https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52394
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
>
> The code should actually be something like this:
> mov.l .L2,r2
> bld #0,r5
> mov #0,r0
> bor.b #5,@(0,r2)
> bst.b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67061
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Sep 20 10:18:45 2015
New Revision: 227943
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227943&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2015-09-14 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67061
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67630
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> Created attachment 36349 [details]
> A patch
@@ -867,10 +867,12 @@
case MODE_V16SF:
case MODE_V8SF:
case MODE_V4SF:
- if (TARGET_AVX
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67647
Bug ID: 67647
Summary: [6 regression] boostrap FAIL with
--disable-libstdcxx-dual-abi
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67647
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
Fedora 22 / x64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67648
Bug ID: 67648
Summary: No need to save callee-saved registers in interrupt
handler
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67648
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Julia, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67644
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
I've just checked with the current GCC 4.9 branch. It happens there, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67644
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sh*-*-* |sh*-*-* rx*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I just tried to build gcc trunk of today (20150920) on x86_64
and got this:
/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/
-B/home/dcb/gcc/results/x86_64-pc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
Bug ID: 67650
Summary: undef reference with -fdevirtualize
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67651
Bug ID: 67651
Summary: Optimizer assumes nothing can reside at address 0
despite -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67651
--- Comment #1 from Sören Brinkmann ---
Created attachment 36352
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36352&action=edit
Makefile for the test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> Is it worth it to try reducing my code and produce a code snippet exhibiting
> the issue?
Always.
>Or is the issue known already? I didn't find any track of it.
It could also be a bug in your code too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #2 from Vincent ---
Ok, working on it, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67652
Bug ID: 67652
Summary: liboffloadmic/runtime/offload_engine.cpp:176: strange
expression in sizeof ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67644
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
It somehow makes sense ...
x->ICR0.BIT.BIT5 |= 1;
or maybe better
x->ICR0.BIT.BIT5 ^= 1;
is a bitfield read and a bitfield write.
A bitfield write implies a bitfield read-modify-write, and thus we get two
-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150920 (experimental) [trunk revision 227943] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-5.2 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘foo’:
small.c:2:1: error: invalid rhs for gimple memory store
foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67654
Bug ID: 67654
Summary: [concepts] ICE when using concepts in constexpr
function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524
Ryan Hill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67655
Bug ID: 67655
Summary: [concepts] expression constraints and variadic
expansions
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67619
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Sep 20 18:07:58 2015
New Revision: 227952
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227952&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67619
* lib/target-supports.exp (che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67656
Bug ID: 67656
Summary: [concepts] matched variadics in expression constraint
report as unmatched
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67648
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
We should update the "IRET" pattern to indicate which
registers should be preserved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67657
Bug ID: 67657
Summary: [SH][5]: internal compiler error: in
cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2396 when compiling
libjpeg-turbo
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67506
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #10)
> I guess it will take a while until you've got a new GCC build. I think we
> can close this as fixed?
texlive-bin builds fine with the new gcc-5 snapsh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67658
Bug ID: 67658
Summary: [concepts] invalid code with constrained concepts
compiles
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
Dear Educator,
My name is Melissa White, Lymboo Math Curriculum Specialist.
The new school year is here and we are excited to introduce a special offer for
your classroom. Lymboo has launched innovative new additions to our already
popular on-line math program. We invite you to enroll all of y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #3 from Vincent ---
Created attachment 36355
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36355&action=edit
Test case
Compile using gcc 5.2.0:
g++-5 -O1 -std=c++11 main.ii -fdevirtualize
The function missing at link edition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67648
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
I checked a fix into hjl/interrupt/master branch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=b21f445ed3e067ac1b401798b953a1ec5b093202
Please take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
> ((T*)0)->ax();
This is undefined behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #5 from Vincent ---
The problem is static time, not dynamic time.
This artefact is just a result of source code reduction. In my code there is
no "0", and the problem exists.
I can provide an alternative case without this artefact, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67659
Bug ID: 67659
Summary: ICE: Linux kernel/rcu/tree.c:3261:6
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #6 from Vincent ---
Replace it with (new T())->ax() if you have doubts. Same thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67573
--- Comment #11 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Sun Sep 20 23:54:03 2015
New Revision: 227953
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227953&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67573
* config/sh/sh.md: Add early clobber to scratch opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67126
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Sep 21 00:17:22 2015
New Revision: 227957
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227957&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/67126
* config/sh/sh.md (*reg_lsb_t): Emit b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67126
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67506
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67657
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #0)
> Created attachment 36354 [details]
> Preprocessed source for cselib.c
Thanks for reporting. I was a bit confused ... the attached source is not
cselib.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59478
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Sep 21 01:43:50 2015
New Revision: 227958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227958&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/59478
* gcc.target/sh/pr59478.c: N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67660
Bug ID: 67660
Summary: [SH] Automatically insert atomic rewind code into ISR
prologue
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67657
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 36356
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36356&action=edit
reduced test case
I can reproduce it with trunk rev. 227929 but can't with 227887.
Clearly very fragile.
It l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67657
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #2)
> Created attachment 36356 [details]
> reduced test case
>
> I can reproduce it with trunk rev. 227929 but can't with 227887.
> Clearly very fragile.
> ...
> into th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67657
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67657
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
Just for reference, those are the exact options:
-x c -std=gnu99 -m4 -ml -g -O2 -ffloat-store -fPIC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67657
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
The peephole outputs this:
(insn 2292 0 0 (set (reg/v/f:SI 2 r2 [orig:320 outptr ] [320])
(mem/f:SI (post_inc:SI (reg:SI 2 r2)) [2 MEM[base: _145, offset: 0B]+0
S4 A32])) -1
(expr_list:REG_INC (reg:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67644
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
Hm, maybe it'd be good to add a warning (enabled by default, can be disabled)
if volatile bitfields are used. To me it looks like volatile bitfields have
almost no use (the way they are implemented by GCC now) a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67657
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36357
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36357&action=edit
Proposed patch
Although a "mov @r2+,r2" is actually possible and valid (r2 will contain the
value loaded from memor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67661
Bug ID: 67661
Summary: Wrong warning when declare VLAs: operation on 'b' may
be undefined [-Wsequence-point]
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67662
Bug ID: 67662
Summary: -fsanitize=undefined cries wolf for X - 1 + X when X
is 2**30
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67659
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
55 matches
Mail list logo
