https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70780
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70781
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70780
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70772
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It possibly does value profiling figuring out a common division/modulo value
and then making all other values unlikely (and thus cold).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70775
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70777
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70779
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70780
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70777
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70777
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70764
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Kyrylo,
> FAIL: tmp is -1, not 0
> FAIL: tmp2 is -1, not 0
> FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin
> -flto-partition=none execution test
Would you mind uploading this binar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70780
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so we now find (properly) that *d is loop invariant in while (b) but fail
to detect *d as possibly trapping. That is supposed to be prevented (in PRE)
by the loop exit but I messed up iteration and thus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
Michael Haubenwallner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.haubenwallner@ssi-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70771
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also like PR70775, this case failed the change allows single argument PHIs in
if-cvt now. It looks like there is something wrong when handling single
argument PHIs. Before the change, we simple re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70783
Bug ID: 70783
Summary: -spec option behavior is different to implicit spec
file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70784
Bug ID: 70784
Summary: Merge multiple short stores of immediates into wider
stores
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70784
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70784
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70784
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Also note that finding the heuristics when to use this (for -Os it is of course
clearer) is hard, if the pointer is sufficiently aligned or if the target is
strict alignment it is of course easier. And the R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70767
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70784
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Also note that finding the heuristics when to use this (for -Os it is of
> course clearer) is hard, if the pointer is sufficiently aligned or if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70784
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70780
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70780
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 25 10:49:55 2016
New Revision: 235407
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235407&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/70780
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70780
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 25 10:50:46 2016
New Revision: 235408
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235408&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/70780
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70771
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Had patch for this and PR70775, will send for review after testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70760
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
First DCE after IPA PTA does
@@ -18217,7 +9762,6 @@
MEM[(struct ParameterDescription
*)_5].D.481734.D.343802._vptr.ParameterDescriptionNode = &MEM[(void
*)&_ZTVN3edm20ParameterDescriptionIiEE + 16B];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70760
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Where _1(D) is
# PT =
struct __single_object & _1(D) = ;
This is in a function deemed local (a ISRA specialization) and thus it looks
like we think there are no callers.
There are indeed callers but t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70697
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70760
--- Comment #4 from David Abdurachmanov
---
I will test the second patch. Will take a few hours (it's millions of lines in
C++).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70454
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Apr 25 12:41:43 2016
New Revision: 235411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert the last change in libatomic
Need to properly check if -mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16358
--- Comment #11 from niva at niisi dot msk.ru ---
(in reply to Martin Sebor in comment #10)
Implementation of -Wmacro-redefined (with possibility of turning this warning
to error) would solve the problem of our users.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70760
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, david.abdurachmanov at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70760
>
> --- Comment #4 from David Abdurachmanov com> ---
> I will test the secon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't think M4 env var should make a difference in this case, in the release
tarballs the gengtype-lex.c file is already built (on x86_64-linux) and nothing
should be changing that.
That said, I've manage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70760
--- Comment #6 from David Abdurachmanov
---
Will do, results will be late today or tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70760
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
It looks to me we are using the wrong predicates but maybe the GIMPLE side is
somewhat disconnected here.
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Sorry about that. I'll have another look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70785
Bug ID: 70785
Summary: LTO bootstrap with IPA PTA is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70785
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70760
--- Comment #8 from David Abdurachmanov
---
Should I continue testing the 2nd patch, or dump whatever is currently built
and restart with the patch from your latest comment?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68030
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70786
Bug ID: 70786
Summary: Missing "not" breaks Ada.Text_IO.Get_Immediate(File,
Item, Available)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70787
Bug ID: 70787
Summary: No time and child info with -pg and gccgo
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68030
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70787
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
(I've also tried setting GMON_OUT_PREFIX so that the gmon.out file does not get
overwritten by different threads, but in either case only one dump file is
created.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70760
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, david.abdurachmanov at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70760
>
> --- Comment #8 from David Abdurachmanov com> ---
> Should I continue tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #46 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, my current thinking is that this is related to make -jN bootstrap doing
stage1 checking by default.
Guess with --enable-stage1-checking=release it would bootstrap fine, but
haven't verified that.
But, wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70712
--- Comment #5 from Roger Orr ---
Thank you.
I can confirm that the fix also resolves the original problem from which I
derived the sample program.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sun, 24 Apr 2016, lopresti at gmail dot com wrote:
> That said, this is clearly a real bug in GCC. memcpy has a well-defined
> interface; GCC emits calls violating that interface; theref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70788
Bug ID: 70788
Summary: LaTeX formulae in doxygen comments should be
suppressed in man-page output
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: docume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70788
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #47
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
--- Comment #16 from Patrick J. LoPresti ---
Well, Valgrind itself is another real-world example. Tools like Valgrind cannot
distinguish invalid memcpy() calls by the programmer from invalid memcpy()
calls emitted by GCC.
You can, of course, red
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
--- Comment #33 from Aurelien Jarno ---
(In reply to Hector Oron from comment #32)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #31)
> > eipa_sra introduces the remaining SSA name with non-default alignment via
>
> [PATCH]
>
For the record, Debi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67247
tower120 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
--- Comment #4 from tower120 ---
Reduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70789
Bug ID: 70789
Summary: cilk test fib-tplt.cc occasionally fails
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
Franc[e]sco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lolisamurai at waifu dot club
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #48 from David Edelsohn ---
Commenting out the fold_non_dependent_expr call seems to work for me using the
build method that regularly was failing before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #49 from David Edelsohn ---
Can we add some testcases to ensure that -fchecking and similar flags don't
accidentally affect code generation due to future changes?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
--- Comment #5 from PeteVine ---
The issue seems to be purely about soft division. (I was either using no -mcpu
or -mcpu=cortex-a5)
Compiling for e.g Cortex-A7, doesn't need to lower any library calls and even
though hardware division is not u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70790
Bug ID: 70790
Summary: Can't mangle noexcept expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
--- Comment #17 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2016-04-25 17:34, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> Or it could simply document an additional requirement on the C library
> used with GCC (that the case of exact overlap works), just as it d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70791
Bug ID: 70791
Summary: -Wnested-externs prints inconsistent column number
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
Bug ID: 70792
Summary: Incorrect sequence point warning with uniform
initializer syntax
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
--- Comment #1 from Jason Turner ---
Note: I tested this code further and the compiler seems to be generating
incorrect code based on this standard, not just warning incorrectly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70793
Bug ID: 70793
Summary: g++ does not accept some forms of "friend" declaration
for builtin types
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 25 22:28:36 2016
New Revision: 235423
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-04-25 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 25 22:29:49 2016
New Revision: 235424
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235424&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-04-25 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
--- Comment #2 from Jason Turner ---
Follow up, this is a better test case that does not pass by &&
struct MyType {
MyType(int i, int j, int k, int l)
: sum(i + j + k + l)
{
}
int sum;
};
int main()
{
int i = 0;
std::cout <<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70794
Bug ID: 70794
Summary: vector.push_back() crashes with std::bad_alloc after
2^32 calls
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70795
Bug ID: 70795
Summary: [7 Regression] gcc/libjava/interpret.cc:1948:1: ICE:
in binds_to_current_def_p, at symtab.c:2232
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66561
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796
Bug ID: 70796
Summary: [DR 1030] Initialization order with braced-init-lists
still broken
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #50 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 26 06:08:20 2016
New Revision: 235429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/70704
* pt.c (build_non_dependent_expr): Tem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #51 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 26 06:10:43 2016
New Revision: 235430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/70704
* configure.ac (--enable-stage1-checki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
83 matches
Mail list logo
