https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Results with the third patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-01/msg01115.html
It looks good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 37227 [details]
> back-port of Rainer's fix.
Results with the patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-01/msg01115.html
Rainer,
Do you mind if I commit the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57438
--- Comment #26 from Uroš Bizjak ---
+ /* If we don't find any, we've got an empty function body; i.e.
+completely empty - without a return or branch. Reaching an
+empty function body means UB. Let's trap it. */
+ if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69247
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks. Please include the testcase from the other patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69186
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 13 08:26:45 2016
New Revision: 232314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232314&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69186
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69242
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 13 08:27:42 2016
New Revision: 232315
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232315&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69242
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69242
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69186
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68357
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69257
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69257
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|g++ ICE (segfault) on |g++ ICE in "create_tmp_var"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57438
--- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #26)
> + /* If we don't find any, we've got an empty function body; i.e.
> + completely empty - without a return or branch. Reaching an
> + empty function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52346
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68621
vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69255
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69156
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69156
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
--- Comment #18 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 13 09:27:38 2016
New Revision: 232316
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232316&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Cherry-pick r224315 and r241487 from upstream.
PR sanitizer/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66006
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Jan 13 09:48:53 2016
New Revision: 232317
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232317&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Introduce separate baselines for Solaris 10 and 11+ (PR libstdc++/66006)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66006
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> Created attachment 37227 [details]
>> back-port of Rainer's fix.
>
> Results with the patch posted at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69042
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #2)
> For iv use:
> use 0
> address
> in statement _9 = indexes[i_23];
>
> at position indexes[i_23]
> type const int *
> base (const int *) (&indexes + 4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69042
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Still need to check if aarch64 is affected by this register pressure issue. It
shouldn't because we don't support symbol in addressing mode and need to
compute it outside mem ref anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
The assertion started to fail with the merge of the C++ delayed folding branch.
r230365
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Can you please try narrowing down to a testcase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69249
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Note that the cast doesn't help in itself (but for the warning) as Jakub
notices.
The deeper issue is type-based aliasing here. IMHO libgfortran would need to
use
struct A { float *base_addr; size_t offse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68976
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
---
I'm somewhat surprised graphite regressions get a P4.
Discussions on the list suggested that graphite would be enabled by default in
the near future. Lowering graphite regression priority to 'not seri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69258
Bug ID: 69258
Summary: Flexible arrays break TBAA
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: alias, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69247
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Jan 13 11:59:29 2016
New Revision: 232318
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232318&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: PR69247: Fix bswap hi splitter.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-01-13 An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69258
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
extern void abort (void);
struct Xflex { int n; int a[1]; };
struct Xspecific { int n; int a[7]; } x;
int __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
foo (struct Xflex *f)
{
x.a[6] = 1;
f->a[6] = 2;
return x.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69259
Bug ID: 69259
Summary: std::experimental::filesystem::copy does not create
symlinks for directories
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||3.4.6
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69258
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Using
struct Xflex { int n; int a[]; };
doesn't fix it (as expected).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69013
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 13 12:15:01 2016
New Revision: 232320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69013
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69013
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69013
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 13 12:18:02 2016
New Revision: 232321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69013
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69238
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68759
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Weigand ---
FYI, two patches to fix this issue have just been committed to powerpc-next:
https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/2e50c4bef77511b42cc226865d
https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/a61674bdfc7c2bf909c4010699
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69236
--- Comment #2 from Thln47 ---
Hello,
I think too that is bug in the linker.
I've reported it here:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19460
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69247
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69259
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Richi -- why is this a P1? This is BZ essentially documents a design decision
to use some of the space in the line map to allow compact representation of
rich locations for diagnostics.
That design decisio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because the new number of lines before columns are lost are way too small for
lots of larger sources.
Having half as many lines or so before we trigger the column loss is IMHO
acceptable, hitting it 32 times
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69240
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69243
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, I don't consider 5 LOC "large" and thus I find it unreasonable to
regress in diagnostic quality here.
At some point I'd rather take the bullet of making location_t grow from 32bit
to 64bit (if tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Summary|[4.9 reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|m68k-*-*|
Priority|P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65985
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW, we're hitting the current limit ourselves (with gimple-match.c) when we
didn't before, and I've seen two reports from other codebases that are reaching
the current limit: PR 68819 (unknown C++ codebase)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69228
--- Comment #1 from afomin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: afomin
Date: Wed Jan 13 14:31:13 2016
New Revision: 232324
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232324&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
AVX512: Restrict default masks for prefetch gather/scatter
ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66786
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66794
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68759
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So at this point would this be considered a kernel and not a GCC issue? ie, is
there any reason not to consider this BZ resolved from the GCC point of view?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66858
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69260
Bug ID: 69260
Summary: C++14 template instantiation problem in GCC (up to
5.3)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66869
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69228
Alexander Fomin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68976
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
P4 priority for Graphite issues is consistent with prior releases. While I'm
extremely happy to see Sebastian and others addressing graphite issues again, I
can't see any path by which graphite is turned o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I've got some ideas I want to play with in this space. Nothing well formed
enough to write about yet though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68759
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67124
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66869
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Jason, thoughts on where to do this for C++?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67921
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69228
Alexander Fomin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #3 from Alexander F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67509
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68009
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67921
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> (In reply to bin.cheng from comment #7)
> > Hmm, this issue could be simply because chrec_fold_multiply doesn't use
> > sizetype as CHREC_RIGHT's type t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69245
--- Comment #6 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #5)
> The problem is we never end up setting TREE_TARGET_GLOBALS for fn2.
> From what I can gather that's TARGET_SET_CURRENT_FUNCTION's job (although
> the documen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69160
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This looks suspiciously like PR 68060. Dup?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68245
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69245
--- Comment #7 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
also it could be wrong to wait for arm_set_current_function when handling a
pragma GCC target because we could need the state in the global scope.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68733
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
*** Bug 68245 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
