[Bug c++/65890] [C++03]sizeof(qualified-id) accepted when the operand denotes a non-static member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890 --- Comment #7 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6) > (In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #5) > > Mainly for testing of the conformance. > > I don't understand what this means. Testing what? G++? G

[Bug target/54236] [SH] Improve addc and subc insn utilization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236 --- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo --- Author: olegendo Date: Tue May 19 08:00:41 2015 New Revision: 223346 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223346&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ PR target/54236 * config/sh/sh.md (*round_int_even):

[Bug c/66198] New: base on aarch64 compiler , fdo optimazition produec wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66198 Bug ID: 66198 Summary: base on aarch64 compiler , fdo optimazition produec wrong result Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/66136] AArch64 geniterators.sh relies on GNU sed syntax, causing build failure on FreeBSD and probably Mac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66136 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #6 from Richard E

[Bug middle-end/66198] base on aarch64 compiler , fdo optimazition produec wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66198 --- Comment #1 from huangcunjian --- gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/gcc/aarch64-oe-linux/4.9.2/lto-wrapper Target: aarch64-oe-linux command: gcc -O2 -w test.c -fprofile-generate -o tmp1 resul

[Bug middle-end/66198] base on aarch64 compiler , fdo optimazition produec wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66198 --- Comment #2 from huangcunjian --- Created attachment 35564 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35564&action=edit testcase context

[Bug c/66198] base on aarch64 compiler , fdo optimazition produce wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66198 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/66110] uint8_t memory access not optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 18 May 2015, kevin at koconnor dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110 > > --- Comment #12 from Kevin OConnor --- > (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment

[Bug c/66198] base on aarch64 compiler , fdo optimazition produce wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66198 --- Comment #4 from huangcunjian --- Created attachment 35565 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35565&action=edit testcase context

[Bug lto/66196] Wrong type incompatibility warning for -flto and C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66196 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- To handle unions specially we'd need to "sort" their fields in some way before doing the comparison (we certainly don't want to do a N^2 compare). We compare field-decl offsets and types which should take c

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/66049] [6 regression] Few AArch64 extend and add with shift tests generates sub optimal code with trunk gcc 6.0.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049 --- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to vekumar from comment #7) > > I am going to first send out patch for adding new shift based patterns. > Then separate patch test and remove mul patterns. Ok, please send out the p

[Bug middle-end/66199] New: [4.9/5 Regression] lastprivate/linear clause issues on combined constructs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66199 Bug ID: 66199 Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] lastprivate/linear clause issues on combined constructs Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: reje

[Bug tree-optimization/66165] [6 Regression] vect_transform_slp_perm_load: vec out of range ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66165 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue May 19 09:36:35 2015 New Revision: 223349 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223349&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-19 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/66165

[Bug tree-optimization/66185] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66185 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue May 19 09:36:35 2015 New Revision: 223349 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223349&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-19 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/66165

[Bug tree-optimization/66185] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66185 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/66165] [6 Regression] vect_transform_slp_perm_load: vec out of range ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66165 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/66197] c++1z generic function wrong type for auto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66197 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/65890] [C++03]sizeof(qualified-id) accepted when the operand denotes a non-static member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- The purpose of G++ is not a validation tool for finding non-portable code. As I said, it's to be a useful compiler. It has always been the policy of G++ (and other compilers!) to incorporate DRs into past

[Bug middle-end/65874] [5 Regression] bootstrap comparison failure (gcc/ira.o) on ia64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65874 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/66168] [6 Regression] ICE at -O3 in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3677

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66168 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme --- I just posted a patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg01676.html

[Bug target/66200] New: GCC for ARM / AArch64 doesn't define TARGET_RELAXED_ORDERING

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66200 Bug ID: 66200 Summary: GCC for ARM / AArch64 doesn't define TARGET_RELAXED_ORDERING Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug target/66200] GCC for ARM / AArch64 doesn't define TARGET_RELAXED_ORDERING

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66200 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/65916] Unnecessary floating-point instruction causes runtime exception on PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65916 --- Comment #2 from Nikolay Pakulin --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1) > GCC 5 does not do this for me. > > You need to add -msoft-float if you have no hardware float; doing > that solves the problem for me (with a GCC 4.7 I ha

[Bug c++/66188] gcc crashed when compiling programs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66188 zhangbiao2000 at yeah dot net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resoluti

[Bug bootstrap/66038] [5 regression] (stage 2) build/genmatch segfaults in operand::gen_transform (gcc/hash-table.h:223)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 --- Comment #10 from Douglas Mencken --- No, ``ld warning: atom sorting error'' has nothing to do with this issue. For example, commit 2e723940b6a1e61dfb20e03b30fba89dd204b72d (2014-12-19), genmatch@stage2 works fine while building: (...) /Deve

[Bug rtl-optimization/66156] [msp430] wrong code generated with -O2 -mlarge (zero extension HI -> SI)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66156 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug rtl-optimization/66156] [msp430] wrong code generated with -O2 -mlarge (zero extension HI -> SI)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66156 --- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton --- Author: nickc Date: Tue May 19 11:42:44 2015 New Revision: 223354 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223354&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/66156 * config/msp430/msp430.md (zero_extendhisi2

[Bug target/66174] [6 Regression] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2341 (unrecognizable insns) with -ftree-vectorize -mavx512ifma

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66174 --- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Tue May 19 11:44:39 2015 New Revision: 223355 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223355&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/66174 * config/i386/i386.c (expand_vec_p

[Bug target/66174] [6 Regression] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2341 (unrecognizable insns) with -ftree-vectorize -mavx512ifma

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66174 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/65916] Unnecessary floating-point instruction causes runtime exception on PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65916 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #15 from Chung-Kil Hur --- Hi Richard, Thanks for the explanation. But, what I wonder was how to justify such an optimization, rather than how it works. I have a better example. This might be a real bug of GCC. #include int main(

[Bug target/66201] New: [avr] ICE in avr_print_operand: Bad address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66201 Bug ID: 66201 Summary: [avr] ICE in avr_print_operand: Bad address Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug c++/66092] [c++-concepts] Concept can't check variadic template arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66092 Andrew Sutton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot com --- Co

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #15) > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for the explanation. > But, what I wonder was how to justify such an optimization, rather than how > it works. > > I have a better exa

[Bug c/64223] same warning repeated twice with same line number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

BANNED contents from you (.exe,.exe-ms,fax2_data.exe)

BANNED CONTENTS ALERT Our content checker found banned name: .exe,.exe-ms,fax2_data.exe in email presumably from you to the following recipient: -> emmano...@sharpmoves.com Our internal reference code for your message is 01188-13/YAYqOvC_QGxu First upstream SMTP client IP address: [85.31.1

Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: bou...@powweb.com (generated from orientat...@huntadventures.ca) There is no on

Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: bou...@homestead.com (generated from stepha...@stratfordccc.org) There is no on

Undeliverable: Toll increase report

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: siuto...@deltadentalks.com The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail a

Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: bou...@homestead.com (generated from no-re...@homefixcyprus.com) There is no on

RE: adjustment reminder

Ihre Nachricht adjustment reminder an newy...@transsolar.com beinhaltet Anhaenge, die von unserem Sicherheitssystem nicht zugelassen sind. Ihre Nachricht wurde daher nicht zugestellt. --- Your message adjustment reminder to newy...@transsolar.com contained attachments that are not allowed by

CBSlade Email

Please note I am currently on annual leave and am returning on Thursday 21st May. A copy of this email has been sent to my colleague who will deal with it as soon as possible. Best regards, Denise

Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: danstein...@gmail.com SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: hos

Returned mail: see transcript for details

The original message was received at Tue, 19 May 2015 08:41:31 -0400 from cpe-et001203.cust.jaguar-network.net [85.31.195.58] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - (reason: 553 5.3.5 system config error) (expanded from: ) - Transcript of session follows

Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

The following message to was undeliverable. The reason for the problem: 5.1.1 - Bad destination email address 'reject' Reporting-MTA: dns; esa4.sitel.iphmx.com Final-Recipient: rfc822;kate.spedding@sitel.co.uk Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure) Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.1 - Bad des

Returned mail: see transcript for details

The original message was received at Tue, 19 May 2015 13:41:24 +0100 from localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - (reason: 550 5.7.1 Error: content rejected) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to antispam

