https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Vladimir Sedach from comment #2)
> It is not just about "long long".
It isn't about long long at all, it is about whether your code is valid. In
your latest example, you are casting an int* to a f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.3.0
Summary|[4.9/5 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.3.0
Summary|[4.9/5 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68492
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68445
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 23 08:36:59 2015
New Revision: 230737
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230737&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68445
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495
--- Comment #1 from Samuel Neves ---
Minimal example can be further reduced to
template struct int_seq {};
constexpr struct {
constexpr int operator()(int x) const { return x + 1; }
} f1 {};
template
auto f2(F f, int_seq) -> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
-system-libunwind --with-tune=corei7-avx
--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto --disable-multilib --disable-werror
--disable-nls --with-fpmath=sse --enable-clocale=gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151123 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68482
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68482
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 23 09:11:00 2015
New Revision: 230740
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230740&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68482
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68479
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68476
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||microblaze
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
> Hidden behind a -fexternal-blas-n switch might be an option. Including GPUs
> seems even a tad more tricky. We have a paper on GPU (small) matrix
> multiplication, http://dbcsr.cp2k.org/_media/gpu_book_ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68477
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68470
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68463
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68462
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
With N_domains non-static GCC has to assume it has its address taken and thus
it thinks that the stores to ->next, .lol and .size can alias it.
So the issue that -fno-strict-aliasing is not "respected" is t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #22 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #21)
> I assume that for small matrices bordering on the silly
> (say, a matrix multiplication with dimensions of (1,2) and (2,1))
> the inline code will be fas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68460
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Nov 23 09:45:38 2015
New Revision: 230742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Always call free_stmt_vec_info_vec in gather_scalar_reductions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66432
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|openmp |
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68327
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Mon Nov 23 10:01:51 2015
New Revision: 230743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/68327
* tree-vect-loop.c (v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68327
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173
>
> --- Comment #13 from Vladimir Makarov ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
I have a patch series that fixes the bug but I need to make sure
that it works on other targets that use the "enabled" attribute,
and run it through an all-target test. I'm hoping to post the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, no, the problem is not on the backend side, but during veclower2 pass.
Before that pass we after the replacement of v>> 64 or v>>32 shifts we have:
vect_sum_15.12_58 = VEC_PERM_EXPR ;
vect_sum_15.12_5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63303
--- Comment #14 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Szabolcs Nagy from comment #13)
> if gcc treats p-q as (ssize_t)p-(ssize_t)q and makes
> optimization decisions based on signed int range then
> that's broken and leads to wrong code gen.
Than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68494
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68128
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
.omp_data_i = &PARM_NOALIAS.0+64
PARM_NOALIAS.0+64 = &NONLOCAL
PARM_NOALIAS.64+192 = &NONLOCAL
...
_35 = *.omp_data_i
pg_36 = _35 + UNKNOWN
pg_63 = pg_36
.omp_data_i_12(D), points-to vars: { D.1985 } (nonlo
thout-ppl --without-isl
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-230738-checking-yes-rtl-df-nographite
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151123 (experimental) (GCC)
The failing assertion is:
17686: && (STACK_TOP_P (operands[1]) || STACK_TOP_P (operands[2])))
17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67550
--- Comment #4 from Jason Wyatt ---
It appears that while parsing the initialiser for the array,
maybe_constant_init switches the var for a constructor. This constructor only
sets the m2 member variable. You can see the result in the gimple it pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54959
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68492
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63303
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
Leon Winter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.0 |5.2.1
--- Comment #4 from Leon Winter ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68498
Bug ID: 68498
Summary: Replace LOOPS_MAY_HAVE_MULTIPLE_LATCHES with
LOOPS_HAVE_SINGLE_LATCH
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68317
--- Comment #11 from Jiong Wang ---
Author: jiwang
Date: Mon Nov 23 12:14:05 2015
New Revision: 230754
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230754&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch] Drop constant overflow flag in adjust_range_with_scev when possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68497
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68326
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
Author: jiwang
Date: Mon Nov 23 12:14:05 2015
New Revision: 230754
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230754&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch] Drop constant overflow flag in adjust_range_with_scev when possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68317
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68499
Bug ID: 68499
Summary: Unclear STDC FP_CONTRACT behavior in non-standard
modes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63303
--- Comment #16 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2015-11-23 14:58, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Note that in practice it needs exposal of the address constant to trigger the
> bogus optimization.
