http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58125
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58125
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems like we're trying to access &(*inline_summary_vec)[node->uid]; where the
node->uid is 8, but inline_summary_vec's length is 8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52153
A. Kasahara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||latlon90180+gcc_bugzilla@gm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58129
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58127
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Revision 201632 is OK, r201634 is not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57980
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Aug 12 08:46:41 2013
New Revision: 201660
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=201660&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/57980
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr57980
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57980
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed on trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58006
vincent.legoll at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent.legoll at gmail d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Barkov ---
Mikael, thanks for your comment on this.
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #3)
> Your code performs mis-aligned uint16_t stores, which x86 allows.
Right, this is done for performance purposes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58135
Bug ID: 58135
Summary: [x86] Missed opportunities for partial SLP
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Alexander Barkov from comment #4)
> > The
> > vectorizer turns those into larger and still mis-aligned `movdqa' stores,
> > which x86 does not allow, hence the SEGV.
>
> Can you please clarif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58084
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58108
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38724
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
see also
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/vPs4MJamnCM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58084
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the problem is that the return type of nested function is variable sized
type of the outer functions. These types go to function sections and are not
merged.
We used to not ICE just by luck - RESTLT_DECL we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56655
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The final specification of OpenMP 4.0 has been published by now and apparently
supports the ASSOCIATE construct.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58136
Bug ID: 58136
Summary: Initialized static global variables cause segfault on
AIX with debugging symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38724
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58137
Bug ID: 58137
Summary: [trunk, ICE] full unroll + AVX2 vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58137
--- Comment #1 from Yukhin Kirill ---
Actually, this case come while debugging Spec2000's perl workload on AVX-512
changes (with bigger tripcount).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46271
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46271
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to mrestelli from comment #0)
> With version B:
> gfortran -fopenmp omp_test.f90 -o omp_test
> omp_test.f90: In function ‘test’:
> omp_test.f90:25:0: error: ‘pf’ not specified in enclosing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57717
jules at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jules at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52153
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 08:08:18AM +, latlon90180+gcc_bugzilla at gmail dot
com wrote:
> Is there any progress on this?
> REAL128 of gfortran4.8 is still 10.
>
Need a short example. gfortran has supported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52153
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #9)
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 08:08:18AM +, latlon90180+gcc_bugzilla at gmail
> dot com wrote:
> > Is there any progress on this?
> > REAL128 of gfortran4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46271
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
> Here is a simple patch to accept version A:
... which regtests cleanly!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58108
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Does this bug still reproduce (I fixed problem related to x86 local calls that
> may fix this too)
The failure still exists in a i386-pc-solaris2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
--- Comment #9 from ccoutant at google dot com ---
>>> + if (!active_insn_p (insn))
>>> +continue;
>>
>> I'm not clear on why this is needed. Is it because after the
>> change_scope, insn will now be a NOTE? If that's it, just put the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58138
Bug ID: 58138
Summary: #include gives warning: macro
"__code_model_small__" is not used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46271
--- Comment #5 from mrestelli ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> (In reply to mrestelli from comment #0)
> > With version B:
> > gfortran -fopenmp omp_test.f90 -o omp_test
> > omp_test.f90: In function ‘test’:
> > omp_test.f90:25:0: error:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46271
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Marco,
> Janus, you are probably right that version B should not compile. I
> guess when I posted the bug report I was not sure which was the
> correct version according to the OpenMP specificati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
Bug ID: 58139
Summary: PowerPC volatile VSX register live across call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58140
Bug ID: 58140
Summary: -Wnon-virtual-dtor shouldn't fire for classes declared
final
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58140
--- Comment #1 from Tudor Bosman ---
(Tested with gcc 4.7.1, compiled with -std=c++11 -Wnon-virtual-dtor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58134
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
The reason is the following:
dump_printf_loc (MSG_OPTIMIZED_LOCATIONS, vect_location,
"Vectorized loop\n");
And in opts-global.c's dump_remap_tree_vectorizer_verbose:
sw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58134
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||singhai at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58134
--- Comment #3 from Sharad Singhai ---
I think this is the intended behavior. While working on the new dump
infrastructure, I modified the behavior of -ftree-vectorizer-verbose.
Thus right now
-ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1 : dump info about optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58140
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58140
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Tudor Bosman from comment #0)
> In C++11, we can declare a class as "final" to indicate that it can't be
> derived from. In that case, having a public non-virtual destructor is fine,
> even if t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58141
Bug ID: 58141
Summary: [bfin]: ICE: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58137
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58121
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58133
--- Comment #1 from Sven ---
It seems, that for targets like -mcpu=cortex-m4 the gcc does generate unified
syntax. So is the unified syntax only used for newer targets that use the
thumb2 instruction set whereas the divided syntax is used for olde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58142
Bug ID: 58142
Summary: _pthread_tsd_cleanup called before destructors are
called
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
This looks like a scheduling bug. Just before sched2, we have:
(call_insn 29 28 31 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:DF 33 1)
(call (mem:SI (symbol_ref:DI ("log") [flags 0x41]
) [0 __built
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57416
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
The ICE is indeed fixed in mainline. I'm going to commit a (reduced) testcase
and close the issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57416
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58075
--- Comment #2 from Paul Ackersviller ---
Thanks, I have sent this on to HP.
Should I report back a patch number, or whatever they end up responding with?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58137
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 30639
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30639&action=edit
possible fix
This seems to be a bug in the constant folding of constant
vector values at forwprop4.
Could some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58075
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Yes, please. Thanks.
gcc version 4.9.0 20130812 (experimental) [trunk revision 201658] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c
$ a.out
0
$ gcc-4.7 -O3 small.c
$ a.out
0
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
$ a.out
-1
$ gcc-4.8 -O3 small.c
$ a.out
-1
$
--
int printf (const char
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-2147483647 - 1 - p
Hmm, this overflows for p > 1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
Andrew, because of short-circuiting, when p >= 0, the expression "-2147483647 -
1 - p" isn't actually evaluated.
Thanks for looking into this so quickly!
Zhendong
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58144
Bug ID: 58144
Summary: Receive "virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate
memory" while compiling
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145
Bug ID: 58145
Summary: [Regression]: volatileness of write is discarded,
perhaps in "lim1" related to loop optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58146
Bug ID: 58146
Summary: Array slice bounds checking
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58146
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
58 matches
Mail list logo
