[Bug testsuite/59808] [4.9 Regression] r206596 caused: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-14.c (test for excess errors)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59808 --- Comment #5 from Yukhin Kirill --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2) > > Kirill, please update also sse-13.c with new builtins. > > And sse-12.c with new options. Sure, I think this is obvio

[Bug target/59803] [4.8 Regression] s390x -march=z10 reload ICE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59803 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Thanks, looks good to me in my testing (s390-linux and s390x-linux --enable-checking=release 4.8 branch --with-arch=z196 --with-tune=zEC12 bootstraps/regtests), and it even fixed one FAIL in the testsuite: -FA

[Bug c++/59813] tail-call elimintation didn't fired with left-shift of char to cout

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813 --- Comment #4 from Nikolay Orliuk --- Andrew Pinski, as long as address of variable isn't taken out of scope of function that is being tail-call optimized there is no need to worry about it and it is safe to optimize. Am I wrong? If stdc++ lib c

[Bug c++/59813] tail-call elimintation didn't fired with left-shift of char to cout

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- If you only care about tail recursion and not tail call optimization, perhaps, but either solution would be very dumb. We now have var ={v} {CLOBBER}; stmts, even if those vars escape and are address taken, i

<    1   2