https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I think this will require moving out the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Roman Zhuykov from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > insufficient SMS testsuite coverage.
> Not sure it's helpful, but 3 weeks ago I succesfully reg-strapped some bunc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69117
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 15 08:16:08 2016
New Revision: 232401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69117
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69117
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #7 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69275
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> The vect generic issue is really gimple_buildN should be using
> STRIP_USELESS_TYPE_CONVERSION rather than STRIP_NOPS.
? vect generic doesn't use gimple_build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #36 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Fri Jan 15 08:46:49 2016
New Revision: 232403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc
2015-01-16 Christian Bruel
PR target/65837
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69283
--- Comment #1 from gccbugs at astrant dot net ---
I think this may be a duplicate of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67835.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69292
Bug ID: 69292
Summary: ICE with -floop-nest-optimize
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767
--- Comment #11 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Of course, the question is if the warning isn't really desirable, the user
> should really just choose some non-NULL magic value to pass in the
> impo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > Of course, the question is if the warning isn't really desirable, the user
> > should really just cho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69292
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with|[graphite] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69292
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37351
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37351&action=edit
pr39516.c.137t.graphite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69292
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
After isl code generation, the first BB is bb 28:
...
:
if (1 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
:
_48 = _8 > 0;
if (_48 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
...
The ICE during update
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69110
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|68976 |
--- Comment #16 from vries at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69110
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #15)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg00801.html:
> ...
> > During testing however, I ran into two testsuite regressions:
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > -PASS:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 37352
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37352&action=edit
patch
Patch I am testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
--- Comment #4 from Paul le roux ---
I compiled gcc/g++ from svn and the slowdown is still present without the
--profile-generate flag. (But both are faster than what they were :D )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68148
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Jan 15 11:00:24 2016
New Revision: 232410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232410&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/68148
* ipa-icf.c (sem_function::merge): Virtual f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12672
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
EDG rejects the reduced examples in comments 3 and 4 (the original testcase
doesn't compile any more for other reasons due to the preprocessed library
headers).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12672
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-04-16 16:42:54 |2016-1-15
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69228
--- Comment #4 from afomin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: afomin
Date: Fri Jan 15 11:03:24 2016
New Revision: 232412
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232412&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-01-13 Alexander Fomin
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68148
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12672
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems to be:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1635
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#2008 might be
related, and seems to agree with GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69271
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12672
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ivan Godard from comment #0)
> The problem seems to be that the compiler is not first pruning all
> candidates with the wrong number of formals before doing type matching.
Which is correct. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
--- Comment #27 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Certainly adding TARGET_MACHO is Ok by me.
I don't think this is the problem. I have reapplied the patch in comment 12 for
config/i386/darwin.h and
--- ../_clean/gcc/config/i386/i386.c2016-01-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69271
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
The optimization was intentional - dropping the weak bit makes GCC to optimize
the references to symbol better (knowing it won't be NULL because the
definition
is provided). I wonder how this break glibc. What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 15 11:49:43 2016
New Revision: 232415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68961
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69170
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Fails in GIMPLE verification because
vect_cst__127 = {_172, _162};
references the released SSA name _172 after BB vectorization.
Not a dup of PR66856.
It looks like we end up building a SLP node from sca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66797
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems HPPA only supports small int in addressing mode "REG+OFFSET" of floating
mode load/store. In effect, we can only group every two address iv uses,
resulting in 20 iv uses. Even with this rest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68586
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69271
--- Comment #5 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
copy pasting from
http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/01/13/2
(this is musl libc, but glibc has the same issue)
lto breaks symbol binding for environ, _environ, ___environ.
(they should be weak,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56194
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Jan 15 12:53:00 2016
New Revision: 232422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: const9.C: Disable test.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
PR c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68586
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
GCC6 uses a cache for evaluated constant expressions:
4019 tree
4020 maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl)
4021 {
4022 tree ret = cv_cache.get (t);
The CONST_DECL x is in the cache, associated with 1 o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69293
Bug ID: 69293
Summary: scoped_allocator_adaptor::construct calls wrong
function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69291
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Markus T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69294
Bug ID: 69294
Summary: [6 Regression] std::isinf and std::isnan declaration
conflict
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69294
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69295
Bug ID: 69295
Summary: [6 Regression] New special math function failures
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69295
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-ibm-aix*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69294
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68976
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
More reduced testcase:
typedef struct
{
char bits;
short val;
} code;
union uu
{
short us;
char b[2];
};
int a, b, c, f, g, h;
code *d;
code e;
int
fn1 ()
{
char i;
do
if (e.b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69295
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69296
Bug ID: 69296
Summary: Problem with associate and vector subscript
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69296
--- Comment #1 from mrestelli ---
I should also mention that this happens for me with
GNU Fortran (GCC) 6.0.0 20160112 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68446
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Hi David.
