https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63368
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63411
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63411
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63411
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
>
> We saw similar problems on arm too. Problem is IVOPT's model doesn't know
> the detail of target addressing mode. This is should be fixed by improving
> function get_add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56393
--- Comment #46 from Yury Gribov ---
Can we close this one? Does not seem to repro in trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini ---
Manuel, I'm looking into this. I think it makes sense to also submit the
testcase updates, or at least provide a breakdown. I'm working on that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63412
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
"Similarly, if compiling with -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations makes a difference, your code probably is
not correct."
Turning off strict aliasing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #49 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #48)
> The array at i = 699 doesn't seem to contain anything valid.
It looks that
(expr_list:DF (use (mem:DF (reg/f:SI 699) [0 S8 A32]))
which shows an argument of c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63408
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61605
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33618
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33618&action=edit
[1/2] Use fuse-caller-save-info in cprop-hardreg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61605
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33619
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33619&action=edit
[2/2] Don't regard a copy with identical src and dest as killing dest
This patch adds handling of cop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63282
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 30 10:30:45 2014
New Revision: 215712
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215712&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/63282
* ifcvt.c (dead_or_predicable): Don't call red
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63282
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 30 10:33:25 2014
New Revision: 215713
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215713&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/63282
* ifcvt.c (dead_or_predicable): Don't call red
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63400
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe we should make high_resolution_clock a typedef for steady_clock on
mingw-w64 but maybe only when using winpthreads.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63282
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63409
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63409
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
Hello Honza. I've been working on SPEC numbers, I will send it this evening.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63414
Bug ID: 63414
Summary: template parse error using < operator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63414
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Malkmus
---
#include
template
int bar ( const T& ) { return 0; }
struct Foo
{
int bar;
};
template
void callBar ( F& foo )
{
if( foo.bar<0 )
std::cout<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63414
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63415
Bug ID: 63415
Summary: internal compiler error: unexpected expression
‘static_cast(std::is_same{})’ of kind
static_cast_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63414
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10200
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tomalk at mathematik dot
uni-freib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63415
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63415
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If this isn't a regression (which it doesn't seem to be) then setting Target
Milestone to 4.8.4 doesn't seem appropriate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
>
> >
> > > + vec_arglist.release();
> >
> > Formatting. You could use auto_vec, perhaps with some stack allocate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #6 from Agustín Bergé ---
(In reply to Piotr Dziwinski from comment #5)
> It seems
> the recursive version of `std::tuple` is not going to be optimized easily
> and the new flat implementation is the way to go here.
Well, not necessa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
--- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
>
> > + vec_arglist.release();
>
> Formatting. You could use auto_vec, perhaps with some stack allocated
> initial buffer if you think say 16 vector elements w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> If this isn't a regression (which it doesn't seem to be) then setting Target
> Milestone to 4.8.4 doesn't seem appropriate.
Feel free to adjust.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #23)
> Manuel, I'm looking into this. I think it makes sense to also submit the
> testcase updates, or at least provide a breakdown. I'm working on that.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61605
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #8 from Agustín Bergé ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
> (In reply to Agustín Bergé from comment #6)
> > Well, not necessarily, It's not `std::tuple` which is at fault, but the
> > compiler (gcc and every other).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
Gert-jan Los changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerrit.los at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63416
Bug ID: 63416
Summary: Three calls to empty functions via pointers get
folded, but not inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63416
--- Comment #1 from Felix Shvaiger ---
Created attachment 33621
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33621&action=edit
2 function calls -> (for comparison) folded, inlined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63416
--- Comment #2 from Felix Shvaiger ---
Created attachment 33622
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33622&action=edit
disassembly of compiled a1.c -- bad code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63416
--- Comment #3 from Felix Shvaiger ---
Created attachment 33623
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33623&action=edit
disassembly of compiled a2.c -- good code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63410
--- Comment #1 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Sep 30 15:41:11 2014
New Revision: 215727
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215727&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR plugins/63410: Fix missing headers for plugins
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63417
Bug ID: 63417
Summary: scanf: problem handling %hhd format
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63417
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62120
--- Comment #1 from tocarip at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tocarip
Date: Tue Sep 30 16:04:15 2014
New Revision: 215729
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215729&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR 62120.
