https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
--- Comment #5 from Qirun Zhang ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Qirun Zhang from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > > This invalid VCE is created by SRA. The code has multiple undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69667
Bug ID: 69667
Summary: [6 Regression] ppc64le -mlra: ICE: Max. number of
generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69668
Bug ID: 69668
Summary: Error reading namelist opened with DELIM='NONE'
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
--- Comment #13 from Alan Modra ---
Note that testcases with smaller atomic ops fail too, but at runtime. For
example:
struct foo { char pad; char x[4]; } a;
int
bar (int val)
{
int ret;
__atomic_exchange (&a.x, &val, &ret, 5);
return r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69657
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:02:01 2016
New Revision: 233128
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233128&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69454
* config/i386/i386.c (convert_scalars_to_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69648
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> (In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #5)
> > Yeah, my current theory is that r87 is spilled at the start, then the spill
> > reg is inherited in all the existing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69607
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #3)
> Tested -flto-partition=.
>
> fails:
> - balanced
> - 1to1
>
> passes:
> - max
> - none
> - one
Same with -fno-use-linker-plugin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69648
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69648
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #13 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:50:12 2016
New Revision: 233130
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233130&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/65932: stop changing signedness in PROMOT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #25 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:50:12 2016
New Revision: 233130
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233130&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/65932: stop changing signedness in PROMOT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #14 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:51:35 2016
New Revision: 233131
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233131&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][1/4] PR target/65932: Add testcase
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #26 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:51:35 2016
New Revision: 233131
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233131&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][1/4] PR target/65932: Add testcase
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #27 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:54:37 2016
New Revision: 233132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][2/4] Fix operand costing logic for SMUL[TB][TB]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #15 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:54:37 2016
New Revision: 233132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][2/4] Fix operand costing logic for SMUL[TB][TB]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #16 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:56:13 2016
New Revision: 233133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[cse][3/4] Don't overwrite original rtx when folding sour
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #28 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:56:13 2016
New Revision: 233133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[cse][3/4] Don't overwrite original rtx when folding sour
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #29 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:57:36 2016
New Revision: 233134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][4/4] Adjust gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123].c tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #17 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:57:36 2016
New Revision: 233134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][4/4] Adjust gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123].c tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #30 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed for GCC 6.
I've asked for a backport to GCC 5 and if approved I'll do it after it had a
bit of time to bake on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems get_ref_base_and_extent already has code for some cases of the flexible
array members, but it has apparently some dead code in it that wasn't really
meant to be dead (hint, this check is after a while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> But I guess even this doesn't help, while it will help poor man's flexible
> array members in C/C++, in this Fortran case the problem is that there is
> COMMON /FMCOM/ X(1)
> in this TU, while
> COM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note the dead code is there since r204391. Perhaps we need goto done; vs. goto
done2;, so that for MEM_REF/TARGET_MEM_REF we bypass this check?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #14)
> > But I guess even this doesn't help, while it will help poor man's flexible
> > array members in C/C++, in this Fortran case the problem is that there i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69423
--- Comment #8 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I recognize most of the code your patch strips, because I initially
wrote/modified it to get the deferred length character arrays working. I am
somewhat unconvinced that removing them is safe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #14)
> > > But I guess even this doesn't help, while it will help poor man's flexible
> > > array members in C/C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> Seems get_ref_base_and_extent already has code for some cases of the
> flexible array members, but it has apparently some dead code in it that
> wasn't really
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69146
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69646
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69276
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Feb 4 11:50:40 2016
New Revision: 233137
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233137&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR sanitizer/69276
* g++.dg/asan/pr69276.C: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
Component|tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69639
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69654
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69648
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69276
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69653
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69669
Bug ID: 69669
Summary: ICE with enum __attribute__((mode(QI)))
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69664
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69639
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69661
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69667
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69659
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Yeah,
> (insn 12 11 13 (set (reg:DI 85)
> (lshiftrt:DI (subreg:DI (reg/v:OI 79 [ v32u128_1 ]) 0)
> (const_int 1 [0x1]))) pr69613-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> > # Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
> > 4.48% cc1plus cc1plus[.] bitmap_set_bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62536
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
I am currently testing the following patch to eventually mitigate the issue
somewhat by forcing all "registers" to have non-qualified type (their
qualification does not matter nor does their alignment). Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 37577
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37577&action=edit
-ftime-report -c -fsanitize=undefined -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 37578
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37578&action=edit
-ftime-report -c -O2 gen_emitter_test.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> I am currently testing the following patch to eventually mitigate the issue
> somewhat by forcing all "registers" to have non-qualified type (their
> qualific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69146
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69668
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69651
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #24 from David Edelsohn ---
The most recent patch did not cause bootstrap failure for AIX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69636
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69658
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On this testcase, we used to call reshape_init already before, it is called
from
else
{
init = reshape_init (type, init, tf_warning_or_error);
flags |= LOOKUP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69589
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
The problematic symbol:
(gdb) p node->debug()
_ZN2JS3ubi20PreComputedEdgeRangeD2Ev/73127 (__base_dtor ) @0x75666e60
Type: function definition analyzed
Visibility: prevailing_def_ironly artificial
Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69658
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Just a shot in the dark:
--- gcc/cp/init.c.jj2016-01-29 12:12:46.0 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/init.c 2016-02-04 14:49:15.383997315 +0100
@@ -1636,16 +1636,15 @@ expand_default_init (tree binfo, tree t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69644
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 4 13:58:21 2016
New Revision: 233138
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233138&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-03 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69644
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 4 13:59:27 2016
New Revision: 233139
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233139&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2016-02-03 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
>From correspondence with Uli Weigand, it appears that the code is valid even
with misaligned data, but a locking implementation is needed. I haven't
checked whether other targets succeed here; that would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69670
Bug ID: 69670
Summary: Useless -Wenum-compare when comparing parallel enums
in static_assert
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
Bug ID: 69671
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/avx512vl-vpmovqb-1.c
scan-assembler-times vpmovqb[
\\t]+[^{\n]*%ymm[0-9]+[^\n]*%xmm[0-9]+{%k[1-7]}{z}(?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
More or less the same, there can be differences though.
