http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57213
Dmitri Shubin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57194
gp at iws dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gp at iws dot it
--- Comment #2 from gp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57222
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57213
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57213
--- Comment #5 from Dmitri Shubin 2013-05-09 08:12:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This is similar to fixing bugs in libstdc++, we don't keep the old defective
> behaviour around as well, we fix it.
But this fix breaks backward compatibil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57224
Bug #: 57224
Summary: Remove __builtin_ia32_cmpngtss and
__builtin_ia32_cmpngess
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57217
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57225
Bug #: 57225
Summary: x64 Windows seh GCC should define
__USING_SEH_EXCEPTIONS like sjlj and dw2 builds
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19721
--- Comment #27 from Steven Bosscher 2013-05-09
10:39:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> With TARGET_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS_P rejecting (costly) symbols_refs inside
> memory references, cse_local brings the number of __malloc_av references down
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57226
Bug #: 57226
Summary: The installation of pretty printers is not documented
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56988
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30066|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57215
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30071|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55237
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19721
--- Comment #28 from Steven Bosscher ---
(In reply to comment #25)
FWIW this case is handled at the GIMPLE level since at least GCC 4.3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Created attachment 30073
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30073&action=edit
patch to recognize vec_merge
This passes bootstrap+testsuite. I had to swap tem1 and tem2 in the example,
which I t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57226
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You install GCC and the printers get installed alongside them, and when gdb
loads libstdc++.so.6.0.16 it automatically loads libstdc++.so.6.0.16-gdb.py ...
what more do you need to know? What needs to be doc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57227
Bug ID: 57227
Summary: Two function with identical signature but different
calling convention seem to be symbol-encoded by the
same string
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57226
--- Comment #2 from marco.morandini at polimi dot it ---
On 05/09/2013 02:48 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57226
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> You install GCC and the printers get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57226
--- Comment #3 from marco.morandini at polimi dot it ---
On 05/09/2013 02:48 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57226
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> You install GCC and the printers get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57226
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #4 from Jonat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57157
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57157
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30075
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30075&action=edit
/tmp/gcc49-pr57157.patch
Untested tiny i386 improvement, instead of roll $31, %eax we can emit
rorl %eax which is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've attached two rotate patches to PR57157. They seem to improve
#c6 runtime slightly (from:
real 0m6.303s
user 0m6.293s
sys 0m0.000s
to:
real 0m5.920s
user 0m5.913s
sys 0m0.000s
) but guess there are othe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57228
Bug ID: 57228
Summary: [c++11] constructing shared_ptr to
enable_shared_from_this-derived class from raw
pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57229
Bug ID: 57229
Summary: 4.6/4.7/4.8 inconsistent check for
PRE_MODIFY/POST_MODIFY in post_reload
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57228
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57228
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2179 but if the
behaviour changes I'll eat my hat.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||57157
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bossch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #0)
> when compiled at -O3 . Compiling with 4.8 branch, or 4.9 and -O2 doesn't
> cause this behavior.
I just want to point out that SLSR runs at -O1 and above by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Of course, there can be secondary effects that cause SLSR to kick in with
different intermediate code, but it's something to consider.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35405
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57226
morandini at aero dot polimi.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
I was able to download your code, and I can't reproduce the problem on
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with current trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57226
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, I haven't seen that warning. If you'd mentioned that warning I would have
agreed it might be worth documenting, but as you only talked about how to
install them (which happens automatically) I didn't un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57215
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57068
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/r198096
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems that only skipping coalescing if we aren't coalescing SSA_NAMEs works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced:
extern int baz (void);
extern int foo (void) __attribute__ ((returns_twice));
void
bar (_Bool b)
{
int buf[1];
while (1)
{
_Bool x = 1;
if (b)
baz ();
b = 1;
baz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57222
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57180
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson ---
This test case also fails on x86_64-linux with every gcc release from 3.2.3 up
to today's 4.9 (r198748). Looking at the assembly code for the x[] initializer
it's easy to see why:
.type x, @obj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30072|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
I have patches the daily tester with those two patches so we see where we stand
with these improvements...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I don't see a code degradation because of LRA. Here what I got using gcc4.8
branch compiler with options -O3 -finline-functions -D_REENTRANT
-Wno-long-long -W -Wall -fPIC -fvisibility=hidden on Xeon X56
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Bug ID: 57230
Summary: tree-ssa-strlen incorrectly optimizes a strlen to 0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
Bug ID: 57231
Summary: Hoist zero-extend operations when possible
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: rt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57195
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55033
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57138
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
This seems like another instance of bug 51239/DR 1430, which seems likely to be
resolved to make this code ill-formed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55036
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems like there's some wrongdoing in handle_char_store; we have
else if (si != NULL)
{
si = unshare_strinfo (si);
si->length = build_int_cst (size_type_node, 0);
so that'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> Seems that only skipping coalescing if we aren't coalescing SSA_NAMEs works.
... but it doesn't pass the testsuite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42014
Shakthi Kannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skannan at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
62 matches
Mail list logo