No. The program:
#include
#include
#inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68499
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Well, actually the pragma is ignored in all cases. The fix was to set the
default to OFF in the standard modes. So, currently, one should get a warning
in non-standard modes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68500
Bug ID: 68500
Summary: Remove in_loop_pipeline usage
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> As the summary mentions 'volatile' I'll also point to the implementation of
> the intrinsics which have
>
> /* Store four SPFP values. The address must be 16-byte al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68500
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36808
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36808&action=edit
Tentative patch: "Don't reapply loops flags if unnecessary in
loop_optimizer_init"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68500
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36809
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36809&action=edit
Tentative patch: Add PROP_scev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68500
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36810
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36810&action=edit
Tentative patch: Add PROP_loops_normal_re_lcssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68500
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
First patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02634.html
Last two patches fyi-posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02688.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68001
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Nov 23 12:58:12 2015
New Revision: 230755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68001
gcc/c-family
PR c++/68001
* c-gimplify.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
clang has:
static __inline__ void __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS
_mm_storel_epi64(__m128i *__p, __m128i __a)
{
struct __mm_storel_epi64_struct {
long long __u;
} __attribute__((__packed__, __may_alias__));
((str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68499
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Unknown pragmas are diagnosed with -Wunknown-pragmas (part of -Wall).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68221
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c(revision 230671)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c(working copy)
@@ -750,8 +750
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66574
--- Comment #6 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #5)
> Fixed on mainline.
Can this be backported to the gcc 5 branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68470
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Nov 23 13:58:40 2015
New Revision: 230756
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230756&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65908
* ipa-icf.c (sem_item::target_supports_symbol_alias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #19 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> (In reply to Chen Gang from comment #17)
> > I guess the diff below should be OK, I shall give a make check test.
>
> I would rather have the C front-end behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #20 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> (In reply to Chen Gang from comment #17)
> > I guess the diff below should be OK, I shall give a make check test.
>
> I would rather have the C front-end behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68492
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #3)
> Looks like a duplicate of PR68327. r230743 fixed 465.tonto build for me.
r230743 still fails for me. Can you show me your linking command line
for 465.tonto build?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Sedach ---
The "store" pointer could be not only volatile, but also static or global with
same error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68499
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68501
Bug ID: 68501
Summary: [6 Regression] sqrt builtin is not used anymore
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66721
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So I have a "solution" that I hope to prettify a bit still. The basic issue
is that SLP is "broken" in that it builds a tree of operations instead of a
graph.
That is, it un-CSEs all n in the testcase:
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66574
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I'm a little worried because I'm not 100% confident that clock_gettime is
available in the standard library on all systems. I don't want to break GCC 5
is that is the case. Admittedly I haven't seen any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68363
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Nov 23 14:56:03 2015
New Revision: 230760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/68363 Check that argument is real INSN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68059
--- Comment #3 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Mon Nov 23 15:17:55 2015
New Revision: 230762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/68059 libgcc should not use __write for printing fat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68492
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> r230743 still fails for me. Can you show me your linking command line
> for 465.tonto build?
Here it is. Works OK for today's trunk (revision 230759).
gfortran -Of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68363
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Nov 23 15:20:42 2015
New Revision: 230763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/68363 Check that argument is real INSN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68465
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 23 15:21:32 2015
New Revision: 230764
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230764&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68465
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68465
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed the issue where this originally was observed in (oacc-kernel passes)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68498
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68363
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68363
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Nov 23 15:25:36 2015
New Revision: 230765
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230765&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/68363 Check that argument is real INSN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
It's attempting to print this source range:
(gdb) p *range
$8 = {m_start = {m_line = 13, m_column = 12},
m_finish = {m_line = 6, m_column = 26},
m_show_caret_p = true,
m_caret = {m_line = 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Oops; I think line 6 above should read:
6if ((long)FUNC##l(xl,xl) != (long)xl) \
^FINISH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68492
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #5)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > r230743 still fails for me. Can you show me your linking command line
> > for 465.tonto build?
>
> Here it is. Works OK for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68502
Bug ID: 68502
Summary: [6 Regression][i686] spec2000/179.art runfails after
r222914
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67089
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Mon Nov 23 15:55:58 2015
New Revision: 230767
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230767&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add uaddv4_optab and usubv4_optab
PR target/67089
* opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
No, I was wrong again.
The locus and start of the range are here:
(gdb) call
inform(line_table->location_adhoc_data_map.data[0x17].src_range.m_start,
"m_start")
pr68473-1.c:13:12: note: m_start
TEST_EQ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
GCC thinks bar2 will be executed more often that bar1; the code
it generates is perfectly fine for that.
If you think GCC's heuristics for branch prediction are no good,
could use some improvement, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Sedach ---
Adding "static" to "volatile" "solves" the problem:
static int * volatile x = _x;
I'm using this trick to avoid aggressive optimization when measuring the time
of execution. The compiler does not skip cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #5 from ktka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68279
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop ---
After fixing the graphite fail, I get these warnings from the testcase in
comment4:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr68279.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/work/spop/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68455
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Nov 23 17:18:36 2015
New Revision: 230768
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230768&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/68455
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
