https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79395
Bug ID: 79395
Summary: Compile error with -mcpu=power9 and
__builtin_vec_vcmpne_p
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79372
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 6 20:03:15 2017
New Revision: 245218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79372
* decl.c (cp_finish_decomp): On error set dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79377
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 6 20:05:09 2017
New Revision: 245219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79377
* tree.c (build_min_non_dep_op_overload): For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79379
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 6 20:06:16 2017
New Revision: 245220
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245220&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79379
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79396
Bug ID: 79396
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE (verify_flow_info failed) with
-fnon-call-exceptions -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79376
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #44 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #43)
> I upgraded GDB on gcc119 with GDB 7.9.1 + IBM patches. It may work a little
> better.
FWI, the gdb on /opt/freeware/bin/gdb is even worse now. I can't put an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78303
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
The problem is the tests use initialization (both static and auto
initialization). Unfortunately, when initializing a vector, the -maltivec=be
option is not checked when laying out the structure in memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #45 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 40683
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40683&action=edit
reduced testcase that exhibits problem on a cross build (function crapola)
This pre-processed source is misco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79379
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] ICE with |[6 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79372
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66144
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Feb 6 21:07:37 2017
New Revision: 245222
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245222&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-02-06 Michael Meissner
PR target/66144
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66144
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71193
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 6 21:12:13 2017
New Revision: 245223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71193 - incomplete types in templates
* parser.c (
> Scheduling should never move very expensive instructions to places they
> are executed more frequently. This patch fixes that, reducing the
> execution time of c-ray by over 40% (I tested on a BE Power7 system).
>
> This introduces a new target hook sched.can_speculate_insn which returns
> whet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Scheduling should never move very expensive instructions to places they
> are executed more frequently. This patch fixes that, reducing the
> execution time of c-ray by over 40% (I tested on a BE Power7 sys
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #20)
> There was also regression on cray for x86-64
> https://gcc.opensuse.org/c++bench-czerny/c-ray/
> Is it the same issue?
I don't think so. But I don't know m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71107
--- Comment #9 from Bitterblue ---
Still broken in GCC 6.3.1...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79397
Bug ID: 79397
Summary: AltiVec spelled incorrectly in rs6000.opt
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: transla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79398
Bug ID: 79398
Summary: misleading error static constexpr member function
called in a constant expression before its definition
is complete
Product: gcc
Version: 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79398
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
>
> I don't think so. But I don't know much about that bug, it is something
> with AVX I think? If you are talking about PR79224.
I see, we have separate PR for that, good ;)
>
> > Also with profile feedback perhaps you have enough info to tell that the
> > speculative path is almost as likely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> I don't think so. But I don't know much about that bug, it is something
> with AVX I think? If you are talking about PR79224.
I see, we have separate PR for that, good ;)
>
> > Also with profile feedb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79399
Bug ID: 79399
Summary: GCC fails to compile big source at -O0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #7 from Walt Brainerd ---
With GENERIC and PUBLIC statements
ifort says "No visible interface"
gfortran gets an ICE
So I assume the code is wrong, as you suggest, but both give funny
messages
With the other "bug" I filed: pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60615
--- Comment #6 from Pedro Alves ---
Marek, did you ever post a patch for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
The issue is that we no longer inline all calls to ray_sphere which is the
inlining that matters. Declaring trace noinline or ray_sphere always_inline
helps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
More thoughts on how we might approach resolving.
To tackle in the backwards threader I think we need to change the model for how
backwards threading works.
Right now it starts walking up the use-def chain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #23)
> > > Also with profile feedback perhaps you have enough info to tell that the
> > > speculative path is almost as likely as the original placement.
> >
> > M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79363
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch submitted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00489.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79342
ishikawa,chiaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79342
--- Comment #6 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Sorry, forgot to mention that Redhat bugzilla has a one line C source program
that does not trip the compiler (no ICE), but obviously generates a wrong dwarf
info. These certainly look related to me.
TIA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Tue Feb 7 02:20:48 2017
New Revision: 245239
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245239&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/79360
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/79360
* typec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So an update for gcc-7. Things continue to improve ever-so-slightly.
-O2 -DNAIL_REGS 87 references to %esp
-O2 -UNAIL_REGS 25 references to %esp
But that's still a long way from the best we've had in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78152
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10)
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:39:58PM +, physiker at toast2 dot net wrote:
> >
> > Ifort version 17 (linux) supports coarrays as selectors in an assoc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79229
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Assignee|una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #46 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
>
> --- Comment #45 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> Created attachment 40683
> --> https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE with |[5/6 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79400
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79400
Bug ID: 79400
Summary: [7 Regression] Confusing 'noexcept' suggestion on
throw (X)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
