https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
Bug ID: 64374
Summary: [5.0 regression] LTO ICE in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2327
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Dmitry G. Dyachenko from comment #2)
> I have similar error in LTO/x86_64, but stack is slightly different.
Its different issue (now PR64374)
Sorry for noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
--- Comment #8 from manfred.rudigier at omicron dot at ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> GCC 4.8.4 has been released.
I have tried out GCC 4.8.4 today, but it still has this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like mixing of pic and non pic is causing the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #19 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, when doing something like (x[0] << 8) | x[1]) << 8) | x[2]) << 8) |
x[3] there is already a depth proportional to the size of the value being byte
swapped with a coefficient due to cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 34310
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34310&action=edit
Arrange for the instancetype type to be recognised
This makes "instancetype" a synonym for "id".
So, in round t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62151
--- Comment #17 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Dec 22 10:25:10 2014
New Revision: 219008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/62151
* combine.c (try_combine): N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62151
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62178
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Looks like mixing of pic and non pic is causing the issue.
May be one more issue :
-- without '-O3' during compilation there are no error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Dmitry G. Dyachenko from comment #0)
Oh, I edit files after copy/paste error message.
The correct one is the following:
e.ii: In function ‘main’:
e.ii:9:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
--- Comment #9 from Arseny Solokha ---
Sure it has. The fix wasn't committed to the tree, otherwise it would be
reported here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63758
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33903|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54696
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60396
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 22 13:45:44 2014
New Revision: 219012
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219012&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-22 Rüdiger Sonderfeld
Jonathan Wakely
PR libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54354
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 22 13:45:52 2014
New Revision: 219013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-22 Rüdiger Sonderfeld
PR libstdc++/54354
* include/st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60396
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
Bug 24882 depends on bug 60278, which changed state.
Bug 60278 Summary: string::erase() (and other containers) does not take
const_iterators
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60278
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60278
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54392
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56437
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
Bug 24882 depends on bug 56437, which changed state.
Bug 56437 Summary: basic_string assumes that allocators are
default-constructible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56437
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
Bug 24882 depends on bug 54392, which changed state.
Bug 54392 Summary: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] std::string::assign() fails to update
length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54392
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53221
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
Bug 24882 depends on bug 53221, which changed state.
Bug 53221 Summary: [C++11] basic_string lacks "copy/move constructors" with
allocator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53221
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the patch in comment 14, I get
=== obj-c++ Summary for unix/-m64 ===
# of expected passes3073
# of unexpected failures13
# of expected failures19
# of unresolved tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11799
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60271
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2369
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64375
Bug ID: 64375
Summary: m32c ICE building newlib in calls.cL3638
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
do you use same flags at compile time and link time?
I did not see anything unusual at our testers, but perhaps some of the
optimization flags are streamed wrong?
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64376
Bug ID: 64376
Summary: [SH] Improve bswap support
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo ---
BTW, PR 42587 contains a few other cases. I've created PR 64376 for the SH
specific parts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill ---
Looking at the generated options-save.c, the first line of this method is
clearly incorrect in the cast on the RHS. It looks like a full declaration and
not a type. If anyone familiar with the magic in these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
Bug ID: 64377
Summary: nios2 compile error in options-save.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
--- Comment #15 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Just checked: everywhere "-Ofast -flto -funroll-loops -static -m64
-march=core-avx2" used (not -O3 as I mentioned before)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54756
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54756
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Closely related: PR 59103.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60271
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 22 16:00:16 2014
New Revision: 219015
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219015&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-22 Ville Voutilainen
PR libstdc++/60271
C++14 constex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36994
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61580
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is similar to PR 58393, it's due to using a single _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 macro
instead of more fine-grained tests for specific features.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Dec 22 16:19:11 2014
New Revision: 219017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219017&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/52933
* gcc.target/sh/sh/pr52933-3.c: New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48839
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37522
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 22 16:41:39 2014
New Revision: 219019
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219019&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/37522
* include/bits/basic_string.h (stod, stof, st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60271
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
Summary|[C++1y]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48839
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Makes sense to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63363
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Dec 22 18:15:08 2014
New Revision: 219027
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219027&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-22 Janus Weil
PR fortran/63363
* check.c (gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63363
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60550
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48839
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #21 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Dec 22 18:53:44 2014
New Revision: 219030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/58314
* gcc.target/sh/torture/pr58314-2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63205
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> For the record, I have a patch in my working tree such that
> gfortran.dg/widechar_intrinsics_10.f90 is miscomputed with -m32
> (I did not yet investigate the problem: too many patches in my working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37041
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> extern "C" {
> #endif
>
> /* code that is C-only */
This is not what extern "C" means. The code still needs to be valid C++ and
this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64372
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64372
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
BTW Harald, GCC needs more C++ FE developers, have you considered joining the
project? Even if you don't end up contributing much code, you can get a
gcc.gnu.org account for Bugzilla with the possibilit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59410
Phil Miller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||unmobile at gmail dot com
--- Comment #38
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64105
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37704
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43171
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
--- Comment #16 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We can fixincludes NS_BLOCKS_AVAILABLE support back in, this would disappear
interfaces that cannot be supported. In the past, this was a safe thing to do,
and might well be still safe wrt the runt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64378
Bug ID: 64378
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: in inline_call, at
ipa-inline-transform.c:347 with -O3 -fno-ipa-cp
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to m...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #16)
> We can fixincludes NS_BLOCKS_AVAILABLE support back in, this would disappear
> interfaces that cannot be supported. In the past, this was a safe thing to
> do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64378
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25508
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25537
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64379
Bug ID: 64379
Summary: VFP register restore in ARM epilogue can break
indirect tailcalls
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64379
--- Comment #1 from Donn Seeley ---
Created attachment 34315
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34315&action=edit
generated assembly code for content.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64379
--- Comment #2 from Donn Seeley ---
Created attachment 34316
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34316&action=edit
compiler parameters for the build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53987
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
In the following example function
bool stack_is_background_free( unsigned short* _data, const size_t _size){
size_t num_pixels_above_128 = 0;
for(size_t index = 0;index< _size;++index){
if(_data[index]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64379
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Can you add a main() with the necessary parameter setup and call to mark_set()
to make the testcase self-contained and executable? You can annotate
mark_set() with attribute((noinline,noclone)) to preven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #14 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Dec 22 23:10:18 2014
New Revision: 219037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/55023
* dse.c (scan_insn): Treat sibling call as
rapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib
--program-suffix=-5.0.0
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20141222 (experimental) (GCC)
Compliled with
g++-5.0.0 -g -O3 -Wall 20141222-dtor-deadstore.cpp
Dump of asse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
--- Comment #11 from Dan Wilder ---
Created attachment 34318
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34318&action=edit
Backport msg02605 patch to gcc-4.8.3
Apply after other attachment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
--- Comment #12 from Dan Wilder ---
I have a backport of the patches referenced in comment 4, which I applied to
the gcc-4.8.3 we are using for e500v2. If anybody would care to look at it,
comment whether it has any merit at all, try it etc, I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
--- Comment #10 from Dan Wilder ---
Created attachment 34317
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34317&action=edit
Backport cfispan.diff to gcc-4.8.3
Attempt to backport cfispan.diff from
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64379
--- Comment #4 from Donn Seeley ---
Created attachment 34319
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34319&action=edit
main.i to go with content.i
I copied content.i to main.i and added just enough material to get it to
compile and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63522
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59410
--- Comment #39 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
>Isomalloc works best when we can assure it as large a range of common,
>unoccupied virtual address space as possible. Thus, it's much happier when
>ASLR is disabled.
I do not follow you here. How does AS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59410
--- Comment #40 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Phil, please move the discussion to:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/thread-sanitizer
This is not gcc specific, and more people will be able to see it in the tsan
group.
83 matches
Mail list logo
