https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
eyenseo at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37264|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69156
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 37097
> --> https://gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68980
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69083
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 8 08:37:17 2016
New Revision: 232153
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232153&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69083
* tree-vect-slp.c (vect_get_con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
>
> --- Comment #23 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Yes, difficult. I'm consci
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69013
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|error-recovery |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> We still get the bogus IR but we don't ICE any more:
> v4qi c;
> uv4qi d;
>
> c = {a, a, a, a};
> d = {a, a, a, a};
> D.2757 = c != d;
> D.2758 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
That just made a latent issue (re-)appear. It looks like just a reg-reg DImode
move - what can be possibly wrong with it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Jan 8 09:21:19 2016
New Revision: 232154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-08 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68967
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #9)
> Though at the end, make check hung in fix-include.
More specifically, the testing of fixincludes hangs:
...
22074 pts/6S+ 0:00 | \_ /bin/sh ./check.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69110
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression]|[4.9/5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69071
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69192
Bug ID: 69192
Summary: valgrind trunk build fail in predict_loops
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
I still see the ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69172
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 8 10:13:23 2016
New Revision: 232155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232155&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69172
* gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69162
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 8 10:14:29 2016
New Revision: 232156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232156&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69162
* gimplify.c (gimplify_va_arg_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69192
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69170
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69162
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69172
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68648
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Jan 8 10:36:37 2016
New Revision: 232157
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232157&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/68648: Fold NOT of CONST_INT in andsi_iors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69102
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> > Ok, judging from this my simplistic patch from
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg00329.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69160
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A much smaller reduced testcase ICEs at -O3:
a, b, c;
fn1() {
for (;;) {
int *d;
fn2();
c = 0;
for (; c <= 3; c++) {
*d ^= 9;
b = 0;
for (; b <= 3; b++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #7)
You want to turn that back to at least valid C99 if that still reproduces the
issue:
> char a;
> b, c, d, e;
> fn1() {
> int f = 0;
> for (; f <= 4; f++) {
> d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69193
Bug ID: 69193
Summary: ICE: openmp + nested function + VLA
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68449
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69190
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69184
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37270
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37270&action=edit
reduced testcase
More reduced testcase for -O3 -floop-interchange
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69194
Bug ID: 69194
Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2286
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69082
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin at gcc dot gnu.org
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69175
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37272&action=edit
gcc6-pr69175.patch
One possible fix that seems to work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69194
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69166
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
Bug ID: 69195
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/pr44913.c FAILs
with -O3 -fno-dce -fno-forward-propagate
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69154
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69186
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|Bit-packing opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69174
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
$ powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-latest-powerpc64/bin/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-trunk-232129-checki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69173
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69168
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69166
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux-gnu |powerpc64le-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68851
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jan 8 12:30:56 2016
New Revision: 232159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232159&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 68851] Do not collect thunks in collect_callers
2016-01-08 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69160
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64, x86_64-*-*
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69157
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
st case.
sparc-rtems4.11-gcc (GCC) 4.9.4 20150723 (prerelease)
sparc-rtems4.12-gcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20160108 (experimental)
sparc-rtems4.11-gcc -c -O2 -o vprintk.4.11.o vprintk.i
sparc-rtems4.12-gcc -c -O2 -o vprintk.4.12.o vprintk.i
size vprintk.4.11.o
textdata bss dec hex filename
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69156
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 37266 [details]
> gcc6-pr69156.patch
>
> Untested fix. Not sure if it is the best spot though. And the testcase is
> really nasty.
Hmm, bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69155
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68851
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jan 8 12:34:34 2016
New Revision: 232160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 68851] Do not collect thunks in collect_callers
2016-01-08 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69139
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68851
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69082
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68981
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68847
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68995
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
Ok, with -Os I don't have the problem:
sparc-rtems4.11-gcc -c -Os -o vprintk.4.11.o vprintk.i
sparc-rtems4.12-gcc -c -Os -o vprintk.4.12.o vprintk.i
size vprintk.4.11.o
textdata bss dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Flags to check are -fno-tree-vectorize and -fno-ivopts.
