https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68104
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68110
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(separately from the missing DCE at RTL level)
Replacing __builtin_sub_overflow (a, b, &r) with a < b when r is unused is
something we could already easily do at the GIMPLE level, but since we don't
have any pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
--- Comment #8 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Reid Kleckner from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > Because symbol size is part of the ABI, and LLVM emits different symbol size
> > between -fsanitize=address and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #8)
> Jakub is right, here an example, where I believe COPY relocations are not
> involved:
Yeah, that, semantic interposition is used heavily not just by libasan it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67742
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64880
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Oct 27 08:39:15 2015
New Revision: 229404
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229404&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c/64765, c/64880] Support OpenACC Combined Directives in C, C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64765
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Oct 27 08:39:15 2015
New Revision: 229404
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229404&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c/64765, c/64880] Support OpenACC Combined Directives in C, C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64765
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64880
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68110
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
value-numbering would need to special-case them via the insertion trick it does
for conversions. somehow. not sure if feasible or worthwhile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|[6.0 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68104
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #28)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26)
> > Hmm, I don't see this documented anywhere. In fact there is no such
> > thing as a "vector register", th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68102
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968
--- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 36596
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36596&action=edit
Minimal test code
The attached test code causes the ICE on s390x and x86_64 using gccgo-5.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68101
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I would say dependent on an environment variable libgfortran could use
posix_memalign to allocate to a requested alignment. IIRC it also inlines
some direct malloc calls into the code thus those would need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68063
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Oct 27 10:32:32 2015
New Revision: 229411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR testsuite/68063] Add missing private clause in libgomp.c++/membe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68111
Bug ID: 68111
Summary: [6 Regression] 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68111
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68111
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67976
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
When do you expect Go 1.5 to be merged?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
The main difference is
+/home/wschmidt/gcc/gcc-mainline-base/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-62.c:39:3:
note: LOOP VECTORIZED
+/home/wschmidt/gcc/gcc-mainline-base/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-62.c:39:3:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
renlin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968
--- Comment #12 from Dominik Vogt ---
The test code also crashes on x86_64 with the current gcc-5-branch and the
gcc-6 development branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68102
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Oct 27 11:52:54 2015
New Revision: 229423
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Move signbit folds to match.pd
Tested on x86_64-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67929
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Oct 27 12:23:51 2015
New Revision: 229436
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/67929 Tighten vfp3_const_double_for_bits c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67976
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
The patch behind the link in comment 2 fixes the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, great! More vectorization is good. :) Thanks for looking into this so
quickly!
Bill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:54:53AM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
>
> --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67929
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Oct 27 13:46:15 2015
New Revision: 229439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229439&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/67929 Tighten vfp3_const_double_for_bits c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68104
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 27 13:48:15 2015
New Revision: 229440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68104
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68104
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67929
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67929
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Oct 27 13:52:27 2015
New Revision: 229441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/67929 Tighten vfp3_const_double_for_bits c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jermar ---
Has there been any progress on this front?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67989
--- Comment #13 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Oct 27 14:03:27 2015
New Revision: 229442
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229442&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[optabs.c] Fix PR 67989: Handle const0_rtx target in
expa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67989
--- Comment #14 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Oct 27 14:07:04 2015
New Revision: 229443
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229443&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[optabs.c] Fix PR 67989: Handle const0_rtx target in
expa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67989
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66313
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67989
--- Comment #16 from Gianfranco ---
thanks a lot for the help! with this we will finally finish ocaml and llvm
Debian transitions :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2015-10-27 03:15, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>> VLA size overflow is very similar to overflow in "new". Shouldn't it be
>> handled in a similar way?
>
> I'm thinking of it as essentially
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67215
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Oct 27 14:29:31 2015
New Revision: 229444
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229444&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly handle -fno-plt in ix86_expand_call
prepare_call_address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67215
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
--- Comment #11 from renlin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> After the backport patch to branch 5, aarch-none-elf fails to build because
> of the following ICEs.
