https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64629
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 21 20:15:27 2015
New Revision: 219964
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219964&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64629
* c-format.c (check_format_arg): Call decl_constant_v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64647
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 21 20:15:35 2015
New Revision: 219965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64647
* constexpr.c (ensure_literal_type_for_constexpr_obje
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64629
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64647
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 64647, which changed state.
Bug 64647 Summary: [5 Regression] [C++14] std::__max_element contains code not
allowed in constexpr function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64647
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64700
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I had a code hoisting pass on top of PRE a while back as well. Can't remember
why I abandoned it. Oh yea, on top of PRE :-)
I've still got a global code motion pass here based on Click's work. It
handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64635
--- Comment #17 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Are any of the libgomp maintainers or Thomas going submit some variation on the
proposed patch to gcc-patches? Stock gcc trunk is still showing...
=== libgomp Summary ===
# of expe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64688
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This is while reloading
> (define_insn "vec_set_0"
> [(set (match_operand:VI4F_128 0 "nonimmediate_operand"
> "=Yr,*v,v,v ,x,x,v,Yr ,*x ,x ,m ,m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64477
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Uros, your thoughts on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 21 21:21:27 2015
New Revision: 219968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/64435
* sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 21 21:23:04 2015
New Revision: 219969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/63307
* cilk.c (fill_decls_vec): Only put decls into vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64603
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
--- Comment #19 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #18)
> Any project to back port r218584 to 4.9/8?
4.9 should be easy, because I missed the deadline for 4.9.0 just
by a few days. What I applied was just the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64719
Bug ID: 64719
Summary: omp_get_num_procs should not account for cpu affinity
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> 4.9 should be easy, because I missed the deadline for 4.9.0 just
> by a few days. What I applied was just the original patch for 4.9.
Could you please do it? I cannot test on arm-*-*. If it is too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64477
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Uros, your thoughts on this?
All these *r are (were?) necessary for TARGET_INTER_UNIT_MOVES_{TO,FROM}_VEC to
avoid allocating general reg, but to go through memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62078
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 21 21:51:43 2015
New Revision: 219970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/62078
* dse.c: Include cfgcleanup.h.
(rest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64706
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 21 21:53:49 2015
New Revision: 219971
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219971&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/64706
* doc/invoke.texi (-fsanitize=vptr): Document.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62078
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64603
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 21 21:56:34 2015
New Revision: 219973
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219973&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64603
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression): Only sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63970
--- Comment #7 from wmi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wmi
Date: Wed Jan 21 21:56:14 2015
New Revision: 219972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from trunk.
2014-11-22 Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64511
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 21 21:59:34 2015
New Revision: 219974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/64511
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_relational_operation_1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64706
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64720
Bug ID: 64720
Summary: Provide strict check for pure attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64721
Bug ID: 64721
Summary: SIBAGRT turns into SIGSEGV in jit testsuite
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
--- Comment #21 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #20)
> > 4.9 should be easy, because I missed the deadline for 4.9.0 just
> > by a few days. What I applied was just the original patch for 4.9.
>
> Could yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435
Bug 64435 depends on bug 64131, which changed state.
Bug 64131 Summary: [5 Regression] libsanitizer fails to build for AARCH64 with
the glibc from the trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64131
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64721
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|SIBAGRT turns into SIGSEGV |SIBABRT becomes a SIGSEGV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64721
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> Currently we unconditionally install crash_handler as a signal_handler, and
"crash_signal as a signal-handler"
this should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64721
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|SIGABRT becomes a SIGSEGV |SIGABRT becomes a SIGSEGV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fizzbooze at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think I agree with closing this as won't fix as shown now we have three
duplicated bugs asking the same thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64580
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi again,
Unfortunately it seems I am unable to build a version of GCC that is
compatible with that (every version I tried either complains or ICEs).
Maybe you can answer the above questions yourself?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64682
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jan 22 00:35:44 2015
New Revision: 219981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219981&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/64682
* combine.c (distribute_notes): Wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
fizzbooze: you were asking on IRC about where the existing implementation is;
see gcc/ipa-pure-const.c - though I believe that merely covers tracking the
user-provided flags interprocedurally; I don't think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64314
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64722
Bug ID: 64722
Summary: On 2nd time libgccjit is run in-process on i686,
generated code clobbers %ebx register
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
Unfortunately the attached patch causes the same failure demonstrating a
miscompilation of the stage 2 compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60570
moshansky at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||moshansky at hotmail dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64723
Bug ID: 64723
Summary: -O3 optimization produces segfault through
vectorization, while -O2 is fine
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64723
Andrey Prokopenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64724
--- Comment #1 from Andrey Prokopenko ---
Created attachment 34526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34526&action=edit
.ii file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64724
Bug ID: 64724
Summary: C++ loop with -O3 optimization produces segfault while
-O2 is fine
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64724
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64649
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Thu Jan 22 05:02:38 2015
New Revision: 219986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219986&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64649
* include/bits/regex.tcc (regex_traits<>::lookup_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64680
--- Comment #1 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Thu Jan 22 05:07:03 2015
New Revision: 219987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219987&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64680
* include/bits/regex.h (basic_regex<>::basic_regex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64686
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
In what configuration do you build FIrefox? This does not reproduce for me with
-O3 build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64718
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64724
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Prokopenko ---
Andrew,
Could you please point out the rule? I cannot find it. I also see that Intel
x86/64 reference manual states in section 4.1.1 that
~~~
Words, doublewords, and quadwords do not need to be aligned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And then there is the case of endless loops in such functions (either
unconditional, or ones the compiler is not able to detect), exit calls, both
either directly in the const/pure function or in some functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64580
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> Hi again,
>
> Unfortunately it seems I am unable to build a version of GCC that is
> compatible with that (every version I tried either complains or I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64477
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization, ra |
Target|x86_64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60570
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64724
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/5.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150121 (experimental) [trunk revision 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64511
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note the stack traces involving do_spec_1 are generally bogus (should be
fixed), those stack traces are from the gcc driver rather than cc1/cc1plus
etc., and are printed because cc1/cc1plus segfaulted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64511
--- Comment #15 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> Note the stack traces involving do_spec_1 are generally bogus (should be
> fixed), those stack traces are from the gcc driver rather than cc1/cc1plus
> etc., and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64580
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Here is an example "callgrind_control -e -b" output (program is still running):
PID 53944:
/home/trippels/gcc_test/usr/local/bin/../libexec/gcc/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/5.0.0/lto1
-quiet -dumpbase l
101 - 164 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
