http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60763
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
I can't reproduce this locally. Do I need any special configure flags
apart from -mcpu=power8?
It'd be interesting to see the insn that split_insn is splitting.
Hopefully that should give an i
)
: fail
gcc version 4.8.3 20140315 (prerelease) [gcc-4_8-branch revision 208588] : fail
gcc version 4.9.0 20140405 (experimental) [trunk revision 209137] (GCC) : OK
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60762
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Hmm, the problem turns out to be more subtle: I compiled the same program on
CentOS 6.4 and on openSUSE 13.1. Result:
* On CentOS, both binaries fail with the assert (also independent of the use
of a linker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60768
Bug ID: 60768
Summary: Excessive C++ compile time with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57578
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60768
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60768
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> Are you using --enable-checking=release?
No, --enable-checking=yes
> Might be a dup of pr59802.
Might be. Similar report from -ftime-report to previous
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60283
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Sat Apr 5 10:36:58 2014
New Revision: 209150
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use gfc_unset_implicit_pure.
PR fortran/60283
gcc/fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60769
Bug ID: 60769
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: Max. number of generated reload
insns per insn is achieved (90)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60769
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Still present with a pure r209150.
0x98bcc9 lra_constraints(bool)
/data/repos/gcc/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/lra-constraints.c:3563
0x97c676 lra(_IO_FILE*)
/data/repos/gcc/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/lra.c:2278
0x937a82
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54407
--- Comment #22 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sat Apr 5 12:25:37 2014
New Revision: 209152
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209152&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2012-04-06 Dominique d'Humieres
Jack Howarth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54407
--- Comment #23 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sat Apr 5 12:29:27 2014
New Revision: 209153
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209153&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2012-04-05 Dominique d'Humieres
Jack Howarth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54407
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60035
larsmans at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||larsmans at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60035
Nathaniel J. Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32019|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60035
--- Comment #6 from Nathaniel J. Smith ---
(In reply to larsmans from comment #4)
> Nathaniel, could you apply the cosmetic changes suggested at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00860.html? I'd hate to see
> this patch go to waste.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60035
--- Comment #7 from larsmans at gmail dot com ---
Phase 1? (Not familiar with the GCC dev cycle.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60035
--- Comment #8 from Nathaniel J. Smith ---
(In reply to larsmans from comment #7)
> Phase 1? (Not familiar with the GCC dev cycle.)
Sorry, meant "stage 1". GCC trunk is (IIUC) currently in RC-bug-fixes-only
pre-release freeze mode.
http://gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60582
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60767
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #5 from Walter Spector ---
> It seems quite trivial to fix, but does it really worth the work?
Well, we had an instance where this accidentally slipped into our code. Later
on, our nightly regression runs crashed with several non-gfo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #6 from Walter Spector ---
Adding that both READ and WRITE have this issue. Interestingly, the iolength
version of INQUIRE does not:
inquire (iolength=i), i
1
Error: Expected expression in INQUIRE statement at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Walter Spector from comment #5)
> > It seems quite trivial to fix, but does it really worth the work?
>
> Well, we had an instance where this accidentally slipped into our code.
> Later on, our
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #0)
> > mjambor@virgil:~/gcc/bisect/test/clonenames$ ~/gcc/bisect/inst/bin/g++ -O3
> > -S -Wall zz.C -fno-inlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60665
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60770
Bug ID: 60770
Summary: disappearing clobbers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
Created attachment 32549
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32549&action=edit
first try
With -O -fdisable-tree-esra (see PR 60770), it warns on the testcase. Twice
because the DSE pass is run
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60771
Bug ID: 60771
Summary: rejects-valid: static constexpr const reference
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen ---
I investigated this a bit.
The problem is in get_chain_decl() in the nested function lowering because Cilk
creates nested functions.
info->outer is NULL
created_nesting_tree does this
for (cgn = cgn->neste
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
32 matches
Mail list logo