gcc/
2014-09-30 Ilya Tocar
PR midd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58893
--- Comment #12 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Tue Sep 30 16:08:53 2014
New Revision: 215730
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215730&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-30 Bernd Edlinger
PR preprocessor/58893
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63410
--- Comment #2 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Sep 30 16:32:33 2014
New Revision: 215731
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215731&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR plugins/63410 Fix missing pass-instances.def
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63410
dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61669
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Steven, do you plan to commit your fix which has been acked back in August?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63418
Bug ID: 63418
Summary: false positive with -Wmaybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419
Bug ID: 63419
Summary: verify_gimple failed: "vector CONSTRUCTOR element is
not a GIMPLE value"
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #25 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Sep 30 17:10:35 2014
New Revision: 215733
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215733&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
cp/
2014-09-30 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c++/16564
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #26 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Sep 30 17:11:38 2014
New Revision: 215734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215734&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
cp/
2014-09-30 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c++/16564
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #27 from Paolo Carlini ---
Can we close the bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63420
Bug ID: 63420
Summary: GCC 4.8.2: Bitshift second operand range not as per
manual.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #27)
> Can we close the bug?
There is still the issue that we print:
x.ii:5: instantiated from `S > > > > > > > > > >
but that is PR43113, so I think yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #16 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
The unwinder issue has been now fixed along PR target/60102, rev. 213596.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43113
Bug 43113 depends on bug 16564, which changed state.
Bug 16564 Summary: g++ seems to go into an infinite loop after errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26099
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Agustín Bergé from comment #8)
> Please let me know if I can help you in any other way.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
As for the g++ issue, then a minimal testcase that does not i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #3)
> you need -fstack-protector or -fstack-protector-strong to reproduce this.
That still doesn't ICE the compiler on 4.9 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63418
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany ---
Created attachment 33626
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33626&action=edit
w1.c
attached the repro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> (In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #3)
> > you need -fstack-protector or -fstack-protector-strong to reproduce this.
>
> That still doesn't ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Ah, the system compiler was build slightly before Jason's
r215172 checkin from 20140911.
gcc version 4.9.2 20140911 (prerelease) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
Daniel Sommermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcsommer at fb dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63316
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #10 from Agustín Bergé ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #9)
> I cannot say if the libstdc++ implementation could be better
>From a compile-time performance point of view it is, check the implementation
attached to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #7 from Gert-jan Los ---
2014-09-30 20:39:22 CEST schrieb trippels at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
>
> --- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
> Ah, the system compiler was build slightly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #8 from Gert-jan Los ---
Created attachment 33629
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33629&action=edit
bisect.log
--- Comment #9 from Gert-jan Los ---
Created attachment 33630
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #50 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Sep 30 22:12:42 2014
New Revision: 215744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/55212
* lra.c (lra_update_insn_regno_info): Handle mem args in c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #51 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #50)
> Author: olegendo
> Date: Tue Sep 30 22:12:42 2014
> New Revision: 215744
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215744&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR target/55212
> *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #52 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 33632
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33632&action=edit
Reduced case of error: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1335
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63418
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63418
--- Comment #3 from Kostya Serebryany ---
Thanks for confirming the current state of this warning :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63421
Bug ID: 63421
Summary: GCC generates a very misleading warning when looking
at an erroneously-overloaded type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62225
Sandra Loosemore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63285
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Vlad, do you plan to apply this to 4.9 and 4.8 branches too?
> For 4.9, I've bootstrapped/regtested it on
> {x86_64,i686,armv7hl,aarch64}-linux.
Yes, I have p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62144
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Brooks Moses from comment #2)
> Ping? Any updates on this?
Sorry, I'll look at this in a week or if I am lucky this week. Right now, I am
quite busy with register rematerialization pass in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62144
--- Comment #4 from Brooks Moses ---
Thanks. I have to admit that that does seem more generally useful! :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
Bug ID: 63422
Summary: [5.0 Regression] ICE in freqs_to_counts_path, at
tree-ssa-threadupdate.c:981
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61898
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson ---
Yes, this function is new in r215739. I will see if I can trigger it
tomorrow. If you have a smaller test case that would be great. Or even
if you can give me the gcda file and preprocessed source that will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63285
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > Vlad, do you plan to apply this to 4.9 and 4.8 branches too?
> > For 4.9, I've bootstrapped/regtested it on
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #2)
> Yes, this function is new in r215739. I will see if I can trigger it
> tomorrow. If you have a smaller test case that would be great. Or even
> if you can
87 matches
Mail list logo