>
I mean "aarch64-none-elf" here, sorry for the typo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
Bug ID: 68112
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/avx512ifma-vpmaddhuq-2.c (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63865
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68113
Bug ID: 68113
Summary: VLA+typeof+new -- confusing warning
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63861
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68068
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68066
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68066
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Was it fixed by the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Oct 27 16:42:24 2015
New Revision: 229446
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229446&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-27 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68108
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63865
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Oct 27 16:54:52 2015
New Revision: 229448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229448&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR fortran/63865] OpenACC cache directive: match Fortran support wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68114
Bug ID: 68114
Summary: gcc doesn't show error when return type of deleted
function is incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63865
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think it's undefined at the point where a type exceeds the limit on the
size of an object (half the address space minus one byte), whether or not
sizeof is used or any object with that ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
Bug ID: 68115
Summary: [6 Regression] Unsatisfied symbol
"__sync_lock_test_and_set_4" in file
/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/./libgomp/../
libgfortran/.li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
On Tobias Burnus 2015-03-12 15:59:34 UTC Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Looks good to me - okay with a test case and a ChangeLog.
What is the status of this patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
--- Comment #8 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
I have been working my through my backlog of patches/PRs as you might
have noticed. This one, being a regression is next but two :-)
Cheers
Paul
On 27 October 2015 at 18:30, dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68116
Bug ID: 68116
Summary: ice in add_expr, at tree.c:7840
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Oct 27 18:03:18 2015
New Revision: 229452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229452&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-27 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/67933
* gfortran.dg/al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67948
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
Daniel Micay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danielmicay at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68102
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Oct 27 18:32:37 2015
New Revision: 229455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR 68102: Check that operand is REG before check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67806
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
Bug ID: 68117
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault building
Firefox on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68116
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68118
Bug ID: 68118
Summary: C preprocessor inserts whitespace after macro
parameter substitution
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68119
Bug ID: 68119
Summary: GCC diagnostic push/pop interfere with control flow
statements
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
--- Comment #32 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Oct 27 19:59:41 2015
New Revision: 229458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229458&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-opt/67609
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_cannot_change_mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68120
Bug ID: 68120
Summary: can't easily deal with integer overflow at compile
time
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68121
Bug ID: 68121
Summary: __builtin_constant_p should not warn about integer
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68122
Bug ID: 68122
Summary: ICE in gcc/toplev.c:353 with -fsanitize=undefined and
-fgnu-tm
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68122
--- Comment #1 from Lars Gullik Bjønnes ---
Command used to call:
gcc -fsanitize=undefined -fgnu-tm tm-thread.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68123
Bug ID: 68123
Summary: GCC vector extension behaves funny with large vector
size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68123
--- Comment #1 from Dehuan Xin ---
compiler info:
arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.8-2013.11 - Linaro GCC
2013.10) 4.8.3 2013 (prerelease)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Thanks to Steven Kargl: confirming that our code completely works again with
gcc's r229446.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68119
DJ Delorie changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68118
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68124
Bug ID: 68124
Summary: [6 Regression] Many i386 test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68114
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #21 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2015-10-21 06:21, danielmicay at gmail dot com wrote:
>> I think several issues are mixed:
>
> A conforming C implementation requires either fixing both the compiler and
> libc
> functions to hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68124
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from H.J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68124
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> What is missing in the discussion is a cost of support in gcc of objects
> with size > PTRDIFF_MAX. I guess overhead in compiled c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #23 from Rich Felker ---
I think you can always do the right-shift first. Pointer subtraction is
undefined unless both pointers point to elements of the same array, and the
addresses of elements of an array will inherently be congruen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68119
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan ---
I can see how 6.10.6.1 grants GCC very broad latitude in how to treat its own
pragmas. However, if the implementation is going to define this preprocessing
directive to behave as a statement, then it should at le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68124
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Also
FAIL: gcc.dg/gomp/simd-clones-2.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/gomp/simd-clones-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/simd-function c_lto_simd-function_0.o-c_lto_simd-function_0.o
link, -fo
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo