https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 33697
> --> https://gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63512
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 14 07:36:02 2014
New Revision: 216174
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216174&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63512
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63512
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63531
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63532
Bug ID: 63532
Summary: Cannot increase access of member function template.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63532
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
Bug ID: 63533
Summary: Function splitter causes unnecessary splits
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #21)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #17)
> >
> > In the 'addsf3_i' pattern, I've tried replacing the
> >
> > (use (match_operand:PSI 3 "fpscr_operand" "c"))
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Bug ID: 63534
Summary: [5 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86_64/i686-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, wrong-code
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59807
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If the target for this is only mingw-w64 then PR 57440 is a dup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
dup of PR 59807
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59807
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ahanins at gmail dot com
--- Comment #14 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz ---
Posted patch to ML for defining _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC in mingw-w64, and
mingw32 case. It is true that posix-threading support for Windows is right now
only provided by mingw-w64 based toolchains, neverth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Stupachenko Evgeny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61558
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #21 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to xur from comment #20)
> Thanks for the comments. I'll work on this to get it fixed this time.
>
> Let me understand your idea correctly:
> We will have two patches: The first one will check FTW-API
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For -fsplit-stack you are right, __morestack seems to have hidden visibility,
so even if gcc emits call __morestack@plt, the linker should transform that
into
a direct call __morestack which doesn't need %ebx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63535
Bug ID: 63535
Summary: SELECT TYPE shouldn't pass ALLOCATABLE/POINTER
attribute through
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #4 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
Profiling implementation has hard coded "%ebx" use.
There are at least 2 quick solutions to resolve this:
1. Disable the changes for PIC profiling
Lead to different behavior with and without profiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Venkataramanan from comment #7)
> Where reload gets
>
> (set (reg:DI 0 x0 [76]) (reg:DI 1 x1 [ args+8 ]))
> (set (reg:TI 0 x0 [74]) (reg:TI -1 [+-8 ])
>
> Looks same issue to me.
>
> Vla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #29 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
> wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>>
>> --- Comment #27 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
--- Comment #3 from Yury Gribov ---
> If g is called with argument that is usually 0,
> then the partial inlining makes sense.
But note that there are zero callers of g in the file so no inlining can happen
anyway. Frankly I was surprised to see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63536
Bug ID: 63536
Summary: [5 Regression] bootstrap failed when configured with
--with-cpu=slm
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63536
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Double set_got doesn't make sense, if you want to keep the current model, I'd
emit a set_got insn forced into %ebx before the mcount call in the prologue and
see if early after the prologue isn't a set_got in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the section of the split function is also different from the original
function if the user had supplied a section.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #6 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iverbin
Date: Tue Oct 14 16:26:57 2014
New Revision: 216208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/63534
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61048
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Palachev ---
Suggested a patch that fixes this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg01264.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61048
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Palachev ---
Created attachment 33714
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33714&action=edit
Patch that fixes the ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
--- Comment #16 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Oct 14 16:58:37 2014
New Revision: 216210
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216210&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-14 Kai Tietz
PR libstdc++/57440
* config/os/ming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61048
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Palachev ---
> g++ test.o -o test -Wl,-flto
> /tmp/ccEhycoY.ltrans0.ltrans.o:ccEhycoY.ltrans0.o:function
> __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int): error: undefined
> reference to '__asan_before_dynamic_init'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54354
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Oct 14 17:01:25 2014
New Revision: 216211
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216211&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-14 Rüdiger Sonderfeld
PR libstdc++/54354
* include/st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
--- Comment #17 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Oct 14 17:05:04 2014
New Revision: 216212
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216212&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/57440
* config/os/mingw32/os_defines.h (_GTHREAD_USE_MU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
--- Comment #18 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Oct 14 17:06:27 2014
New Revision: 216213
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216213&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/57440
* config/os/mingw32/os_defines.h (_GTHREAD_USE_MU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #5 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
> With ifort, are you compiling with whatever flag enforces
> standards conformance. I need to go hunting through the
> standard to see if assumed size arrays are allowed in the
> declaration se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 14 18:40:59 2014
New Revision: 216217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/63475
* alias.c (true_dependence_1): A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63537
Bug ID: 63537
Summary: Missed optimization: Loop unrolling adds extra copy
when returning aggregate
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It's annoying, but I suspect others see this as so low priority as not to care.
As for just committing my patch, I could make an argument that I ought to be
able to do that, but we (the project) make a con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
The patch fixed the issue for me, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63538
Bug ID: 63538
Summary: [X86_64] With -mcmodel=medium .lrodata accesses do not
use 64-bit addresses
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #8 from Evandro Menezes ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #7)
> As Evandro doesn't mention flags it's hard to say whether there really is a
> problem here or not.
Both GCC and LLVM were given "-O3 -ffast-math".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #22 from Marc Glisse ---
There were some comments by Florian:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00149.html
I don't think the patch was ever pinged during stage 1, worth another try...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Oct 14 21:04:05 2014
New Revision: 216223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/62019
* tree-eh.c (tree_could_trap) : Revamp and really
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59758
davem at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63530
Carrot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carrot at google dot com
--- Comment #1 from Ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #9 from Evandro Menezes ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #6)
> I ran the assembler examples on A57 hardware with identical input. The FMADD
> code is ~20% faster irrespectively of the size of the input. This is not a
> surprise giv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33691|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #35 from Andrew Pinski ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Oct 15 00:38:03 2014
New Revision: 216229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-14 Andrew Pinski
Revert:
2011-08-19 H.J. Lu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33716|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
Bug ID: 63539
Summary: libgo does not use the newly built objcopy when doing
a combined build
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
ranlib works since the toplevel does:
checking where to find the target ranlib... just compiled
But there is no check for objcopy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63540
Bug ID: 63540
Summary: Erroneous "'Derived' declares a move constructor or
move assignment operator" in error.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63540
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #23)
> Kaz, could you please have an early look at it?
The idea looks OK to me. Build fails on sh4-linux with the patch, though.
Maybe a wrong version?
There is a typo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38009
--- Comment #2 from Scott Worley ---
Update for 4.6.4:
$ gnatmake assert_failure_sinfo_1002.adb
gnatgcc -c assert_failure_sinfo_1002.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.6.4 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) A
-*-gnueabi*)
Test code:
$ cat test.c
void foo()
{
register unsigned int curr_pc asm ("pc");
unsigned int arm_pc;
arm_pc = curr_pc;
}
Observed the issue with gcc-4.8.0 onwards.(Works fine with 4.7.2)
Checked with latest with gcc 5.0 (GNU C (GCC) version 5.0.0 20141014 ) also,
getting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63541
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
pc is not general enough in all of armv7. If you want to read the PC do this
instead or something like this:
asm("mov pc, %0":"=r"arm_pc);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
Assignee|i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 33718
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33718&action=edit
Patch which I need to submit
I already tested this patch but I need to submit it still.
ChangeLog:
* Makefile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63542
Bug ID: 63542
Summary: My build log is full of "non-delegitimized UNSPEC
UNSPEC_GOT (0) found in variable location"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
75 matches
Mail list logo
