https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80581
Bug ID: 80581
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: in estimate_node_size_and_time, at
ipa-inline-analysis.c:3425
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80581
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80582
Bug ID: 80582
Summary: Missing intrinsics _mm256_set_m128*
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80581
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80574
--- Comment #3 from SztfG at yandex dot ru ---
Georg-Johann Lay, GCC not always do things better if use static inline function
instead macro. For example, this code:
#include
#define TYPE uint8_t
#define M_XOR(a,b) ((!!a)^(!!b))
#define M_NXOR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #25 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Hi Segher!
Your patch fixes the issue for me. I had issues building ghc on powerpcspe.
With gcc-6 it failed in the expected way, with gcc-7, it went past the
problematic source code file.
Would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69460
--- Comment #5 from strntydog at gmail dot com ---
I also just calculated the number of cycles each function takes:
Test 1 - 50% More CPU Cycles
Test 2 - 25% More CPU Cycles
Test 3 - 5% More CPU Cycles
Test 4 - 39% More CPU Cycles
Test 5 - 6% Mor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #84 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 1 09:50:59 2017
New Revision: 247429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79430
* rtlanal.c (reg_set_p): If reg is a stac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80392
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon May 1 09:56:52 2017
New Revision: 247430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-01 Janus Weil
Backport from trunk
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80583
Bug ID: 80583
Summary: ICE with target_clones and vectorized float: internal
compiler error: in convert_move, at expr.c:270
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The last successful bootstrap is r247298; r247301 fails as reported in comment
0; r247299 fails for a different reason:
/opt/gcc/p_build/./gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/p_build/./gcc/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc8p-247299p1/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80392
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon May 1 10:51:22 2017
New Revision: 247435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-01 Janus Weil
Backport from trunk
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80583
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80392
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk plus the 5 and 6 branches so far. Will apply to the 7-branch
once it reopens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80583
--- Comment #2 from Lorenzo Pistone ---
Created attachment 41291
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41291&action=edit
test case
My bad.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528
Dimitry Andric changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dimitry at andric dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80583
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80584
Bug ID: 80584
Summary: Combine some float tests using bit ops
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80524
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> I think this depends a lot on the compiler implementation.
I don't actually think the calling of finalization routines is supposed to
depend on the com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80493
--- Comment #3 from Avi Kivity ---
Please consider a backport to older branches (5, 6, 7).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78460
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
I see ~500 GiB with GCC 7.0.1 20170501 (prerelease) [gcc-7-branch revision
247430]. This interferes rather badly with cross-compiler-based testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78460
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
FWIW, my build-many-glibcs.py bots for GCC 7 and mainline are run with
"ulimit -v 16777216" to limit the effects of this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65941
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon May 1 14:15:33 2017
New Revision: 247438
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247438&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add and use effective target rdrand
2017-05-01 Tom de Vries
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65941
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80554
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68491
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon May 1 15:38:14 2017
New Revision: 247439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247439&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68491
* config/i386/cpuid.h (__get_cpuid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80554
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68491
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i?86-*-*|x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80467
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79697
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79715
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon May 1 16:46:49 2017
New Revision: 247440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/79715
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79715
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80585
Bug ID: 80585
Summary: -Wformat location
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80585
Michał Mirosław changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80576
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77331
Michał Mirosław changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mirq-gccboogs at rere dot
qmqm.pl
---
20170501 (experimental) [trunk revision 247436] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O2 abc.c
abc.c:14:1: internal compiler error: in estimate_node_size_and_time, at
ipa-inline-analysis.c:3425
void fn3() { fn2(b); }
^~~~
0x98ef05 estimate_node_size_and_time
../../gcc/gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c:3425
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #32 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 1 17:45:52 2017
New Revision: 247441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-01 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37131
* fronten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79581
--- Comment #5 from PeteVine ---
Unchanged in gcc version 8.0.0 20170501.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80574
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to SztfG from comment #3)
> Georg-Johann Lay, GCC not always do things better if use static inline
> function instead macro.
He did not claim it was always better...
> For example, this code:
Pleas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80524
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> > I think this depends a lot on the compiler implementation.
>
> I don't actually think the calling of finalization routine
Hi,
I've just got GCC7 (build from svn worked like a charm, even if it took hours
but I was warned) and like the new warnings and hints very much.
When compiling GnuCOBOL from vcs (sources on mount, therefore the long path) I
got one warning with multiple and very long tilde lines.
/media/sf_E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80493
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yep, that's why I've left the PR open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80571
--- Comment #1 from Peter Cordes ---
Tracking "cold" registers that are safe to use as a read-only source (whether
or not they're holding a useful value like a constant) has a couple other
applications for x86:
* vcvtsi2ss/sd %src,%merge_into,
Hi,
the suggestions are cool and they obviously can't be always correct.
I guess it matches this against different valid identifiers and somehow
counting a score for these and showing the identifier with the highest
score. I did not found anything about the "how" in the GCC annotation.
But I do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80586
Bug ID: 80586
Summary: vsqrtss with AVX should avoid a dependency on the
destination register.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80574
--- Comment #5 from SztfG at yandex dot ru ---
> He did not claim it was always better...
Ahh, so I need to do some research to figure out, in which cases static inline
function is better, and in which macro is better. It's bad
> Please don't mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80587
Bug ID: 80587
Summary: Incorrect type from outer scope inside lambda under
some conditions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80588
Bug ID: 80588
Summary: GCC can't simplify static inline function with
xor/xnor
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283
--- Comment #14 from Michael_S ---
Created attachment 41293
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41293&action=edit
another case of bad vector register allocation
Here is another case of bad allocation of SIMD register that hopefu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80588
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Thanks. Let me copy what I had in the other PR:
we have an old optimization in fold_unary (like other "do ... if ...
simplifies" it is not straightforward to move it to match.pd) and thus it only
applies when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80589
Bug ID: 80589
Summary: Typing mistakes in two messages
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #31 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon May 1 22:26:02 2017
New Revision: 247446
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247446&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-01 Xi Ruoyao
PR c++/80038
* cilk_common.c (exp
On 05/01/2017 01:39 PM, Simon Sobisch wrote:
Hi,
I've just got GCC7 (build from svn worked like a charm, even if it took hours
but I was warned) and like the new warnings and hints very much.
When compiling GnuCOBOL from vcs (sources on mount, therefore the long path) I
got one warning with m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #6 from Tristan Gingold ---
On 29/04/2017 21:11, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It looks like gnat1 was compiled with libgcc, which is not able to
> handle unwinding on Darwin.
> I suppose it must be linked without -static-libgcc
Is there a specific change intended to do it and which
57 matches
Mail list logo
