http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59336
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59320
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59337
Bug ID: 59337
Summary: surprising OMP error message
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
Ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
>
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
> I do not quite understand why the port needs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase for -O3:
struct A { float a[4]; };
struct B { int b; A a; };
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
bar (A &a)
{
if (a.a[0] != 36.0f || a.a[1] != 42.0f || a.a[2] != 48.0f || a.a[3] != 54.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59337
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder why atomic negate isn't possible - from a QOI perspective treating
it as 0 - i would be obvious, no?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59336
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7)
> Created attachment 31322 [details]
> Proposed fix I am testing
>
> Hi,
> the problem here is that update_stmt is called with cfun being set to NULL.
> It uses ssa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
Bug ID: 59338
Summary: error: position plus size exceeds size of referenced
object in BIT_FIELD_REF
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 31324
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31324&action=edit
patch
Like this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code, lto |accepts-invalid,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59337
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The standard doesn't allow it, and given the parsing complexities of the
atomics creating extensions there is IMHO undesirable, especially when it will
unlikely work with other compilers.
Because the standard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59339
Bug ID: 59339
Summary: vtable_verify objects still trying to be linked on
Android
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59339
--- Comment #1 from Luke A. Guest ---
Toolchain I'm using:
gcc version 4.6.3 (Debian 4.6.3-14)
This is the Ada enabled one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59339
--- Comment #2 from Luke A. Guest ---
I also don't think this should be adding the following the parts either:
parts="crtbegin.o crtbeginS.o crtbeginT.o crtend.o crtendS.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59326
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 29 10:36:10 2013
New Revision: 205512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205512&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/59326
* tree-core.h (enum omp_clause_schedule_kind): Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59326
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 29 10:41:12 2013
New Revision: 205514
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205514&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/59326
* omp-low.c (simd_clone_create): Return NULL if for def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59334
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 29 10:47:52 2013
New Revision: 205515
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205515&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/59334
* tree-s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59330
Bug 59330 depends on bug 59334, which changed state.
Bug 59334 Summary: [4.9 Regression] r205486 caused many failures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59334
What|Removed |Added
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Bug ID: 59340
Summary: LRA enable-checking bootstrap failure since r205136
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58239
Luke A. Guest changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laguest at archeia dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58844
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58239
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I think this fix has been reverted somewhere in source as I've just got
> trunk from SVN and have had to patch by hand.
It's very easy to check, the patch is linked from comment #17...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Argh. I'll try to add a update_stmt_fn.
Yep, would make life easier ;)
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2)
> Isn't it easier to avoid building a type with different alignment
> in the first place? Or do this adjustment in SRA where the bug
> happens? It seems that w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2)
> Isn't it easier to avoid building a type with different alignment
> in the first place? Or do this adjustment in SRA where the bug
> happens? It seems that w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59336
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I suppose it doesn't happen without LTO?
correct.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
Bug ID: 59341
Summary: spark_05 & No_Implicit_Aliasing undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
>
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59337
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 29 12:09:12 2013
New Revision: 205521
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/59338
* tree-cfg.c (v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #21 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Fri Nov 29 12:30:36 2013
New Revision: 205524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205524&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2013-11-29 Jakub Jelinek
Yury Gribov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #22 from Yury Gribov ---
Joost, could you check and close bug if trunk works for you?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58089
Andrey Zholos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@q-fu.com
--- Comment #2 from Andrey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I think that we should disallow tie of TImode with 128bit vector modes due to
different alignment requirements. Integer register pairs can load unaligned
TImode without problems, while unaligned TImode will cras
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58864
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59309
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Nov 29 13:00:35 2013
New Revision: 205525
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205525&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly handle function without arguments
PR c/59309
* cilk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
> Can you expand on those shortcomings/bugs?
