https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 5 17:01:52 2016
New Revision: 234755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/70509
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_bin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70551
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Your interpretation would mean that whether a compiler performs copy elision
would change whether a program is well-formed or not (rather than only changing
whether any side effects of the constructor call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 5 17:05:23 2016
New Revision: 234756
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234756&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70542
* ree.c (add_removable_extension
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70503
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Fixed on trunk so far.
The testcase probably needs some special handling due to -static, it fails on
Fedora 23 with:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /ssd/uros/gcc-build/./
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70513
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
All right, I've got it now: we need to catch the extra qualification, similarly
as in
struct T
{
struct U;
struct T::U {};
};
I've got a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
Bug ID: 70552
Summary: __builtin_constant_p fails to reflect the constness of
constexpr calls
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka ---
gcc 5 shows:
Execution times (seconds)
phase setup : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
1311 kB ( 0%) ggc
phase parsing : 2.10 (100%) usr 0.28 (100%) sys 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70503
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That should be fixed at r234757
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70553
Bug ID: 70553
Summary: pr70496.c should exclude Thumb only targets
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70554
Bug ID: 70554
Summary: [6 Regression] _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS changed value
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70554
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70554
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 5 18:03:55 2016
New Revision: 234758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234758&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70510
* config/i386/sse.md (iptr): Add V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70551
--- Comment #2 from Roland B ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Your interpretation would mean that whether a compiler performs copy elision
> would change whether a program is well-formed or not (rather than only
> changing whet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70475
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 5 18:48:26 2016
New Revision: 234760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70510
* config/i386/sse.md (iptr): Add V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70554
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 5 19:03:46 2016
New Revision: 234761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Restore atomic builtins usage in libstdc++-v3
PR libstdc++/70554
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70554
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
In this case, the code was deliberately written this way, presumably to avoid
the branching in &&. Using & would be better (and that's what I am suggesting
we optimize it to), but * doesn't seem nonsensical to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I think the change is r233671. I certainly
agree that it's useful to be able to step through constexpr functions in
non-constexpr contexts. In the test case below, however
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
As an aside, Clang does evaluate both __builtin_constant_p(foo()) expressions
in the test case consistently to 1, and like GCC, also without emitting code
for foo(). Also like GCC, it emits a definition of fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
--- Comment #5 from softadmin.lesia at obspm dot fr ---
finally i can use gcc 4.9
thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66223
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Apr 5 20:58:56 2016
New Revision: 234762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/66223
* ipa-devirt.c (maybe_record_node): Fix com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 5 21:33:37 2016
New Revision: 234764
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234764&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70336
* match.pd (nested int casts): Limit to GIMP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 regression] Incorrect |[5 regression] Incorrect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65173
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70555
Bug ID: 70555
Summary: ICE in expand_expr_real_1 accessing a
multi-dimensional VLA via lambda-capture
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70555
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70555
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Actually, I did find where N3366
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3639.html) disallows
the test case in vla7.C:
Change in 8.3.4 dcl.array paragraph 1 ...:
In a declaration T D wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8757
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69733
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8960
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |
Last reconfirmed|2008-12-06 09:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14379
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |
Last reconfirmed|2012-01-22 00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45683
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46002
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70556
Bug ID: 70556
Summary: ICE in cxx_eval_vec_init_1 on a ill-formed lambda
capture of a VLA in a template
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70018
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 38195
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38195&action=edit
Patch I am testing
This patch handles const->pure transition for all functions detected const that
are not neces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70556
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70557
Bug ID: 70557
Summary: uint64_t zeroing on 32-bit hardware
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #20 from Julien Margetts ---
It is the gcc_assert (REG_P (operands[0])); in arm_reload_in_hi which fires,
which as far as I can see is still in trunk today.
At this point rtx operands[0] looks like this:
08 2d c2 7a 53 2b 00 00
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70512
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Apr 5 23:47:21 2016
New Revision: 234768
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234768&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70512
* class.c (fixup_may_alias): New.
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70512
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69617
Scott wood changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scottwood at freescale dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70557
--- Comment #1 from Albert Cahalan ---
For the 32-bit i386, gcc 4.8.4 doesn't zero a pair of registers. I doubt gcc is
doing the best for -Os regarding addressing, but at least the i386 is getting
better code than the m68k coldfire.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
Turns out that a single line of code is responsible for the 50MB increase in
memory usage relative to 4.9, and that's the call to unshare_expr in
cxx_eval_call_expression:
/* Associate the binding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70558
Bug ID: 70558
Summary: POD datatype array crash in initialization when using
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69617
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
Yes, sorry, I meant the load with reservation and store conditional
instructions.
101 - 152 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
