https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78073
lucdanton at free dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucdanton at free dot fr
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43515
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77982
--- Comment #11 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 39882
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39882&action=edit
Untested fix
Untested fix (works for me with attached testcase).
To sum up:
1) dlopen grabs a __GI___pthre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78105
--- Comment #7 from PeteVine ---
Restarted the whole thing from scratch using gcc 5.4 and it segfaulted again.
../../../libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function ‘__powitf2’:
../../../libgcc/libgcc2.c:1851:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
Bug ID: 78111
Summary: [7 regression]
experimental/filesystem/operations/canonical.cc FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
Bug ID: 78112
Summary: [7 regression] invalid DWARF generated by the
compiler: DIE has multiple AT_inline attributes
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78110
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
without --with-newlib the build fails miserably...
this works for me:
--- libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc.orig 2016-09-16 20:09:14.0
+0200
+++ libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc 2016-10-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78000
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Try http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02062.html ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71676
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Oct 26 09:46:44 2016
New Revision: 241547
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241547&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gen-pass-instances.awk is sensitive to the order in which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71678
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Oct 26 09:46:44 2016
New Revision: 241547
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241547&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gen-pass-instances.awk is sensitive to the order in which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77965
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78105
--- Comment #8 from PeteVine ---
FWIW, here's the corresponding backtrace:
#0 0x00afa00c in df_get_live_out () at ../../gcc/df.h:1159
#1 update_ebb_live_info (tail=, head=0x137b838
) at ../../gcc/lra-constraints.c:5612
#2 lra_inherita
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77750
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71602
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77750
--- Comment #5 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
It's still there. I'm maintaining these changes to my debug tree:
--- gcc/combine.c (revision 241547)
+++ gcc/combine.c (working copy)
@@ -11371,6 +11371,8 @@ simplify_compare_const (enum rt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77750
--- Comment #6 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
It's still there. I'm maintaining the attached changes to my debug tree.
(I'm not sure my last message got through.)
Louis
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 03:01:42 -0700
Louis Krupp wrote
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71602
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Created attachment 39884 [details]
> Configure patch to correctly detect realpath
>
> You will need at least the attached patch that includes for
> PATH_MAX.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78086
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63746
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'll take a look, but please send patches to the mailing lists, not bugzilla.
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78108
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78086
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 39886
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39886&action=edit
Untested patch
May I please ask you for testing the patch on your hppa64 machine?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 39887
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39887&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 39888
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39888&action=edit
split4 dump (right before sched2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78110
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> oh, I am using eCos and that is based on newlib but on a very very old one.
> I don't know what happens when I dont use --with-newlib, but I can try...
>
> co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
[...]
> You will need at least the attached patch that includes for
> PATH_MAX.
>
> PATH_MAX is used as a bypass in configure check for realpath.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Oct 26 11:29:36 2016
New Revision: 241549
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241549&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR78111 fix fallback code for filesystem::canonical
PR libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 39889
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39889&action=edit
pro_and_epilogue dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I fixed the detection of realpath, but also fixed the problem with the fallback
code that was being used when realpath is not available.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This is a 5/6 Regression. May I do the back port?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77973
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20710
Stephan Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbergman at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
Bug ID: 78114
Summary: [7 regression]
gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-mgrid-resid.f FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021
--- Comment #8 from Davide Cesari ---
Thanks for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Wed Oct 26 12:54:30 2016
New Revision: 241551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241551&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fix pr78060 pr78061 pr78088
PR tree-optimization/78060
PR t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Wed Oct 26 12:54:30 2016
New Revision: 241551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241551&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fix pr78060 pr78061 pr78088
PR tree-optimization/78060
PR t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78088
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Wed Oct 26 12:54:30 2016
New Revision: 241551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241551&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fix pr78060 pr78061 pr78088
PR tree-optimization/78060
PR t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20710
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Stephan Bergmann from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> > The C++0x override control works for virtual and non-virtual names
>
> That's not true for what then beca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78107
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78072
Bug 78072 depends on bug 78060, which changed state.
Bug 78060 Summary: [7 Regression] -O3 causes "error: type mismatch in binary
expression"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78088
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78107
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #17 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 39891
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39891&action=edit
Experimental patch
If this patch is correct, then there is a general problem for Linux also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78115
Bug ID: 78115
Summary: Missed optimization for "int modulo 2^31"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
Bug ID: 78116
Summary: [7 regression] Performance drop after r241173 on
avx512 target
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 39892
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39892&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Must be compiled with "-Ofast -funroll-loops -march=knl" options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78117
Bug ID: 78117
Summary: gcc on tilegx builds faulty strstr() function (from
glibc)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78117
--- Comment #1 from Henrik Grindal Bakken ---
Created attachment 39894
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39894&action=edit
Preprocessed source code reproducing the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69905
aaron.mcdaid at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaron.mcdaid at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #18 from David Edelsohn ---
As long as GCC claims that it can make a distinction between the various
alignments and macros, the GCC code generation must continue to honor it.
