http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #14 from Kai Tietz ---
Sorry for that on the 4.7 branch. plus_constant function takes one argument
less on 4.7 branch. Following patch fixes the issue for me:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59386
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 11 09:18:33 2013
New Revision: 205883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205883&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/59386
* tree-inline.c (remap_gimple_stmt): If n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59417
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 11 09:19:41 2013
New Revision: 205884
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205884&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/59417
* tree-ssa-copy.c (fini_copy_prop): If co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59417
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59386
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59464
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59460
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder if x86_64 is also affected as it has implicitely zero/sign-extending
loads as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I wonder if x86_64 is also affected as it has implicitely zero/sign-extending
> loads as well.
Not for this testcase at least, where the code is (and has always been)
optimal:
ee_isdigit2:
.LFB0:
.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59467
Bug ID: 59467
Summary: copyprivate in the fortran testsuite
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39997
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> Let's claim the following code is valid.
>
> Cf. Intepretation Request J3/11-198 at
> http://j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/195/11-198.txt
Btw, the IR conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59399
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Dec 11 12:25:05 2013
New Revision: 205888
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205888&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/59399
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Remove assert d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59399
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
GoWhoopee at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||GoWhoopee at yahoo dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #6 from Roland Stigge ---
I searched the differences between 4.7 and 4.8. It turned out that the patch
that I'm attaching fixes the issue.
Any comments?
Can it be applied to the 4.8 line?
Thanks,
Roland
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59468
Bug ID: 59468
Summary: ICE on invalid C++ code with LTO in
gimple_get_virt_method_for_binfo, at
gimple-fold.c:3224
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #7 from Roland Stigge ---
Created attachment 31415
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31415&action=edit
Fix as described
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
--- Comment #4 from janus at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57377
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57001
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56361
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51898
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52511
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55946
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 31417
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31417&action=edit
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
Bug ID: 59469
Summary: LLVM build failure with gcc LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58916
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Dec 11 14:02:44 2013
New Revision: 205894
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Janus Weil
PR fortran/58916
* resolve.c (co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58916
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #16 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Dec 11 14:05:56 2013
New Revision: 205895
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Committed as obvious fix.
PR target/56807
* config/i386/i386.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[F03] ICE with proc pointer |[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
Bug ID: 59470
Summary: [4.8 Regression] libstdc++ miscompilation after
r205709
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Sev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31419
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31419&action=edit
locale-inst.ii.bz2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31418
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31418&action=edit
11.ii.bz2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59441
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
ICEs for me at
> ./xg++ -B. -shared t.C -fPIC -nostdlib -flto -O -fvtable-verify=std
t.C: In function '_GLOBAL__sub_I.00099_t.C':
t.C:20:1: internal compiler error: in pool_free, at alloc-pool.c:347
}
^
0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> I have been tracking 4.8 branch on Linux/i686. I didn't
> see any libstdc++ failures on Fedora 19 today:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-12/msg01024.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
1776 || DECL_FILE_SCOPE_P (current_function_decl)
also matches TRANSLATION_UNIT_DECL.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > I have been tracking 4.8 branch on Linux/i686. I didn't
> > see any libstdc++ failures on Fedora 19 today:
> >
> > http://gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56572
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
Yes, removing nested transactions (when possible) is worth doing.
The problem is not just with ipa_inline, but also with early_inline.
Indeed, for an example this small, I would have expected early_inline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59468
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
> works with 4.8.
Perhaps it should be counted as a 4.8 regression - 4.7 warns about the
non-matching vtables.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59463
--- Comment #2 from Mike Spear ---
Bug no longer present in trunk version 205880.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58726
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
Let's close this, I don't think that we need the fix on the 4.7 branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
Bug ID: 59471
Summary: ICE using vector extensions (non-top-level
BIT_FIELD_REF, IMAGPART_EXPR or REALPART_EXPR)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
CXXFLAGS='-fstack-protector ...' ../configure ...
(at least I believe so, we override a bunch of other variables in the gcc.spec
file).
Anyway, I've instrumented gcc so that based on env var it used the r2057
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Andrew Church changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59472
Bug ID: 59472
Summary: Many warnings "type of 'X' does not match original
declaration" when linking with libstdc++ static
library compiled with -flto
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the inline asm, consider e.g.:
int a, b;
int
foo (void)
{
int c;
asm ("" : "=r" (c) : "rm" (a), "rm" (b) : "memory");
return c;
}
where r205709 regresses expansion (not even combiner can fix it up, L
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Created attachment 31420
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31420&action=edit
gzipped C++ source code
I just tried to compile the attached source code with flag -O3
with trunk of 20131211
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn ---
Mike, can you apply the patch to the 4.8 branch?
