https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68674
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67702
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This stopped being reproduceable with r231203. Was that the right fix for
this? If so, we should add the testcase to the testsuite and close this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |---
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68892
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #5)
> It also causes an ice when I compile 20100610.c
>
> seurer@genoa:~/tests/gcc$ ~/gcc/install/gcc-test3/bin/gcc -c -fgnu-tm -O3
> 20100610.c
> In function 'TMelemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Dec 17 08:43:48 2015
New Revision: 231745
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231745&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-17 Thomas Preud'homme
Revert:
2015-12-14 Thom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68950
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37059
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37059&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68892
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #4)
> That fix broke the test case pr60203.c.
>
> PASS: gcc.target/powerpc/pr60203.c (test for excess errors)
> PASS: gcc.target/powerpc/pr60203.c scan-assembler-not st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
--- Comment #14 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Dec 17 09:23:08 2015
New Revision: 231747
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231747&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Only support -gstabs on Mac OS X if assember supports it (PR target/67973)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68954
Bug ID: 68954
Summary: [5/6 Regression] -Wdeprecated-declarations warns for
system header templates
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68954
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
You are quite right - the cost model is very poor. We did simple experiment and
set up the branch cost to 1 but noticed performance regressions on other
benchmarks. when we set it to 2 we did not see any di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68954
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Caused by (the backport of)
2015-08-11 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/66098
PR c/66711
* diagnostic.c (diagnostic_classify_diagnostic): Take -Werror into
account when deciding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68540
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to Martin Reinecke from comment #8)
> In order to save others some head-scratching, would it be possible to update
> the ISL version check in the configuration machinery so that it gives a
> clear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68954
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Breakpoint 1, diagnostic_classify_diagnostic (
context=0x2467de0 , option_index=213,
new_kind=DK_IGNORED, where=1550920)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-5-branch/gcc/diagnostic.c:633
(gdb) p exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68951
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16333
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24666
Bug 24666 depends on bug 16333, which changed state.
Bug 16333 Summary: More array vs ptr stuff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16333
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41426
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24666
Bug 24666 depends on bug 41426, which changed state.
Bug 41426 Summary: User defined conversion on return ignores array types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41426
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66895
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68946
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Hmpf. So we have
t.c:16:11: note: node
t.c:16:11: note:stmt 0 _39 = iftmp.2_36 | _113;
t.c:16:11: note:stmt 1 _113 = iftmp.2_112 | _100;
t.c:16:11: note:stmt 2 _100 = iftmp.2_99 | _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67710
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67710
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin14 |x86_64-apple-darwin1[45]
C
version 6.0.0 20151217 (experimental) [trunk revision 231731] (GCC)
$:
$: gcc-trunk -O3 -m32 -w small.c ; ./a.out
0
$: gcc-trunk -w small.c ; ./a.out
1
$: cat small.c
int printf (const char *, ...);
int a, b, c, d, g, m;
int i[7][7][5] = { {{5}}, {{5}}, {{5}, {5}, {5}, {5}, {5}, {-1}} };
static int j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-*-*|x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jermar ---
Thanks for looking into this. Let me know if you need to verify the fix, when
it's ready.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68911
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This goes wrong during vrp1.
> Analyzing # of iterations of loop 2
> exit condition [e_6, + , 1] <= 93
> bounds on difference of bases: -4294967202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67710
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
The patch LGTM,
tools (ar, nm etc, as well as the assembler) <= xcode 3.2.6 [darwin10] do not
support the LC_VERSION_MIN_MACOSX load command, so we can't just set it as
default.
I'll give it a spin on darwin9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68927
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
--- Comment #6 from James Greenhalgh ---
Rather than a target macro, I think I'd rather implement this as a parameter
along the lines of "max-rtl-ifcvt-insns" - i386 backend could then set this to
1 and avoid the issue. I'll try to get to that in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68950
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68955
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It uses the wrong PHI arg value for the exit PHI of the unswitched loop
It's unswitched on two conditions thus gets 4 loop copies but appearantly
the m_lsm.28 exit PHI gets its arg from the PHI of the condit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #24 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #23)
> Ping?
Doing a test build with gcc-5_-5.3.1-1 from unstable now with gdc enabled.
Build should finish tomorrow (building on my fast qemu setup).
Will r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68893
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68889
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68955
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> It uses the wrong PHI arg value for the exit PHI of the unswitched loop
> It's unswitched on two conditions thus gets 4 loop copies but appearantly
> the m_lsm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68950
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4)
> Can you confirm that this is fixed when setting "omp declare target"'s
> max_len to -1 in gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c?
I don't understand the question.
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68940
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68955
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so disabling cunroll after unswitching fixes the testcase as well.
Disabling IVOPTs fixes it also (we have a IVOPTs wrong-code bug elsewhere).
IVOPTs
would explain -m32 vs. -m64.
Disabling DOM3 also f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68937
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> Created attachment 37054 [details]
> A patch
>
> I am testing this.
It introduces ICE in cselib_invalidate_regno with -fPIC -fno-plt, for example:
$ gcc -O2 -funroll-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #6 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
--- Comment #27 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
...so ragged in fact that it fails at all levels of optimization I
have not had time these last days to come back to it and understand
why. Something for the holidays!
Paul
On 28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68949
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68951
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 17 12:34:27 2015
New Revision: 231754
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231754&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68951
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68956
Bug ID: 68956
Summary: [6 regression] Vectorizer miscompilation of 416.gamess
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66333
--- Comment #1 from cypherpu at gmail dot com ---
This program now compiles under gcc 5.3.1 (Red Hat 5.3.1-2).