Removal of lazy initialization:
diff --git a/gcc/opts.c b/gcc/opts.c
index 2add158..cc96150 100644
--- a/gcc/opts.c
+++ b/gcc/opts.c
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ init_opts_obstack (void)
{
static bool op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69293
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68976
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37353
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37353&action=edit
pdfs.tgz
For the record:
1-pre.pdf
Before scop detection
2-scops.pdf
After scop detection
3-cond.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68976
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37354
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37354&action=edit
test.c.137t.graphite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69297
Bug ID: 69297
Summary: [6 Regression] Performance regression after r230020
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69298
Bug ID: 69298
Summary: Array finalisers seem to be given the wrong array when
the array is a member variable.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69299
Bug ID: 69299
Summary: [6 Regression] -mavx performance degradation with
r232088
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69299
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69297
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 37356
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37356&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
TO reproduce compile with -Ofast -march=core-avx2 options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
--- Comment #13 from Matthias Klose ---
yes, this works, and I don't see any regressions in the testsuite compared to
non pgo/lto build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69271
--- Comment #6 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
to complete the example here is a test application:
#include
#include
extern char **environ;
int main()
{
printf("&environ: %p, environ: %p, *environ: %p\n", &environ, environ,
*environ);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69245
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69293
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Actually I think this is a defect in the standard, it is inconsistent to check
is_constructible but then pass inner_allocator_type&.
Consider this type:
struct use_arg {
using allocator_type = std::allo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69246
--- Comment #11 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Jan 15 14:41:10 2016
New Revision: 232428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 69246: Invalid REG_ARGS_SIZE for sibcalls
The probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69246
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68976
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #9)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg01067.html
Hmm. The patch does not address the dup PR68692, and introduces a new ICE for
that test-case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69299
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||68991
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
With
d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69299
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
The related LRA code is
case CT_MEMORY:
if (MEM_P (op)
&& satisfies_memory_constraint_p (op, cn))
win = true;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55776
Sergey Semushin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Predelnik at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69299
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe we really need to have two types of memory
constraints, ones which can be worst case always satisfied by reloading
their address into an address register and another ones which can be worst
case always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67515
Yury V. Zaytsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yury.zaytsev@traveltainment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69245
--- Comment #13 from James Greenhalgh ---
This is a similar case I reduced from the Ubuntu rebuild failures, hitting the
"max" idiom recognition:
---
#pragma GCC push_options
#pragma GCC target("fpu=crypto-neon-fp-armv8")
static void
foo (void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69293
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to ForEveR from comment #0)
> In code, is_constructible::value is false,
> since use_arg receives Alloc by reference, but there is no test for this
> case in libstdc++.
There doesn't need to be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 15 15:37:38 2016
New Revision: 232434
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232434&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-15 Richard Biener
PR debug/69137
* dwarf2ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68271
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69299
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66856
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 15 15:43:48 2016
New Revision: 232435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66856
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69257
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 15 15:57:07 2016
New Revision: 232436
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69257
* typeck.c (decay_conversion): Don't call mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68847
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 15 15:57:17 2016
New Revision: 232438
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232438&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68847
* call.c (build_cxx_call): Use fold_non_depen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66797
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
HPPA 1.0 and 1.1 only support a 5 bit offset in REG+D addressing modes for
floating point loads/stores. So, yes, it's quite limited.
For HPPA 2.0 and beyond a 14 bit offset is supported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68609
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Fri Jan 15 16:38:08 2016
New Revision: 232439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232439&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68609
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_emit_msub)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69091
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68385
--- Comment #8 from Andre Vieira ---
It did fix it for me, sorry for the late reply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> a) bootstrap/regtest it
The patch passes all C, C++, and FORTRAN tests with no regressions WRT
baxeline.
I'll look at (b) next.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68955
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, we have before DSE2:
...
(insn 525 192 458 12 (set (reg:SI 1 dx [orig:247 ivtmp.44 ] [247])
(mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 6 bp)
(const_int -76 [0xffb4])) [4 %sfp+-52 S4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63577
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68661
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68661
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68586
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69300
Bug ID: 69300
Summary: g++ segfault on silly noexcept case
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69271
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68820
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
> this does not reproduce for me at PPC nor x86-64. Are there any compilation
> farm machines that reproduce it?
-fno-use-linker-plugin is needed.
Following will trig
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