Thanks, David
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #12 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore
PR middle-end/23623
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23623
--- Comment #18 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore
PR middle-end/23623
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48784
--- Comment #5 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore
PR middle-end/23623
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #15 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore
PR middle-end/23623
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59474
Bug ID: 59474
Summary: Invalid binaries produced when making win32 EXEs with
-gsplit-dwarf
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23623
--- Comment #19 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger
Sandra Loosemore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #16 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger
Sandra Loosemore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48784
--- Comment #6 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger
Sandra Loosemore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #13 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger
Sandra Loosemore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56572
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> walk the transaction tree and delete nested transactions. Hopefully
> we could do this before actually creating the uninstrumented path.
>
> I think moving the creation of the uninstrumented path after ipa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59134
--- Comment #5 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 17:09:17 2013
New Revision: 205898
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205898&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/59134
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, debugging and inspection shows that it is the
_ZNKSt7num_putIcSt19ostreambuf_iteratorIcSt11char_traitsIcEEE12_M_group_intEPKcjcRSt8ios_basePcS9_Ri
call in the _M_insert_int method that gets bogus arguments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
--- Comment #48 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to GoWhoopee from comment #47)
> Please reconsider and stop gcc from changing our code without our permission.
It is not changing your code at all. Read comment #39 to understand this issue
at full
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #30 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Not at the moment. Focus is on bugfixing for 4.9, particularly regressions.
This doesn't qualify.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
Bug ID: 59475
Summary: gcc with flag -O1 fails to find template
specialization when there is default one.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
--- Comment #1 from Akela1101 ---
Created attachment 31421
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31421&action=edit
ii, source, sh script
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 llvm_build % cat BasicBlock.ii
struct A {};
namespace llvm {
struct B {};
template struct ilist_traits : B {};
template class ilist_iterator : A {
public:
ilist_iterator(int) {}
int opera
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Re: the #c7 second testcase, rth thinks it is undefined behavior since there is
no sequence point. So here is a better testcase that should have defined
behavior, still before r205709 we miscompile it at -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59390
--- Comment #5 from tmsriram at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: tmsriram
Date: Wed Dec 11 20:06:46 2013
New Revision: 205904
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sriraman Tallam
PR target/59390
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
BTW it is interesting that gcc compiles the attached testcase faster
when using LTO.
% time g++ -flto=4 -Wfatal-errors -fPIC -shared -fno-rtti -O3 BasicBlock.ii
Function.ii
52.48s user 0.59s system 168
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56859
Stephan Tolksdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||st at quanttec dot com
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59476
Bug ID: 59476
Summary: gdb pretty-printer cannot print C++11
_Rb_tree_iterator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #3)
> BTW it is interesting that gcc compiles the attached testcase faster
> when using LTO.
>
> % time g++ -flto=4 -Wfatal-errors -fPIC -shared -fno-rtti -O3 Ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #3)
> > BTW it is interesting that gcc compiles the attached testcase faster
> > when using LTO.
> >
> > % ti
o,fortran
--prefix=/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-205881-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131211 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions:
r205881 - crash
4.8 r204890 - crash
4.7 r204889 - OK
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59446
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Dec 11 22:15:14 2013
New Revision: 205905
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/59446
* tree-ssa-threadupdate.c (mark_threaded_bl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59446
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59446
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> Should be fixed on trunk now.
Yep. The SH problem is also gone. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
> Lightly tested draft patch:
Fixes all occurrences of the problem for one of my larger codes (which has tons
of namelists).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59478
Bug ID: 59478
Summary: Optimize variable access via byte copy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59255
--- Comment #2 from mark at jarv dot in ---
This is my first time trying to debug GCC, so please forgive me if this is
obvious or unhelpful.
I traced this in GDB and it seems that the segfault is because the
FOR_EACH_EDGE loop at value-prof.c:1281
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner ---
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 04:37:20PM +, dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
>
> --- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn ---
> Mike, can you apply the patch to th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
--- Comment #3 from Akela1101 ---
Thank you.
But could you explain in more detail, why results of this little program are
different depending on -O1 flag? I thought they both should be 0. Or am I
wrong?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Akela1101 from comment #3)
> Thank you.
> But could you explain in more detail, why results of this little program are
> different depending on -O1 flag? I thought they both should be 0. Or am I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Created attachment 31423
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31423&action=edit
The patch fixing incorrect code generation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> In -fdump-rtl-reload-slim we have incorrect:
>
>92: {sp:SI=sp:SI-0x30;clobber flags:CC;}
>94: {dx:SI=sp:SI+0x2f;clobber flags:CC;}
>95: NOTE_INSN
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