On AIX, at least, the ABI claims a different stack alignme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78117
--- Comment #2 from Henrik Grindal Bakken ---
Created attachment 39895
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39895&action=edit
Assembly output with working compiler (4.8.2-tilera)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78117
--- Comment #3 from Henrik Grindal Bakken ---
Created attachment 39896
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39896&action=edit
Assembly output with non-working compiler (6.2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78117
--- Comment #5 from Henrik Grindal Bakken ---
Created attachment 39897
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39897&action=edit
Preprocessed source code reproducing the bug (this time built with 6.2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78117
--- Comment #4 from Henrik Grindal Bakken ---
Output when running (on target) the code built with gcc-4.8.2-tilera:
[hgbcarbon:~] $ ./tile-ss ee
ss2: Found ee in abcdeefgh12345
[hgbcarbon:~] $ ./tile-ss 123
ss2: Found 123 in abcdeefgh12345
Built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78108
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 26 14:48:02 2016
New Revision: 241555
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241555&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-26 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/78108
* resolve.c (res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69905
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69905
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037
--- Comment #20 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Oct 26 15:13:39 2016
New Revision: 241556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-10-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78057
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Oct 26 15:13:39 2016
New Revision: 241556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-10-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78110
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
First I was a bit shocked, but i think my patch above looks reasonable.
Because the installation is free-standing it is natural that we
cannot #include . Although the eCos has no memalign,
that is benign,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78098
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > > Why would we be not able to tailcall in an interupt handler?
> >
> > We n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #18 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 39898
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39898&action=edit
proposed patch
This disables problematic di patterns when no fpu is used, and
there is absolutely no chance t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #19 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I think the problem with anddi iordi and xordi instructions is that
they obscure the data flow between low and high half words.
When they are not enabled, we have the low and high parts
expanded independent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77687
--- Comment #1 from Olivier Hainque ---
Created attachment 39899
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39899&action=edit
bandaid patch we're currently using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78108
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 26 16:13:49 2016
New Revision: 241575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-26 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/78108
* resolve.c (res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78108
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77687
--- Comment #2 from Olivier Hainque ---
Thanks for stepping in Segher ! Much appreciated :-)
FWIW, I have just attached the bandaid patch we're currently
using on our gcc-6 based compilers. It's more brutal than the
original suggestion on the re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77973
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 26 16:21:56 2016
New Revision: 241581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/77973
* gimplify.c (gimplify_adjust_omp_clauses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78105
--- Comment #9 from PeteVine ---
Ha! It's not about the extra options, thank you! ;)
Completely vanilla environment and gcc 5.4 produce this after a while:
../build-lto-noflags/./gcc/xgcc -B../build-lto-noflags/./gcc/
-B/usr/gcc7/aarch64-linux-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78086
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-10-26 7:08 AM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> May I please ask you for testing the patch on your hppa64 machine?
Testing.
Thanks,
Dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78109
--- Comment #3 from Hadrien ---
Thank you for your messages.
I called the 'file' command on a .so and an executable, they both show the same
kind of information. I understand that a program like the file explorer can get
confused.
As everything
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Try http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02062.html ?
Didn't help, unfortunately: I rebuilt cc1plus with the patch and
compiled the fir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78110
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Oct 26 17:26:00 2016
New Revision: 241591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-26 Bernd Edlinger
PR libstdc++/78110
* lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78110
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78118
Bug ID: 78118
Summary: xtensa: ICE in gcc-6.1.0/libgcc/libgcc2.c:1992:1:
error: unrecognizable insn
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #19 from Ulrich Weigand ---
I've been looking into this a bit with Dominik, and here's what I understand of
the problem so far:
- It really all starts with emit-rtl.c:init_emit doing:
REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN (VIRTUAL_STACK_DYNAMIC_REGN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78118
jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78118
--- Comment #2 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The change that made xtensa backend go ICE looks completely unrelated, and
indeed, the issue is caused by the side effect of compute_frame_size() function
call hidden in the INITIAL_ELIMINATION_O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #20 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #19)
> I think the problem with anddi iordi and xordi instructions is that
> they obscure the data flow between low and high half words.
> When they are not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #20 from David Edelsohn ---
If STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET has to be increased to 16, it has to be increased.
info->parm_size probably was adjusted for VMX parameters.
Note that GCC has gone through contortions with STACK_BOUNDARY,
PREFERR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78119
Bug ID: 78119
Summary: wrong diagnostic pointer for
-Werror=ignored-qualifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78120
Bug ID: 78120
Summary: [6/7 Regression] If conversion no longer performed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18146
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78120
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UNC
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
