https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63319
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
This testcase fails for AARCH64:ilp32 (that is AARCH64 with -mabi=ilp32).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61207
M. Hanselmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||public at hansmi dot ch
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55302
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
If the atomic model allows it, the GBR logical ops can also be to implement
atomic operations on GBR relative memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
Hello Paul,
setting potentially_aliased should be done inside
gfc_walk_elemental_function_args, as the ss argument may be returned
unmodified.
In fact, I think it's better to do all the trans-array.c code ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
Bug ID: 64972
Summary: Build failure in libgomp for i686-w64-mingw32 target
after latest merge from gomp-4_0-branch
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #25 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 34695
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34695&action=edit
Assembly file showing the duplicate label
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #28 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On hppa 32, the two iv uses are:
use 0
address
in statement *p_1 = 0;
at position *p_1
type int *
base p_7
step 4
base object (void *) p_7
related candidates
use 1
compare
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #29 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #28)
> On hppa 32, the two iv uses are:
> use 0
> address
> in statement *p_1 = 0;
>
> at position *p_1
> type int *
> base p_7
> step 4
> base object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64467
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
To wit, at r220506 still see:
assertion "!t.isctype('\n', t.lookup_classname(blank,
blank+sizeof(blank)/sizeof(blank[0])-1))" failed: file
"/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/28_regex/trait
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63744
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Feb 8 14:18:16 2015
New Revision: 220515
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220515&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use the local name instead of the original name in the check for name con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64467
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #9)
> To wit, at r220506 still see:
> assertion "!t.isctype('\n', t.lookup_classname(blank,
> blank+sizeof(blank)/sizeof(blank[0])-1))" failed: file
> "/tmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #30 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table.
Is this a problem with insn costs, or a problem in the estimatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 34696
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34696&action=edit
4.9 assembler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 10:49 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> With cross-compiler I get the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64973
Bug ID: 64973
Summary: Duplicate use-statements could be diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64973
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59765
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60529
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61766
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
Boris Kolpackov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boris at kolpackov dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear All,
It would be nice to commit this tonight, if possible. An impetus to do
this is added by Dominique pointing out that it fixes PRs 59765, 60529
and 61766!
Cheers
Paul
On 7 F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 10:49 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 4) if there has been any change on the compiler side, can you bisect when did
> that happen?
>From test logs:
r214122 was okay and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64974
Bug ID: 64974
Summary: [SH] Weird expansion of 'expected' operand in
atomic_compare_and_swap
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64975
Bug ID: 64975
Summary: [AArch64] Thunderx should not default to crypto
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64976
Bug ID: 64976
Summary: Bootstrap fails with -O3 -fgraphite-identity
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57822
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61805
gcc-bugzilla at ca dot sh13.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugzilla at ca dot s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 8 20:08:21 2015
New Revision: 220518
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220518&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63566
* cgraphunit.c (cgraph_node::analyze): Be sure targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 8 20:13:01 2015
New Revision: 220519
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220519&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63566
* ipa-split.c (execute_split_functions): Split if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64864
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
The list of broken packages goes on and on.
xorg-server-1.17:
sdksyms.c:313:15: error: expected expression before ‘,’ token
(void *) &, /*
/var/tmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64975
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 8 21:04:41 2015
New Revision: 220520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220520&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63566
* i386.c (ix86_function_regparm): Look through alia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 8 21:08:44 2015
New Revision: 220521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63566
* ipa-visibility.c (cgraph_node::non_local_p): Acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I just tried gcc-4.9-20150204[1] which seems to have been packaged after your
> commit, and I still get the ICE.
This is probably because I commited the fix to mainline only (GCC-5), I will
backport
it to GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64953
--- Comment #7 from manuel.reimer at gmx dot de ---
I've tried to find out when the bug first occured.
This one (oldes 4.9 snapshot, I can get) already has the problem:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20140302/
And this one (newest 4.8 s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64953
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to manuel.reimer from comment #7)
> I've tried to find out when the bug first occured.
>
> This one (oldes 4.9 snapshot, I can get) already has the problem:
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapsh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #31 from Eric Botcazou ---
The test also fails on PowerPC, the 2 IVs are kept by ivopts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64953
--- Comment #9 from manuel.reimer at gmx dot de ---
The two commits are in different branches. How to bisect in this case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64970
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #26 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, emutls_foo is added to symtab twice and therefore it is also output twice.
__emutls_v.foo/6 (__emutls_v.foo) @0x76973300
Type: variable definition analyzed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka ---
Does the following patch fix the problem?
Index: tree-emutls.c
===
--- tree-emutls.c (revision 220509)
+++ tree-emutls.c (working cop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 34697
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34697&action=edit
Patch which I am testing right now
Fix gcc.c-torture/compile/pr37433.c for AARCH64:ILP32.
The problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64977
Bug ID: 64977
Summary: GCC incorrectly rejects constexpr variable definition.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64916
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |5.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64443
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|[5.0 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|[5.0 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64938
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64967
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
Summary|[4.9/ 5 regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45390
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64941
--- Comment #3 from Brian M ---
I tried sussing the flags for my march and mtune native, but didn't have any
luck (sorry, I'm mostly hardware, not software).
The best I can do is tell you what processor I'm running:
processor : 3
vendor_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin ---
Introduced in r214176:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=214177
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64443
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Are these still failing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #32 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #30)
> On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table.
>
> Is this a prob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #28 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #27)
> Does the following patch fix the problem?
Yes! Full regtest is underway but this particular FAIL is fixed. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64953
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to manuel.reimer from comment #9)
> The two commits are in different branches. How to bisect in this case?
gcc's history is linear in git. So you could start with a
bad commit on 20140302 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64975
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
Bug ID: 64978
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: in ipcp_verify_propagated_values,
at ipa-cp.c:1060
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64976
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 34698
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34698&action=edit
ipa-cp-dump
...
182467 IPA lattices after constant propagation, before gcc_unreachable:
182468
77 matches
Mail list logo