Anyway, sanopt pass indeed will add huge amount of basic blocks (for every
thing that needs to be sanitized some condition check, and conditional call);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Andreas, if this is complete, please move to RESOLVED/FIXED state. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69648
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Schmidt ---
A slightly hackish attempt to solve it, by not removing stores to the PIC
register. As far as I can tell we now end up with an unnecessary store to
memory, which is better than an uninitialized load I guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking at the RTL dumps before the patch in cse1 we had:
(insn 27 26 28 2 (set (reg:V16QI 138)
(const_vector:V16QI [
(const_int 0 [0])
(const_int 0 [0])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Using unoptimized checking compilers, I get the same compile time for -O2
-fsanitize=undefined for the 5 branchpoint and current trunk, so where is the
regression part?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69672
--- Comment #1 from wipedout at yandex dot ru ---
"distinct warnings" should be "distinct enums"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69672
Bug ID: 69672
Summary: Useless -Wenum-compare when comparing enum vaue
against the same value in enum hack
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
grep call.*__ubsan_ gen_emitter_test.s | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
63814 call__ubsan_handle_type_mismatch
49332 call__ubsan_handle_dynamic_type_cache_miss
637 call_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The code compiles with 4.8.5, 4.9.3, 5.2.0, and to trunk (6.0), but not
> with 4.8.2 or 4.9.0. The change occurred between revisions r215860
> (2014-10-03, error) and r216098 (2014-10-10, compiles).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
CC'ing Kirill for AVX512 opinion
void baz()
{
A a;
auto l = [&a.i]() { };
}
---8<---8<---8<---
Only bar() compiles, the other two functions fail :
g++-5.3.1 -std=c++11 20160204-lambda.cpp
error: expected ‘,’ before ‘.’ token
auto l = [&a.i]() { };
^
Every gcc version I tried fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
So somewhat oldish trunk shows 30s -> 170s for me. Nothing obvious in
-ftime-report.
Generated assembly is 82MB vs. 16MB so we're shoveling a lot more code through
the machinery and that's what we'd need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Does clang++ even have objsize instrumentation? Do we ever optimize those
calls?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69652
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Jacub,
Thanks a lot for your detail comments!
I've just sent a patch for review to gcc-patches. Could you please
take a look on it?
Best regards.
Yuri.
2016-02-03 20:22 GMT+03:00 jakub at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's the --param max-dse-active-local-stores stuff, but the default value is
apparently not well suited to this testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69656
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Hmm, today's clang takes over 11 minutes to compile the testcase with
-fsanitize=undefined.
The instrumented spots are fewer however:
28856 callq __ubsan_handle_type_mismatch
22770
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69423
--- Comment #9 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37579
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37579&action=edit
Clear explicit function result variables for deferred length char arrays
Well, using the explicit res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #20 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, hang on. In unport.fppized.f, shouldn't we be using the 'F2C/GCC COMPILER
ON PC RUNNING UNIX (LINUX,BSD386,ETC)' version? In which case X has size (1)
everywhere?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577
--- Comment #11 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Feb 4 15:01:15 2016
New Revision: 233143
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233143&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 69577: Invalid RA of destination subregs
In PR 6957
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69589
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
The node is added to reachable set in symbol_table::remove_unreachable_nodes
because of following condition is true:
/* If any symbol in a comdat group is reachable, force
all externall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
>
> --- Comment #20 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Hmmm, hang on. In unport.fp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69042
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If I add back the candidate, ivopt can fix attached case, but it still can't
handle a slightly tuned case as below:
extern const int indexes[];
int bar (int code);
int
foo (short *data)
{
regis
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
