https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54687
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
> > Is there still something missing?
> Note that the options machinery has ways to encode String->Enum options, so
> things like gfc_handle_coarray_option an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54687
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #8)
> I concur. I think it also would be useful to support combined options like
> Fortran's -ffpe-trap= and -fcheck= or common's -fsanitize=.
Total agreement!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64334
Bug ID: 64334
Summary: Common .opt handling: Support flags which take a list
of values (-fopt=a,b,c ...)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64308
--- Comment #3 from Tavian Barnes ---
@Richard Biener: Yes the range for _16 could be [0, 4294967294]. Why can't VRP
can't assume division by zero doesn't occur? If it can then it could say
anything mod [a, b] fits in [0, b - 1].
That's a reas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64334
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
--- Comment #13 from Ondřej Čertík ---
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:46 PM, janus at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
>
> --- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Ondřej Čertík from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58650
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Dec 16 23:28:31 2014
New Revision: 218801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218801&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-12-16 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58650
* parser.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58650
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
--- Comment #14 from Ondřej Čertík ---
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:46 PM, janus at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
>>
>> --- Comment #12 from j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61265
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47764
--- Comment #6 from Carrot ---
Another example for ppc.
Following code is disassembled from sha1dgst.o in openssl which is compiled by
gcc
:
...
80: 82 5a 52 3f addis r26,r18,23170
84: 78 9a
/libsystem_c.dylib
#3 0x6fb0 in __gfortrani_sys_abort () at
../../../../gcc-5-20141216/libgfortran/runtime/error.c:180
#4 0x000bcfc8 in _gfortran_abort () at
../../../../gcc-5-20141216/libgfortran/intrinsics/abort.c:33
#5 0x1a90 in ?? ()
Backtrace stopped: previous frame inner to this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to thopre01 from comment #10)
>
> I have the same gimple and for me the bswap is correctly detected. Can you
> break at find_bswap_or_nop just after calling find_bswap_or_nop_1 on the if
> (!source_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64306
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
If the alignment/offset of an unaligned 32 bit store is known to be 16 bit, it
can be done with something like:
mov r5,r0
mov.w r0,@({0|2},r4)
shlr16 r0
mov.w r0,@({2|0},r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
Some of the original test cases are still not working. In particular cases
where bit positions != 31 are compared/xor'ed:
bool cmp_signs_24 (int a, int b)
{
return (a & 0x8000) ^ (b & 0x8000);
}
bool cmp_sig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64335
Bug ID: 64335
Summary: decltype and access of a private member type
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64335
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Pardon that, the latter example contains remnants of other experiments. Here's
a simplified version, (not that it really should matter :) )
class foo {
class bar {};
};
int main()
{
decltype (fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64331
--- Comment #4 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Yes, running df_notes_add_problem and df_analyze in the target code does work.
Is it just REG_USED/REG_DEAD notes, or is register liveliness
(df_regs_ever_live_p etc..) also not guaranteed to be up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
It fails with -m32:
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ /export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr64110.c
-fno-diag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54687
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Dec 17 06:29:30 2014
New Revision: 218808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-17 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54687
gcc/
* fla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64336
Bug ID: 64336
Summary: Template functions are not instrumented at -O0 and -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63908
--- Comment #6 from leimaohui ---
Created attachment 34294
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34294&action=edit
the patch backport to gcc 4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63908
leimaohui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||e500v2
--- Comment #7 from leimaohui ---
(I
101 - 123 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