There are LTO-related issues in GCC and LD, such as PR43038, PR56536 and
others. Not all problems will be fixed soon, and more bugs will be discovered
in the fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59309
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54316
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Maybe even better idea is to use ix86_legitimate_combined_insn and reject
combinations that would result in unaligned operands of all but vector move
instructions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59342
Bug ID: 59342
Summary: Function Template Specialisation causing compiler
error together with using clauses
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
Bug ID: 59343
Summary: miscompiled for loop in sh4 target (-Os)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58864
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31328
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31328&action=edit
gcc49-pr58864.patch
Alternate patch. Rather than doing do_pending_stack_adjust () everywhere just
in case emit_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugzilla-f5d8 at theblacksun dot eu ---
Created attachment 31330
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31330&action=edit
assembler output from -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
--- Comment #1 from gcc-bugzilla-f5d8 at theblacksun dot eu ---
Created attachment 31329
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31329&action=edit
assembler output from -Os
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
It was discovered by accident. However, if it does work, why "no-lto" (which is
so much more useful) should not work?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59344
Bug ID: 59344
Summary: warning for needless pointer attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59345
Bug ID: 59345
Summary: _gfortran_internal_pack on compiler generated temps
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 29 14:37:07 2013
New Revision: 205528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/59208
* tree-ssa-ope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31331
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31331&action=edit
gcc49-pr59163.patch
So like this? Untested...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> Fixed.
The testcase is missing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54316
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++11] move constructor|[C++11] move constructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59342
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59289
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Nov 29 15:19:34 2013
New Revision: 205529
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205529&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Kyrylo Tkachov
PR target/59289
* conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59289
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
Bug ID: 59346
Summary: [4.9 Regression] s-osinte.adb:107:35: expected type
"Interfaces.C.long"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55025
Paulo J. Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pa...@matos-sorge.com
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54040
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Nov 29 16:19:36 2013
New Revision: 205532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205532&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/54040
PR ada/59346
* s-osinte-hpux.ads (timespec): Ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Nov 29 16:19:36 2013
New Revision: 205532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205532&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/54040
PR ada/59346
* s-osinte-hpux.ads (timespec): Ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 31331 [details]
> gcc49-pr59163.patch
>
> So like this? Untested...
Yes, but I think that we can also allow simple vector loads and stores - th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For stores I think the patch already allows that, that is the
if (GET_CODE (*x) == SET && &SET_DEST (*x) == data)
return 1;
in there (the reason why I've added it was that for the misaligned store insns
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> For stores I think the patch already allows that, that is the
> if (GET_CODE (*x) == SET && &SET_DEST (*x) == data)
> return 1;
> in there (the reason why I'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59199
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
>
> Likely a update_address_taken bug, eventual fix:
>
> @@ -1329,6 +1336,10 @@ non_rewritable_mem_ref_base (tree ref)
>if (DECL_P (ref))
> return NULL_TREE;
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, mtewoodbury at gmail dot com wrote:
> The elaborate description of the different forms of the '#line' (and other)
> directives makes it clear that expansion is not to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31331|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Created attachment 31332 [details]
> gcc49-pr59163.patch
>
> So like this?
Yes, with adjusted comment in ix86_legitimate_combined_insn.
IIRC, unaligned moves wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc*-sun-solaris2.* |sparc*-sun-solaris2.*,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Me to, on alpha-linux-gnu, exactly the same numbers:
alpha-linux-gnu is 128 bit long double, but not __float128 target:
auto-host.h:#define TARGET_DEFAULT_LONG_DOUB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Now that PR59208 was fixed, I tried the test case of this PR again (with
today's r205539).
Result: Still the same, an ICE with -O3 in verify_cgraph_node. (-O2 is fine.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> > Created attachment 31332 [details]
> > gcc49-pr59163.patch
> >
> > So like this?
>
> Yes, with adjusted comment in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59333
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
I think we just shouldn't try to pass values by reference in
ubsan_encode_value...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 29 20:08:38 2013
New Revision: 205541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205541&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/59340
* lr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Andreas, could you check that the bootstrap is fixed. At least, the test is
compiled by the cross-compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #14)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> > > Created attachment 31332 [details]
> > > gcc49-pr59163.patch
> >
l/gcc_current --with-multilib-list=m64
--enable-checking=yes,df,fold,rtl,tree --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--enable-plugin --with-tune=native --with-arch=native
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131129 (experimental) [trunk revision 205527] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note that (according to my reading of the docs) e.g. movlps/movhps don't allow
unaligned memory, so blindly allow any combine is wrong, but while the MEM
operand in those cases is say V4SFmode, the loads or s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43734
--- Comment #13 from Rolf Eike Beer ---
Ok, it looks like this is no gcc problem. If I rebuild gcc with binutils 2.22
it works. If I compile gcc with binutils 2.23.[12] it fails. Having a gcc built
with binutils 2.23.2 and building the program wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 31333
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31333&action=edit
A patch
This patch teaches gcc.c to append .bfd/.gold to ld if
-fuse-ld=XXX is used for --print-prog-name=ld.
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
