https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69603
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70188
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70199
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70219
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70219
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70219
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70218
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70204
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68722
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
Satish M changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||satishbmsce at gmail dot com
--- Comment #72
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68475
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70171
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #7)
> Is this a dup of PR 56365? Sounds like so ...
No, not really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68724
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68728
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70221
Bug ID: 70221
Summary: graph dump flag used for constraint graph in points-to
analysis
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
fr=/export/users/vlivinsk/gcc-trunk/mpfr-3.1.3/bin
--with-mpc=/export/users/vlivinsk/gcc-trunk/mpc-1.0.3/bin
--prefix=/export/users/vlivinsk/gcc-trunk/bin
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160314 (experimental) (Revision=234175)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70221
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68728
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70045
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Mar 14 09:19:14 2016
New Revision: 234177
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234177&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Unshare create_empty_if_region_on_edge argument
2016-03-14 Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70045
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45076
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Mar 14 09:21:32 2016
New Revision: 234178
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234178&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-13 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/4507
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70178
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There is no 'restrict' keyword in ISO C++ and no equivalent language feature.
I think it would be OK to use __restrict__ on the _M_dataplus._M_p member.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45076
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69951
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Seems I typoed the PR reference in the commit:
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 26 08:34:58 2016
New Revision: 233734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233734&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-26 Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #73 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Satish M from comment #72)
> This bug still exists in GCC 4.8.2 ARM. It can reproduced by adding one more
> argument in 'doStreamReadBlock' function in test case.
>
> /x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69951
--- Comment #7 from Chengnian Sun ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Seems I typoed the PR reference in the commit:
>
> Author: rguenth
> Date: Fri Feb 26 08:34:58 2016
> New Revision: 233734
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67451
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52673
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> So is the plan to uglify all
> find libstdc++-v3/include -type f | xargs grep '[^a-zA-Z_]\(min\|max\)(' |
> wc -l
> 461
> with ()s around min/max or whatever id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |7.0
Summary|[6 Regression] de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62281
--- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Mar 14 09:56:47 2016
New Revision: 234179
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234179&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Only assume 4-byte stack alignment on Solaris/x86 (PR target/62281)
B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38979
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62281
--- Comment #16 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Mar 14 10:03:12 2016
New Revision: 234180
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234180&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Only assume 4-byte stack alignment on Solaris/x86 (PR target/62281)
B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60107
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Mar 14 10:03:12 2016
New Revision: 234180
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234180&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Only assume 4-byte stack alignment on Solaris/x86 (PR target/62281)
Ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62281
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70223
Bug ID: 70223
Summary: [ARM] Optimization level -O2 results in wrong code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70193
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70189
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
Bug ID: 70224
Summary: [6 regression] ICE: RTL flag check: CROSSING_JUMP_P
used with unexpected rtx code 'insn' in
relax_delay_slots, at reorg.c:3310
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you Jakub for the reduced test-case.
As I've read the source code, current_vtt_parm is
properly defined in start_preparsed_function function.
vtt_parm definition:
/* In a base member initializer, we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70201
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70201
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What do you plan to implement? It would be better to produce output compatible
with Templight (http://plc.inf.elte.hu/templight/) rather than a GCC-specific
dump.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Ok, so let me fix this for GCC 7.
Thanks :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70223
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
The ARM port does not use frame pointers unless specified on the command line
or an actual need in the program (read alloca).
With 4.8.5 I get with the command line options suggested *and*
-fno-omit-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69799
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||afanfa at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
But how about that?
diff -up gcc/cp/cp-ubsan.c.jj gcc/cp/cp-ubsan.c
--- gcc/cp/cp-ubsan.c.jj2016-03-04 23:10:49.0 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/cp-ubsan.c 2016-03-14 12:09:38.730344495 +0100
@@ -283,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Michel Normand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||normand at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68732
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70209
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70209
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
So the testcase seem to be incomplete.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70209
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> So the testcase seem to be incomplete.
Sure. It needs an additional "};".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70201
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Gutson
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> What do you plan to implement? It would be better to produce output
> compatible with Templight (http://plc.inf.elte.hu/templight/) rather than a
> GCC-specif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68232
--- Comment #8 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #6)
> (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #5)
> > "Fixed" with the testsuite skips. Feel free to add any other target triplets
> > for which this test is unrelia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70201
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69799
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-03-14, at 7:17 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>> Needs to link against -latomic.
>
>
> Why? Apparently it does not need it on x86_64-apple-darwin15.
x86_64 has atomic support fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56440
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53478
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kapojko at yandex dot ru
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, the bug is apparently in simplify_shift_const_1 (code=LSHIFTRT,
result_mode=SImode, varop=0x7184de70, orig_count=31)
where varop is:
(subreg:SI (lshiftrt:DI (const_int -1 [0x])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38239
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 37955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37955&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38239
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37956
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37956&action=edit
gcc6-pr70222.patch
This untested patch works. Though, if that is the right way to go, I'd
bootstrap/regtest it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69799
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Could you please test the following patch
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_allocate_3.f08 2016-02-03
19:58:35.0 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_allocate_3.f0820
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55152
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59424
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wink Saville from comment #2)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> > (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #0)
> > > I have identified one possible problem and with this scheme, what if the
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66580
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x64-mingw
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wink Saville from comment #0)
> I'm using the new C interrupt attribute for x86 and its working well. But
> when I expanded its use to include handling thread context switches, I found
> that its curre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66643
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 37610 [details]
> A preliminary patch
>
> Attached patch gives a diagnostic. Interestingly I found three test cases
> in the test suite that use the invalid construct.
Works as ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68894
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
This is a missed code hoisting opportunity again.
_6 = a1[i_24];
_7 = a2[i_24];
if (_6 < _7)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
_8 = a3[i_24];
_22 = MIN_EXPR <_6, _8>;
goto ;
:
_9 = a3[i_24]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70198
--- Comment #7 from scott.b.dorsey at nasa dot gov ---
Oh, that is lovely. Many many thanks.
This code is from the "Numerical Recipes in Fortran" book and has been used
around here as a standard
test for the past 40 years without anyone noticing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Volker Reichelt from comment #8)
> This is a regression that was introduced between the 20160228 snapshot and
> the 20160306 snapshot.
Yeah, it was introduced by Jakub's patch:
commit e968ff6d2e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69799
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-03-14 9:19 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> Could you please test the following patch
Actually, I already have but "hppa-*-*" should be
"libatomic_available". There are one
or two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Mar 14 14:18:44 2016
New Revision: 234181
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234181&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Handle "d" output in the bd*z patterns (PR70098)
In the rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24801
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 24801, which changed state.
Bug 24801 Summary: -d option changes debug information
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24801
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70219
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 37953 [details]
> gcc6-pr70219.patch
>
> Untested fix. The code had assertion dregno > 0, but I don't see anything
> special on register 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 14 14:50:40 2016
New Revision: 234183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/56365
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70225
Bug ID: 70225
Summary: ICE at tree.c:10783
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
So, "simplest" patch:
Index: gcc/builtins.c
===
--- gcc/builtins.c (revision 234180)
+++ gcc/builtins.c (working copy)
@@ -7529,6 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70083
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Mon Mar 14 15:08:54 2016
New Revision: 234184
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234184&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
LRA: identify biggest access mode for hard_regs and use it in split_reg
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
