https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65385
Bug ID: 65385
Summary: [libgomp] omp task untied test case fails
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65386
Bug ID: 65386
Summary: [libgomp] omp task final test case fails
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65385
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber ---
Created attachment 35008
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35008&action=edit
Test program.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65386
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber ---
Created attachment 35009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35009&action=edit
Test program.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65385
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That test is completely bogus. The spec doesn't require untied tasks to change
threads at any point, it is strictly a "may" case. So the test is testing
something not required by the standard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65385
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65385
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
IMHO not, I view the untied clause purely as an optimization hint (and libgomp
parses it, but ignores it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65310
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65310
>
> --- Comment #6 from Pat Haugen ---
> > Can you be more specific as with what opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65386
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The test looks bogus to me.
Citing the standard:
final task A task that forces all of its child tasks to become final and
included tasks.
None of the explicit tasks (final or not) create any child tasks, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65355
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65310
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Whoops - tested in the wrong tree. Can reproduce now - investigating.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65310
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65387
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35010
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35010&action=edit
libgo.log (nobootstrap build)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65387
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, in my case stdc-predef.h comes from glibc thus the license comment should
be directed there. The GCC shipped stuff seems to have the runtime exception.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
> Will take a look. Is it an open source program?
Thanks. Unfortunately, it isn't open source; it's mostly used in house and
there were talks about open-sourcing it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65365
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56917
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Mar 11 10:37:38 2015
New Revision: 221346
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221346&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2014-12-04 Marek Polacek
PR mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65388
Bug ID: 65388
Summary: Wrong comparison in same_succ_def::equal()
tree-ssa-tail-merge.c:590
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65388
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65388
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> That looks indeed.
I meant weird.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65388
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65388
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, we have PR54979 for that already...
Marek, would you be interested to look at this in stage1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65388
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65389
Bug ID: 65389
Summary: long compile time on incorrect code with lambdas
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65310
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 11 15:09:51 2015
New Revision: 221348
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221348&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65310
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39374
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
Created attachment 35011
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35011&action=edit
gcc14:/home/amylaar/pr39374/pr39374-diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39374
--- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
Created attachment 35012
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35012&action=edit
gcc14:/home/amylaar/pr39374/pr39374-r14476
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alserkli at inbox dot ru
Created attachment 35013
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35013&action=edit
preprocessed source
g++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150311 (experimental)
=== e.cc ===
#include
auto f(int n){
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65384
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65387
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65391
Bug ID: 65391
Summary: unnecessary load of conditionally updated pointer in
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65177
--- Comment #14 from Sebastian Pop ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #13)
> But you can need updates that extend beyond the scope of the SEME I would
> think. That was my recollection from looking at ways to minimize the number
> of b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65391
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65242
--- Comment #13 from Michael Meissner ---
My gut feeling is we don't want to change ?m to !m, because it might impact
floating point conversions <-> integer, where we need the DI mode in a floating
point register. In addition, I might worry that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65242
--- Comment #14 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Mar 11 16:57:41 2015
New Revision: 221350
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221350&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-03-09 Michael Meissner
PR target/65242
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65391
--- Comment #2 from Aaron Sawdey ---
Asm for the test case as in the description (load/store of *o_ptr for every
update):
compute_object_gain:
ld 9,0(3)
li 10,0
std 10,0(4)
cmpdi 7,9,0
beqlr 7
.p2a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any progress on this? This is a P1 PR, but no comments have been added for
more than a month...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #35 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #34)
> Any progress on this? This is a P1 PR, but no comments have been added for
> more than a month...
from what I known:
Bin was working on some tree level fix wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65242
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65392
Bug ID: 65392
Summary: Bad mangled names in Debug Mode assertions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65392
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64366
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've reproduced the bug. As the bug is in LRA inheritance, it will take some
time to fix it. I hope to make a patch on next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Mar 11 18:35:52 2015
New Revision: 221354
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221354&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65296
* configure.ac [avr]: Check as for option -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63711
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64847
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Mar 11 18:51:09 2015
New Revision: 221355
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221355&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65296
* configure.ac [avr]: Check as for options -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65393
Bug ID: 65393
Summary: std::thread shared_ptr inefficiency
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65127
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65393
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63711
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63500
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dushistov at mail dot ru
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40060
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65355
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65388
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Mar 11 20:36:56 2015
New Revision: 221359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65388
* tree-ssa-tail-merge.c (same_succ_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65394
Bug ID: 65394
Summary: r221327 causes gcc.dg/ipa/pr63569.c to fail
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65395
Bug ID: 65395
Summary: compiler crash, -ftree-pre leads to SSA corruption
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65200
--- Comment #7 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed Mar 11 21:34:22 2015
New Revision: 221361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 65200 Handle EPERM in addition to EACCES.
gcc/fortran ChangeLog:
2015-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
The cause of the failing tests observed on RHEL 7.1 is in the second definition
of nettle's HAVE_NATIVE_64_BIT configuration macro:
$ grep HAVE_NATIVE_64_BIT config.*
config.h:# define HAVE_NATIVE_64_BIT 1
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65177
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Basically the way this works is we record the SSA_NAMEs that are being
duplicated during block copying. For any duplicated SSA_NAME, if > 1 instance
of it is live at a join point in the CFG, then update_ss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #8)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #7)
> > I tried again the test on gcc rev. 221324 (Mar 10) with the mentioned
> > options and I've failed to reproduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65395
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64705
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65396
Bug ID: 65396
Summary: Function template default template arguments not
merged
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 35016
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35016&action=edit
Test case for nettle md4 test failure.
The attached test case reduced from Nettle 3.0 test 7 in testsuite/md4-te
71 matches
Mail list logo
