http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59303
--- Comment #8 from davidxl at google dot com ---
Created attachment 31495
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31495&action=edit
Patch file : cleanup + more predicate simplification rules
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59569
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=49226
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 31497
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31497&action=edit
attempt to avoid invalid hard regs
This patch uses the equivalent integer modes instead of
:XC and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59419
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The modified test gfortran.dg/open_negative_unit_1.f90 in the patch submitted
at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-12/msg00124.html checks that this PR is
fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49226
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59572
Bug ID: 59572
Summary: Not clear error message in smallest_mode_for_size in
handled case
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54793
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Backtrace (patched tree):
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
gfc_resolve_expr (e=0x141e1f7a0) at ../../work/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:2827
2827 if (sym && sym->attr.intrinsic
(gdb) b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58861
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58200
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58171
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59303
--- Comment #10 from davidxl at google dot com ---
My patch does this.
1) it first does aggressive simplification iteratively (more rules can be added
later).
2) it then does normalization by building up larger predicate trees by
following ud chai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59569
Zhendong Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44482
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59369
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38183
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016
Bud Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bdavis at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the test in comment 1, I get on x86_64-apple-darwin13:
TYPE(atomic_kind_type), pointer :: atomic_kind
1
Error: Derived type 'atomic_kind_type' at (1) is being used be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Backtrace is
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
error_print(const char *, const char *, typedef __va_list_tag __va_list_tag *)
(type=, format0=, argp=)
at ../../work/gcc/fortran/e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59303
--- Comment #11 from davidxl at google dot com ---
The false negative bug introduced in the patch is fixed. Will submit the patch
for review soon.
(In reply to davidxl from comment #10)
> My patch does this.
> 1) it first does aggressive simplific
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
Samuel Bronson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||naesten at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59069
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56981
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #9 from Bud Davis ---
I completely support closing this PR with a note in the documentation.
On shared memory mini computers of a bygone era, it was common to map the
common blocks to a specific memory address, and then more than one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58842
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43849
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55574
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #7)
> Tell me, why was your patch never applied?
You answered that question at the next line. ;-)
> As far as I can see, nobody even
> reviewed it - is that right?
>
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49226
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47608
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52795
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|{x86_64,i386}-apple-darwin{ |{x86_64,i386}-apple-darwin1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59531
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Also, we should throw when pos > size() rather than pos >= size().
Spinning new patches and testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59573
Bug ID: 59573
Summary: aarch64: commit 07ca5686e64 broken glibc-2.17
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59574
Bug ID: 59574
Summary: Bad -Wattributes: ignoring attributes applied after
definition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Bug ID: 59575
Summary: ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2239
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59576
Bug ID: 59576
Summary: "sorry, unimplemented: making multiple clones" error
on *-apple-darwin*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
38 matches
Mail list logo
