https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #39 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
A summary of what is still pending:
1. Handle macros
#define c " %d "
__builtin_printf(c, 0.5);
2. Handle non-contiguous strings:
__builtin_printf(" %" "d ", 0.5);
3. Handle cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61955
Pierre Ossman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ossman at cendio dot se
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61955
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
was added in 2.5.32.
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/?id=ea5097be4e814a2a9457e60653052306295941e8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #20)
> I'm lost. “Vanilla” 5.1.0 configured without --disable-checking went thru
> stage2 w/o any issue...
That's interesting - we might run into a miscompilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 May 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Perhaps just guard this particular match.pd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61955
Dmitry Vyukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at google dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61955
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
Format it as a hexadecimal number.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, IMHO you can have many debug insns after that and before first real insn.
I'd go for something like:
rtx_insn *insn = get_insns ();
if (!active_insn_p (insn))
insn = next_active_insn (insn);
and i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61955
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Kostya, Alexey, Eugeniy, please land this fix to llvm tree while I am OOO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61955
--- Comment #9 from Pierre Ossman ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5)
> was added in 2.5.32.
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/
> ?id=ea5097be4e814a2a9457e60653052306295941e8
How can it be mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Native bootstrap with alphaev68-linux-gnu (a BWX architecture) with the patch
from Comment #1 succeeded, the testresults are at [1]. Comparing to non-LRA
testsuite run, here is only one new test failure in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66221
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu May 21 08:32:52 2015
New Revision: 223471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223471&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/66221
* ipa-chkp.c (chkp_copy_func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61955
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
Are you sure their user-space kernel headers are at 2.6.9 level?
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/?id=31a3791056e43c6dd7386b8bc0f5fb94848c5a61
https://git.kernel.org/cgi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sounds like gimple folding issue.
We have:
vect__4.9_31 = (vector(4) float) { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
vect__5.10_32 = (vector(4) unsigned int) vect__4.9_31;
where the first stmt's rhs_code is FLOAT_EXPR and rhs1 is VEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> Native bootstrap with alphaev68-linux-gnu (a BWX architecture) with the
> patch from Comment #1 succeeded, the testresults are at [1]. Comparing to
> non-LRA testsuit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66234
Bug ID: 66234
Summary: Too much output from pragma message with g++ 4.8 and
above
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66235
Bug ID: 66235
Summary: [SH] Optimize tst reg,const movrt sequence
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61955
--- Comment #11 from Pierre Ossman ---
Not really. :)
I stumbled upon this trying to use 2.4 headers, so I honestly haven't tried
2.6.9, RHEL variant or otherwise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66228
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66219
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems this is the
/* Handle cases of two conversions in a row. */
patterns in match.pd that are causing this.
I'd say the bug is that those simplifications are just handling
{inside,inter,final}_vec the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, in 4.9 this is in tree-ssa-forwprop.c (combine_conversions) and in
fold-const.c (fold_unary_loc).
Perhaps we need {inter,inside,final}_vec_{int,float,unsignedp} variables too
and use them?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66236
Bug ID: 66236
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr42691.c
on alpha-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66223
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64208
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58660
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26702
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu May 21 09:23:14 2015
New Revision: 223473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223473&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/26702
For Kwok Cheung Yeung.
Modified:
trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66237
Bug ID: 66237
Summary: [6.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr34999.c
compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66236
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65937
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #18)
> Yes, that is true. However, because op0, op1, op2 are all "arith_reg_dest"
> the peephole will only match if those are GP regs. Each captured insn will
> only refere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66235
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
This is actually a special case of PR 65250.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #2 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
I understand you're short of time but this problem is very difficult to
reproduce !!
I did try to compile and link with -fsanitize=undefined this morning, now
here's the interesting part :
* no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> > Native bootstrap with alphaev68-linux-gnu (a BWX architecture) with the
> > patch from Comment #1 succeeded, the testres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Another thing you might try is to use: -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations (as per http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/)
and see if the issue goes away, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66163
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Firefox developers just fixed first half of problem seen by null sanitizer and
I would still wait for fixing the rest:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1167119.
Looks fixed issues are not suffici
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63345
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why does your patch need to touch operator* or operator-> for any of the
iterators? For any dereferenceable iterator the cast should be valid, so if
you're seeing invalid casts it suggests that you are dere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66236
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66221
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu May 21 09:47:32 2015
New Revision: 223474
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223474&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r223471
2015-05-21 Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #4 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
Sorry I meant gcc 4.9.2 / -O3 of course, 4.8 works fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66181
--- Comment #9 from Christophe Lyon ---
Jan, when do you plan to commit your patch?
So far it made it impossible for me to run validations on a subset of 29
commits related to ARM/AArch64 targets since the ICE was introduced.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #5 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
Ok I did just try "-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations" and the issue is still there.
If I add the printf("something"); at the top of the function, everything works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66236
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Hi Uroš, I tried with a n alpha-linux-gnu GCC cross-compiler built from
revision 223280 but couldn't reproduce this. I configured it with just --prefix
and --target=alpha-linux-gnu and tried compiling th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66238
Bug ID: 66238
Summary: C/Fortran interoperability broken with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709 for a similar bug
in LZ4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #20 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
> Could you guys please test this patch? Actually, now it looks quite obvious
> I think.
gen_rtx_SET functions required SImode as their first argument.
Tests are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this would solve it (I'm still trying to build a clang that will allow
me to reproduce the error):
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_tree.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_tree.h
@@ -869,25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #8 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
Thanks Markus I didn't think these alignment issues were actually the problem,
it goes a long way.
By doing memmoves instead of pointer cast allocations I got rid of the
segfault, but of course
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #9 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
What I mean is the structs I was using the pointer casts allocations with are
instanciated by the program itself, so there could be a way to instanciate them
with the required alignment I suppos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
--- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl ---
Patch from #c3 works fine for our codebase, I couldn't spot any false positives
anymore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|[6.0 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #21 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #20)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
> > Could you guys please test this patch? Actually, now it looks quite obvious
> > I think.
>
> gen_rtx_SET functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66239
Bug ID: 66239
Summary: Unoptimized sqrt(float or double) returns wrong values
for ARM Cortex-A8 -mfloat-abi=[soft,softfp]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66190
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Ok, then maybe the following could work (only lightly tested so far). Arguably
static_init_p could be renamed to e.g. no_sanitize_p.
diff --git gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
index d5a64fc..a90c8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66236
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Alternatively, you can try the patch proposed at [1] and see if it fixes the
issue you're facing since it seems to be the same one.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg01901.html
Best reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to gpnuma from comment #8)
> Thanks Markus I didn't think these alignment issues were actually the
> problem, it goes a long way.
>
> By doing memmoves instead of pointer cast allocations I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66236
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #3)
> Alternatively, you can try the patch proposed at [1] and see if it fixes the
> issue you're facing since it seems to be the same one.
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66239
--- Comment #1 from Maciej Andrzejewski ---
It is getting even more interesting.
I have disassabled 4 binaries compiled with options:
1) -mfloat-abi=softfp
2) -mfloat-abi=softfp -O
3) -mfloat-abi=hard
4) -mfloat-abi=hard -O
and from what I unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66240
Bug ID: 66240
Summary: RFE: extend -falign-xyz syntax
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Multiple issues in |[4.9/5/6 Regression] [SH]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66232
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 35585
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35585&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29358
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu May 21 12:36:35 2015
New Revision: 223479
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223479&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/54236
* config/sh/sh.md (*round_int_even):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66241
Bug ID: 66241
Summary: ICE: verify_type failed while building libstdc++
(dwarfout.c: gen_type_die_with_usage())
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66241
--- Comment #1 from Vidya Praveen ---
Created attachment 35586
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35586&action=edit
preprocessed file to reproduce ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66242
Bug ID: 66242
Summary: Front-end error if exception propagation disabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66242
--- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org ---
Created attachment 35588
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35588&action=edit
Suggested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65283
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66219
--- Comment #2 from Cao Da Shi ---
This issue poped up when cross compiling systemd-219. It is confirmed that the
missed section has the __attribute__((used)) declared. But still the link will
only pass without "-flto", with all other options exa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66243
Bug ID: 66243
Summary: enum class value is allowed to be initialized by value
from other enum class
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66238
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65283
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #23 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Ouch. The peephole in problem was added at gcc-5 not at 4.9. The above
patch should fix the original conftest.c issue, but debien 4.9-16 problem
would be an another issue. Sorry for my confusion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65283
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
Thanks for the pointer.
Still, if this
(define_attr "in_delay_slot" "yes,no"
(eq_attr "type" "fpscr_toggle") (const_string "no")
is changed to "yes", the delay-branch will not consider multiple-set insns.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65283
--- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
yes it's only for the SH4A fpchg case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65283
--- Comment #5 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ah I see, I was on the 4.8 where toggle_pr was indeed a single pattern.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66237
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66237
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Created attachment 35589
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35589&action=edit
pr34999.gcda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
--- Comment #5 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Let's have a look at the standard (F2008, 12.8.2, last sentence):
In the array case, the values of the elements, if any, of the result are
the same as would have been obtained if the scalar functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66237
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
The profile files differ in a few bytes.
9 17 ^O 265 M-5
10 217 M-^O 44 $
11 323 M-S 301 M-A
12 166 v165 u
21 146 f376 M-~
22 213 M-^K 233 M-^[
23 166 v 32 ^Z
24 14 ^L 107 G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66244
Bug ID: 66244
Summary: ICE in lhd_set_decl_assembler_name
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66243
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66245
Bug ID: 66245
Summary: ICE on select type with empty type spec
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51726
Jacek Caban changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jacek at codeweavers dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #24 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #23)
> Ouch. The peephole in problem was added at gcc-5 not at 4.9. The above
> patch should fix the original conftest.c issue, but debien 4.9-16 probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66212
Andri Yngvason changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to vehre from comment #5)
For the interpretation of (intrinsic) assignment, you have to look at
7.2.1.3:
> The execution of the assignment shall have the same effect as if the
> evaluation of expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
--- Comment #7 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, ok, which opens the question why that isn't done?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66246
Bug ID: 66246
Summary: PCH breaks preprocessor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66239
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66246
--- Comment #1 from kai-bugs at cats dot ms ---
Created attachment 35591
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35591&action=edit
Source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66232
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> Created attachment 35585 [details]
> A patch
>
> I am testing this.
It failed this:
[hjl@gnu-6 pr66232]$ cat x.c
extern void (*bar) (void);
void
foo (int n)
{
int i;
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to vehre from comment #7)
> Ah, ok, which opens the question why that isn't done?
Performance, for (very) big arrays.
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