BANNED contents from you (.exe,fax2_data.exe)

BANNED CONTENTS ALERT Our content checker found banned name: .exe,fax2_data.exe in email presumably from you to the following recipient: -> thie...@thmartinez.com Our internal reference code for your message is 30659-12/s2UOUGPpH75U First upstream SMTP client IP address: [85.31.195.58] c

Message Notification

Your email with the subject "adjustment reminder " was NOT delivered to ak...@jennison.com because it contains an attachment that cannot be verified by the Jennison mail server and therefore was NOT delivered. The email is being held on our servers and will be released once the recipient has con

consumerbronze.com Auto Reply

Please do not reply to this message as the mailbox is not monitored for replies. If you wish to contact us regarding this offer/advertisement, please do so by method suggested in the message. If you are not wanting to receive future mailings, please use the unsubscribe button and you will be

Returned mail: see transcript for details

The original message was received at Tue, 19 May 2015 08:41:14 -0400 from cpe-et001203.cust.jaguar-network.net [85.31.195.58] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - (reason: 553 5.3.5 system config error) (expanded from: ) - Transcript of session follows

Delivery status notification

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed permanently: * karaughm...@chello.sk Reporting-MTA: dns; edge02.upcmail.net [192.168.14.72] Received-From-MTA: dns; gnu.org [85.31.195.58] Arrival-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 1

BANNED contents from you (.exe,.exe-ms,fax2_data.exe)

BANNED CONTENTS ALERT Our content checker found banned name: .exe,.exe-ms,fax2_data.exe in email presumably from you to the following recipient: -> guillaume.mu...@lefoll.fr Our internal reference code for your message is 15484-02/ewCCtMtXon3K First upstream SMTP client IP address: [213.24

georgemouktaris: mouktaris.co.uk: High-risk attachment triggered by bug-...@gnu.org

georgemouktaris: mouktaris.co.uk: High-risk attachment was triggered by bug-...@gnu.org at Tue May 19 12:41:37 2015 and these actions taken: Quarantine Notification. Rule: georgemouktaris: mouktaris.co.uk: High-risk attachment File(s): Doc#961189.zip Action(s):, Quarantine, Notification Sender:

BANNED message from you (multipart/mixed | application/x-zip-compressed,.zip,Doc#582977.zip | .exe,.exe-ms,fax2_data.exe)

BANNED CONTENTS ALERT Our content checker found banned name: multipart/mixed | application/x-zip-compressed,.zip,Doc#582977.zip | .exe,.exe-ms,fax2_data.exe in email presumably from you to the following recipient: -> s...@habib.f2s.com Our internal reference code for your messag

Security settings violation

A message violated the security settings. The message has been deleted. Message details: Sender: bug-...@gnu.org Recipient: shayista.k...@britcollege.org.uk Subject: adjustment reminder Date: Tue May 19 12:41:05 2015 Message size: 22509 Attachment: Doc#849379.zip Attachment size: 15

Returned mail: see transcript for details

The original message was received at Tue, 19 May 2015 08:41:35 -0400 from cpe-et001203.cust.jaguar-network.net [85.31.195.58] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - jerikawil...@gmail.com (reason: 552-5.7.0 This message was blocked because its content presents a pot

Mail Delivery Failure

This message was created automatically by the mail system (ecelerity). A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: >>> qaqf6k84.6297...@bm-eng.com (after RCPT TO): 550-5.1.1 The email account >>> th

Undelivered Mail Returned due to Exceeding message size

Your message could not be delivered, because it exceeds the maximum size for messages. Please reduce the size of your message and try again. Message details: Sender: bug-...@gnu.org Recipient: eweekly-unsubscr...@corporatefx.co.uk Subject: adjustment reminder Date: Tue May 19 12:41:38 2015 Mes

MDaemon Notification -- Attachment Removed

--- MDaemon has detected restricted attachments within an email message --- >From : bug-...@gnu.org To: anca.ghi...@cargus.ro Subject : adjustment reminder

