https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #26 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hello, did the Gap scores on arm too? Both Itanium and PPC testers seems to
show improved gap scores, so hope arm and the other ppc tester too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79089
Bug ID: 79089
Summary: error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79090
Bug ID: 79090
Summary: [7 regression] DSE wrongly removing store at variable
offset
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79090
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79090
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|[7 regression] DS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The key (I think) is that the following sequence of 3 instructions ends up
> being combined into 1 but the resulting instruction leaves the upper 32-bits
> of reg 316 entirely undefined. Eventually this le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79088
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79089
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat Jan 14 13:24:46 2017
New Revision: 244465
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244465&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid PR72749 by not using unspecs
Rather than using unspecs in doloop ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #11 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat Jan 14 13:29:29 2017
New Revision: 244466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Testcase from pr72749
PR target/72749
* gcc.c-torture/comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|amodra at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79027
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2017-01-11, at 8:18 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> The error doesn't occur if I add
> "--disable-lto --without-cloog
> --without-ppl" to the configure command. I would suspect ppl.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79091
Bug ID: 79091
Summary: [7 regression] ICE in write_unnamed_type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994
--- Comment #6 from PeteVine ---
It's possible I already had that patch included in my build, but
in case I didn't, here's a quick addition to the previous result:
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1701143-TA-GCCCOMPAR66
The c-ray thunderx re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79089
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch bootstrapping, let's not close this yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78626
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Jan 14 16:52:18 2017
New Revision: 244467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244467&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/78626
PR rtl-optimization/78727
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78727
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Jan 14 16:52:18 2017
New Revision: 244467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244467&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/78626
PR rtl-optimization/78727
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78626
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78727
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64934
Frederic Marchal changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fmarchal at perso dot be
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48555
Frederic Marchal changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fmarchal at perso dot be
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33562
--- Comment #31 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #29)
> It's still a regression for 5/6, so it should stay open until those releases
> are no longer supported. Note the "7" in the regression marker is gone.
Sorry,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37022
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79092
Bug ID: 79092
Summary: template: type ignored if value already
instantiated
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79090
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56973
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-04-24 00:00:00 |2017-1-14
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78304
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70583
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |testsuite
--- Comment #9 from John D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79093
Bug ID: 79093
Summary: Hard coded plural in builtins.c:3203
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
This testcase fails on aarch64-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79093
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
We don't seem to have warning_at_n (only inform_n, warning_at_rich_loc_n,
warning_n, error_n) but it could easily be added to handle this properly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61729
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This testcase uses a 2-byte scoped enum, which doesn't get the integer
promotions if I read the C++ standard correctly -- but it is passed via
varargs, and the target code expects that to be promoted alw
34 matches
Mail list logo