and
one with -std=c++11 (or later) will not be ABI compatible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89519
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++98 says S is non POD. This is why the difference comes into play. To be
abi compatible with the two language options it needs to be that way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89523
Bug ID: 89523
Summary: Incorrect AVX instructions with VSIB address
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89522
Bug ID: 89522
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE: trying to capture 'f' in
instantiation of generic lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89506
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Where we create larger code, it is:
(insn 7 6 8 2 (set (reg:SI 116)
(const_int -1 [0x])) "builtin-arith-overflow-1.c":11:1
181 {*arm_movsi_insn}
(nil))
(insn 8 7 9 2 (parallel [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89521
Bug ID: 89521
Summary: ICE in expand_builtin_int_roundingfn, at
builtins.c:2697
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89506
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45838
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45838&action=edit
gcc9-pr89506.patch
Untested version.
With this one, e.g. that t104_4ssub changes compared to vanilla:
-mov r3,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520
Bug ID: 89520
Summary: ICE tree check: accessed operand 4 of call_expr with 3
operands in convert_to_integer_1, at convert.c:668
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89506
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89397
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Feb 27 15:56:04 2019
New Revision: 269259
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269259&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89397
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_atomic_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89506
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unfortunately the patch regresses:
+FAIL: c-c++-common/torture/builtin-arith-overflow-1.c -O2 execution test
+FAIL: c-c++-common/torture/builtin-arith-overflow-1.c -O2 -flto
-fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89519
Bug ID: 89519
Summary: POD data member fails to be packed; G++ incorrectly
claims it is non-POD
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89280
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 27 15:22:16 2019
New Revision: 269256
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269256&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/89280
* gcc.dg/torture/pr57147-2.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89461
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-02-27 4:24 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Maybe libstdc++ should just link to libatomic unconditionally for your target.
Yes, I'm trying that in current build. The issue is certa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70341
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 27 14:50:35 2019
New Revision: 269255
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269255&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70341
* config/arm/arm.md (arm_casesi_internal)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89461
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-02-27 4:19 a.m., fw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is it really true that 64-bit PA-RISC lacks 64-bit atomics? That's … awkward.
PA-RISC only has two atomic instructions (ldcw and ldcd). T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88235
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I have looked at this a bit more and the problem is that thunk
inlining expands a thunk which then makes the clone_of_p() part of
cgraph_edge::verify_corresponds_to_fndecl() fail.
I must say that I found the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88878
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 27 14:04:18 2019
New Revision: 269253
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269253&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-27 Richard Biener
PR debug/88878
* dwarf2ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #33)
> I've started bootstrap/regtest of this on powerpc64{,le}-linux (on
> CompileFarm).
Passed bootstrap/regtest on powerpc64le-linux, on powerpc64-linux passed
boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89513
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88878
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
-fdebug-types-section now work as expected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89497
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
GIMPLE testcase that doesn't fail, possibly because of NOPs or because of
missing range info or whatever...
typedef struct {
char array[81];
} container;
container *get();
int guard = 0;
container c;
vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88878
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 27 12:51:43 2019
New Revision: 269251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-27 Richard Biener
PR debug/88878
* dwarf2ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89518
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> We do not have a (a / b) * b + (a % b) simplification rule.
Indeed. That's surprising since we do have for trunc_div
/* X - (X / Y) * Y is the same as X % Y. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89497
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45836
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45836&action=edit
patch I am testing
So we can now properly "order" CFG cleanup and SSA update by interleaving them.
There's t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53481
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