[Bug target/66136] AArch64 geniterators.sh relies on GNU sed syntax, causing build failure on FreeBSD and probably Mac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66136 --- Comment #7 from Ed Maste --- With the patch in comment 5 I get the same result with FreeBSD awk and GNU awk. The output is rather different to what the previous (sed) version of geniterators.sh produced, but that seems intentional. My output

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #17 from Chung-Kil Hur --- Hi Richard, I modified the example further. #include int main() { int x = 0; uintptr_t xp = (uintptr_t) &x; uintptr_t i, j; for (i = 0; i < xp; i++) { } j = i; /* The following "if" statemen

Message Quarantined: adjustment reminder

Your email sent to disant...@bcbsri.org was not delivered and has been quarantined by Proofpoint because it violated the attachments rule. One or more of the files attached in your email cannot be sent via email. If you believe that this is an error, please contact the BCBSRI service desk.

[Bug c/66202] New: Weird behaviour when fork and printf without newline are being used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66202 Bug ID: 66202 Summary: Weird behaviour when fork and printf without newline are being used Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Discarded Mail: attachment from bug-...@gnu.org

This is an automated message from the XCS at host mail2.kdmk.com. A mail from you (bug-...@gnu.org) to (swilli...@kdmk.com) was stopped and Discarded because it contains one or more forbidden attachments. Summary of email contents: Attachment: Doc#604950.zip Attachment: fax2_data.exe fax2_data

[Bug target/66136] AArch64 geniterators.sh relies on GNU sed syntax, causing build failure on FreeBSD and probably Mac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66136 --- Comment #8 from Szabolcs Nagy --- the new awk version is supposed to produce the exact same output as the old script with gnu sed. the pasted output fragment looks ok.

[Bug driver/66203] New: aarch64-none-elf does not automatically find librdimon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66203 Bug ID: 66203 Summary: aarch64-none-elf does not automatically find librdimon Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Com

[Bug target/66136] AArch64 geniterators.sh relies on GNU sed syntax, causing build failure on FreeBSD and probably Mac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66136 --- Comment #9 from Ed Maste --- (In reply to Szabolcs Nagy from comment #8) > the new awk version is supposed to produce the exact same output as the old > script with gnu sed. > > the pasted output fragment looks ok. Oops, I must have had a b

Security settings violation: High-risk attachment

A message violated the security settings. The message has been deleted. Message details: Sender: bug-...@gnu.org Recipient: ivymccollumcalla...@ccmcinc.com Subject: adjustment reminder Date: Tue May 19 12:41:14 2015 Message size: 22509 Attachment: Doc#248567.zip Attachment size: 15304 # of attac

Message Notification

The following email message was blocked by an email content filter because it may contain executable files. If you believe the message is business related, please forward the blocked message to the Helpdesk Mailbox and request that the message be released, or remove any inappropriate language

[Bug sanitizer/66190] [5/6 Regression] ICE: tree code ‘call_expr’ is not supported in LTO streams with -fsanitize=null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66190 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5) > So maybe the following? Not sure how well it plays with weak vars/fns > though... > > --- a/gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c > +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c > @@ -433,8 +43

Message undeliverable: adjustment reminder

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. Sent: Tue, 19 May 2015 14:41:23 +0100 Subject: adjustment reminder The following recipient(s) could not be reached: justdi...@gmail.com Error Type: SMTP Remote server (173.194.78.27) issued an error. hMailServer s

[Bug target/65837] [arm-linux-gnueabihf] lto1 target specific builtin not available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837 chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug rtl-optimization/66187] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66187 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue May 19 13:54:32 2015 New Revision: 223366 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223366&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/66187 * match.pd ((bit_and (plus/minu

[Bug rtl-optimization/66187] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66187 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/66204] New: [MIPS] LRA: Non-optimal code / regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66204 Bug ID: 66204 Summary: [MIPS] LRA: Non-optimal code / regression Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-opt

[Bug rtl-optimization/66156] [msp430] wrong code generated with -O2 -mlarge (zero extension HI -> SI)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66156 --- Comment #3 from Ronald Wahl --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #1) > Hi Ronald, > > What's going on is that this is a reload bug. Reload wants to extend r42 > into r43 (or rather r12 into r10) and it is assuming that the > zero_ex