The testcase crashes with either -fno-tree-vectorize and/or -fno-ivopts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
--- Comment #41 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #14 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
--- Comment #15 from Nick Clifton ---
Sorry I meant:
I am not sure of the best way to proceed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69019
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #32 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69160
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 8 13:14:01 2016
New Revision: 232162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232162&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing include for std::__addressof
PR libstdc++/69160
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69160
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Author: redi
> Date: Fri Jan 8 13:14:01 2016
> New Revision: 232162
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232162&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> Add missing i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68738
Rian Quinn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69190
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #218 from Martin Liška ---
Hi.
Building Firefox revision:
commit a704d34fb1f9e0f5dbf4113298d885cdb650906c
Author: Matthew Noorenberghe
Date: Thu Dec 3 17:33:35 2015 -0800
Bug 1230391 - Disable password visibility toggling in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You're right, thanks.
char a;
int b, c, d, e;
void
foo (void)
{
int f;
for (f = 0; f <= 4; f++)
{
for (d = 0; d < 20; d++)
{
long g = &c;
b &= (0 != g)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry. Of course you meant "int *". That still ICEs:
char a;
int b, c, d, e;
void
foo (void)
{
int f;
for (f = 0; f <= 4; f++)
{
for (d = 0; d < 20; d++)
{
int *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69075
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Ick - re-gimplification hits C++ FE hooks...
We should really do parts of
/* Reset some langhooks. Do not reset types_compatible_p, it may
still be used indirectly via the get_alias_set langhook.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #10)
> Sorry. Of course you meant "int *". That still ICEs:
> char a;
> int b, c, d, e;
>
> void
> foo (void)
> {
> int f;
> for (f = 0; f <= 4; f++)
> {
> f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> And __INTPTR_TYPE__ g = (__INTPTR_TYPE__) &g; ?
You mean (__INTPTR_TYPE__) &c; ?
It ICEs as well:
char a;
int b, c, d, e;
void
foo (void)
{
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69044
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, so after looking into this (and CHKP) a bit more, this is only one
of many issues with costant propagating into CHKP functions and
thunks. In fact, there is an attempt to disable that in
propagate_consta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
>
> > And __INTPTR_TYPE__ g = (__INTPTR_TYPE__) &g; ?
>
> You mean (__INTPTR_TYPE__) &c; ?
> It ICEs as well:
Sure, s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69097
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37219|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69187
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Smirnov ---
I've also tried to test gcc 6.0, snapshot 20160103 but still getting this:
root@katje ~ # gcc-6.0.0-alpha20160103 -mfpu=neon ./bug.c
./bug.c: In function 'bug':
./bug.c:3:9: internal compiler error: Segmen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69183
--- Comment #2 from Iain Miller ---
On further testing and investigation the ICE only appears when attempting to
allocate and use ZHOFX.
Removing all references to ZHOFX in the test case allows it the subroutine to
compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69187
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69187
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Smirnov ---
GCC 5.3:
katje ~ # gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi/gcc-bin/5.3.0/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi/5.3.0/lto-wrapper
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69156
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 37266 [details]
> > gcc6-pr69156.patch
> >
> > Untested fix. Not sure if it is the best spot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69197
Bug ID: 69197
Summary: Can't compile older
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68419
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Sorry, but I still cannot reproduce it. I have checkout out the
latest gcc_5-branch (rev 232044) and configured it (on an
x86_64-linux) with
../src/configure --prefix=/home/mjambor/gcc/5/m68k/ --target=m68k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69198
Bug ID: 69198
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/avx512vl-vmovaps-1.c
scan-assembler-times vmovaps[
\\t]+[^{\n]*%xmm[0-9]+[^\n]*\\){%k[1-7]}(?:\n|[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69198
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
I haven't looked at the bug, but on PowerPC systems before power8, the
following is illegal:
(insn 258 153 259 8 (set (reg:DI 9 9)
(reg/f:DI 63 31 [orig:185 p3$_M_node ] [185])) pr67211.C:28 540
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
Looking at calls to linemap_compare_locations, the crucial comparison is the
comparison of the location of the 2nd diagnostic with that of the "ignore"
pragma:
Breakpoint 2, linemap_compare_locations (set=0x
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
