https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So this is definitely related to the FSM threader not being able to share a
single jump threading path. Here's an example:
j.c.110t.dom2: Registering FSM jump thread: (23, 25) incoming edge; (25, 28)
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70361
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson ---
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg01255.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65290
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The dup PR 65290 pointed out the requirements were changed by
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#206 -- we still implement the
C++03 rules.
We should fix this. However, the C++11 requirement m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems this test is the only one in gcc.target/i386 that has
dg-require-effective-target above dg-do.
Can you please try:
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c 2016-01-28
22:02:17.029
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
Bug ID: 70362
Summary: Segmentation fault compiling scalar-by-value-4_x.c for
ARM arch < 4
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Created attachment 38061
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38061&action=edit
q2.c.290r.final
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-03-21 4:45 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
>
> --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Unfortunately I can reproduce neither
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70355
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So for thread paths noted in c#15 we have the following pieces of data
1. 69 statements to copy
2. 7 blocks to copy
3. Threads through latch, but does not create an irreducible loop
4. Eliminates a simp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70302
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Mar 22 19:00:14 2016
New Revision: 234406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234406&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-22 Ilya Enkovich
PR target/70302
* config/i386/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70302
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70302
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70355
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70363
Bug ID: 70363
Summary: PowerPC __float128 to long double doesn't link if
built with an assember without ISA 3.0 support
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
--- Comment #3 from Andriy Lysnevych ---
static_assert is not required. This code also crashes:
#include
constexpr int ce(int r) {
assert(r == 3);
return r;
}
const auto c = ce(3);
Problem is in assert called from constexpr function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70363
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
But we want to avoid the #include .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70364
Bug ID: 70364
Summary: gcc.target/i386/cleanup-[12].c don't align stack
properly
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70363
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 38063
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38063&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Blo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|static_assert + assert +|[5/6 regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70332
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70365
Bug ID: 70365
Summary: warn_unused_result doesn't warn when the result is a
class with a destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70365
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpetri at izotope dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68469
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect it is really a dup of bug 66177.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70363
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Mar 22 21:05:43 2016
New Revision: 234408
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234408&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-22 Michael Meissner
PR libgcc/70363
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Mar 22 21:32:34 2016
New Revision: 234409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234409&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70232
tree-ssa-threadbackward.c
(fsm_fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #19 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #17)
> I had a go at cross compiling Linux kernel for sh, and got something similar
> with gcc 5.1.1 dated 20150618
With recent gcc trunk on x86_64, I get
$ ~/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc
te.^M
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.^M
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.^M
compiler exited with status 1
apinski@arm64:~/src/ilp32/gcc/objdir-ilp32/gcc$ ./xgcc --version
xgcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20160322 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Fou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|[5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69846
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In C++11 dummy is a POD, and passing non-PODs through varargs is
conditionally-supported anyway (and G++ supports it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I haven't had time to debug it beyond observing in the debugger that
remap_decls() defined in tree-inline.c calls add_local_decl() with the first
argument of null. The argument is cfun (function*).
Both __fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin ---
Comment #1 was incorrect about the problem starting in r233398. It was my
bswap pattern addition in r233414 that introduced the problem. On the other
hand, I looked at the bswapdi operation in gdb and i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
--- Comment #3 from psturm at computervoice dot com ---
Created attachment 38064
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38064&action=edit
-default-pie -enable-vtv
I understand the test suite cannot contemplate every single combinati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to psturm from comment #3)
> I understand the test suite cannot contemplate every single combination of
> configure options. However, I would suggest that certain combinations might
> be more comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Problem ultimately seems to be that we're calling cp_fold_function on fn()
before we call cp_genericize on it which is responsible for fixing up fn()'s
parameter 'v' which is passed by invisible reference. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69414
--- Comment #2 from Daichi Fukuoka ---
Hi,
I confirmed that the patch had been applied into gomp-4_0-branch.
Thank you very much for fixing the issue.
Regards,
Daichi Fukuoka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70366
Bug ID: 70366
Summary: chromium fails to build with LTO due to segfault in
ipa-inline-transform.c:inline_call
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70366
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42046
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missed optimization |missed optimization
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #19)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #17)
> > I had a go at cross compiling Linux kernel for sh, and got something similar
> > with gcc 5.1.1 dated 20150618
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42046
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(a?b|1:b&~1) could also be turned into (b&~1)+(a!=0) or (b|1)-(a==0) (or with ^
instead of +-, or | instead of +, etc) but it is quite possible that none of
those are a win.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2015-02-09 00:00
101 - 152 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