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66877
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, with a cross to arm-none-eabi and -O2 -ftree-vectorize I see
grep 'vect_recog_over_widening_pattern: detected' t.c.146t.vect
t.c:14:3: note: vect_recog_over_widening_pattern: detected: _130 = (signed
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68937
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 37054 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > I am testing this.
>
> It introduces ICE in cselib_invalidate_regno w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68776
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so vect_recog_mult_pattern detects IV address computations here. Not too
useful in this case, but hey. Does
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-widen-mult-const-u16.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68956
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Caused by a misprint. Here is a patch:
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
@@ -1304,8 +1304,8 @@ vect_init_vector (gimple *stmt, tree val, tree type,
gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68956
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #2)
> Caused by a misprint. Here is a patch:
>
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> @@ -1304,8 +1304,8 @@ vect_init_vector (gimple *stmt, tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68948
--- Comment #5 from Vasily Sukhanov ---
There is an error in the line:
this->delegate_.store()->RemoveLoginsByOriginAndTime(
origin, base::Time::Time(), base::Time::Max(), base::Closure());
should be
this->delegate_.store()->RemoveLoginsByO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59878
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Thu Dec 17 13:30:04 2015
New Revision: 231755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix wrong PR references
PR c++/59878 -> PR c++/59879
Added:
trunk/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59879
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Thu Dec 17 13:30:04 2015
New Revision: 231755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix wrong PR references
PR c++/59878 -> PR c++/59879
Added:
trunk/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68949
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, build_vec_init calls maybe_constant_init on
<<< Unknown tree: aggr_init_expr
4
__comp_ctor
D.2114
(struct Sub *) <<< Unknown tree: void_cst >>> >>>;
During that, we call
cxx_eval_call_expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68949
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And, the reason why it is supposedly different is that this all happens during
gimplification of the Class::Class() ctor, and DECL_SAVED_TREE of both
__base_ctor and __comp_ctor of Sub::Sub() has been initial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68835
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 17 13:52:25 2015
New Revision: 231757
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231757&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/68835
* tree.c (get_int_cst_ext_nuni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68196
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 37062
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37062&action=edit
Patch for the new bug
This patch bootstraps and regtests on FC21/x86_64
Developing the testcase uncovered two mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68957
Bug ID: 68957
Summary: Wrong overload resolution for unscoped enums with
fixed underlying type
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68913
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|*-*-solaris2.* |*-*-solaris2.*,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68958
Bug ID: 68958
Summary: MIPS: cannot build glibc with mips32r2 at O1 or higher
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67702
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67337
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.ok8 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68674
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68946
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 17 14:30:53 2015
New Revision: 231770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231770&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68946
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68958
Manuel Lauss changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68959
Bug ID: 68959
Summary: Test case ICEs with -mlra -mvsx-timode
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68959
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24666
Bug 24666 depends on bug 59879, which changed state.
Bug 59879 Summary: arrays in return statements or default arguments decay too
early
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59879
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59879
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67530
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
No, the same code is produced for at least GCC 5. I just happened to notice it
on trunk while looking at another problem.
I hope to get time to look at this one in the next couple of weeks if nobody
else has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68950
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
posted RFC: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01749.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68776
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yep. I'll verify the fix and commit today if all goes well. Thanks for the
investigation!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67550
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68959
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
Simpler test case??? Anyway, it fails too.
typedef union { _Decimal128 a; } u_t;
extern u_t fn1 (void);
extern void fn2 (u_t);
void
foo (void)
{
fn2 (fn1 ());
}
Before LRA, we have:
(call_insn 5 2 6 2 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68950
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|openacc |
--- Comment #7 from vries at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68776
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #4)
> Yep. I'll verify the fix and commit today if all goes well. Thanks for the
> investigation!
Actually, looking at check_effective_target_vect_int_mult, this won't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #20 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Would be nice to have a reduced testcase for this one.
Working on it. Sadly it's fortran :(
The SLP tree that gets cancelled, is quite big (and quite untreelike, if we
could see that - a lar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68960
Bug ID: 68960
Summary: __attribute__ ((aligned ())) is ignored for OpenMP
private variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68892
--- Comment #8 from Bill Seurer ---
I'll open new issues for them.
BTW, I commented here because they succeeded with the revision immediately
before this fix and failed with this fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
While working on this, I've found something weird, as shown in the following
testcase:
int
main (void)
{
_Atomic _Bool a = 1;
__builtin_printf ("%d\n", a);
__atomic_fetch_add (&a, 1, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
IMHO you should use the current code for _Bool atomic increments/decrements,
_Bool has just doesn't behave like an integer.
Only normal integers (with the precision the same as mode's precision, properly
ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66250
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Okay, thanks, with other types the optimization seems to work (yay!).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #10)
C doesn't allow the atomic_fetch_xxx operations to be used with the atomic_bool
type (it says they're "not applicable" without spelling what that means, but
that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #13)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #10)
>
> C doesn't allow the atomic_fetch_xxx operations to be used with the
> atomic_bool type (it says they're "not ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
Bug ID: 68961
Summary: Test case pr60203.c fails since r231674
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68962
Bug ID: 68962
Summary: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in
vect_analyze_stmt, at tree-vect-stmts.c:8013 when
building 416.gamess on aarch64
Product: gcc
Ve
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