[Bug c/66202] Weird behaviour when fork and printf without newline are being used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66202 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug sanitizer/66190] [5/6 Regression] ICE: tree code ‘call_expr’ is not supported in LTO streams with -fsanitize=null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66190 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- That looks just wrong. ADDR_EXPR's operand isn't necessarily a decl, testing TREE_STATIC on random trees can give pretty random answers. I think what matters is where do we cp_genericize_r the DECL_INITIAL of

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 19 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 > > --- Comment #17 from Chung-Kil Hur --- > Hi Richard, > > I modified the example

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #19 from Chung-Kil Hur --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18) > On Tue, 19 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 > > > > --- Comment #17 from Chung-Kil Hu

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #20 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #19) > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18) > > On Tue, 19 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote: > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg

[Bug ada/66205] New: gnatbind generates invalid code when finalization is enabled in restricted runtime

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66205 Bug ID: 66205 Summary: gnatbind generates invalid code when finalization is enabled in restricted runtime Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severi

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #21 from Chung-Kil Hur --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #20) > (In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #19) > > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18) > > > On Tue, 19 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #22 from Chung-Kil Hur --- (In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #21) > (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #20) > > (In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #19) > > > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18) > > > > On

Re: [Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

"gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr" writes: > Since "hello" is not printed, I think the if-statement is the same as no-op. > Thus, removing the if-statement should not change the behavior of the program > according to ISO C11. Unless you are invoking undefined behaviour. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab,

[Bug rtl-optimization/66206] New: Address of stack memory associated with local variable returned to caller

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66206 Bug ID: 66206 Summary: Address of stack memory associated with local variable returned to caller Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #23 from schwab at suse dot de --- "gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr" writes: > Since "hello" is not printed, I think the if-statement is the same as no-op. > Thus, removing the if-statement should not change the behavior of the program >

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #24 from Chung-Kil Hur --- (In reply to schwab from comment #23) > "gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr" writes: > > > Since "hello" is not printed, I think the if-statement is the same as no-op. > > Thus, removing the if-statement should n

[Bug target/65837] [arm-linux-gnueabihf] lto1 target specific builtin not available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837 --- Comment #28 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- (In reply to chrbr from comment #27) > > > > Should be reproducible without LTO with > > > > int __attribute__((target("fpu=neon"))) main() > > { > > ... > > } > > > > and compiling without -mfpu=

[Bug c/66208] New: macro location not detected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66208 Bug ID: 66208 Summary: macro location not detected Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: u

[Bug rtl-optimization/66206] Address of stack memory associated with local variable returned to caller

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66206 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Doubt it unless what is passed in here was a reg rtx which I highly doubt it.

[Bug rtl-optimization/66207] New: Switch alpha to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207 Bug ID: 66207 Summary: Switch alpha to LRA Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization

[Bug rtl-optimization/66207] Switch alpha to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ra Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/66207] Switch alpha to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 35568 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35568&action=edit Current middle-end + target enablement patch Vladimir's patch to enhance simplify_operand_subreg for WORD_REGISTE

[Bug rtl-optimization/66207] Switch alpha to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- The patched gcc (the patch from Comment #1) bootstrap went all the way to stage 2, where it crashed on attached source when building libcpp with: /space/homedirs/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/libcpp/macro.c: In function

[Bug rtl-optimization/66207] Switch alpha to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 35569 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35569&action=edit Preprocessed source $ cc1plus -O2 -fpreprocessed -quiet -o macro.s macro.ii

[Bug middle-end/66199] [4.9/5 Regression] lastprivate/linear clause issues on combined constructs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66199 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue May 19 16:16:15 2015 New Revision: 223387 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223387&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/66199 * tree.h (OMP_TEAMS_COMBINED): Define.

[Bug target/66201] [avr] ICE in avr_print_operand: Bad address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66201 --- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay --- IMO using operands attached to "m" constraint in the asm template is no valid avr code. You can never know the matching instructions because "m" is too generic: Use LD, LD+ or LDS? The only valid use of

[Bug target/66201] [avr] ICE in avr_print_operand: Bad address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66201 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- In short: If avr we should skip that test, or at least remove code which is using that function, e.g. #ifdef __AVR__.

  1   2   >