https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81216
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jun 27 07:16:29 2017
New Revision: 249676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/81216
* parser.c (cp_parser_already_scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81216
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81207
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 27 07:22:14 2017
New Revision: 249677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81207
* gimple-fold.c (replace_call_with_cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81209
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 27 07:23:54 2017
New Revision: 249678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/81209
* ubsan.c (ubsan_encode_value): Initial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81214
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81217
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81213
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81196
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> (In reply to amker from comment #4)
> > Hmm, the function can only be vectorized with "-march=skylake"?
>
> Er, it also vectorizes without any -march on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80779
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Alexander Ivchenko from comment #2)
> I made some progress a while back with that, mostly by adding
> __attribute__((bnd_legacy)) just as in Martin's patches. I don't like that
> approach though,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81196
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to amker from comment #6)
> But below is necessary, right?
>
> /* { dg-require-effective-target vect_perm_short } */
Yes. Cool, I didn't remember we had exactly the right test :-)
Or you could tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81215
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81207
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 27 08:16:10 2017
New Revision: 249679
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249679&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81207
* gimple-fold.c (replace_call_with_cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81209
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 27 08:18:10 2017
New Revision: 249680
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249680&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/81209
* ubsan.c (ubsan_encode_value): Initial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81222
Bug ID: 81222
Summary: OpenMP 4.5 array reduction clause causes the program
to crash
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81212
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64431
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81222
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62046
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.2
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC implements what is required if there is schedule(static), which is the
implementation defined schedule right now, which gives the requirement how the
iterations are distributed to different threads and I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81223
Bug ID: 81223
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in instrument_null at
gcc/ubsan.c:1230
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62046
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 27 09:00:52 2017
New Revision: 249682
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249682&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-27 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/62046
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62046
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81223
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81223
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I.e.
--- a/gcc/ubsan.c
+++ b/gcc/ubsan.c
@@ -1228,7 +1228,8 @@ instrument_null (gimple_stmt_iterator gsi, tree t, bool
is_lhs)
if (TREE_CODE (t) == ADDR_EXPR)
t = TREE_OPERAND (t, 0);
tree base = g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81223
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly cleaned up testcase:
void bar ();
void
foo (int x)
{
struct S { char a[x]; } v;
bar (v);
}
Marek, your patch is preapproved with this testcase if it passes
bootstrap/regtest.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81224
Bug ID: 81224
Summary: ICE in -fsanitize=address w/ a register variable of a
vector type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81223
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81225
Bug ID: 81225
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE with -mavx512ifma -O3
-ffloat-store
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81226
Bug ID: 81226
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] Graphite ICE in
outer_projection_mupa, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:1019
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81227
Bug ID: 81227
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in get_single_symbol, at
tree-vrp.c:799
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81226
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81224
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
You shouldn't sanitize DECL_HARD_REGISTER things
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81228
Bug ID: 81228
Summary: ICE in gen_vec_cmpv2dfv2di, at
config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md:2508
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81224
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81224
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure, and both tsan.c and ubsan.c already have some
if (VAR_P (base) && DECL_HARD_REGISTER (base))
bail out;
tests, but asan.c doesn't (and should).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81229
Bug ID: 81229
Summary: ICE in c_tree_chain_next on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81227
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81229
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81229
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
It'd be terrific to know what caused this, so I'm bisecting. But it'll take a
while.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81223
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jun 27 11:38:31 2017
New Revision: 249687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/81223
* ubsan.c (instrument_null): Check g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81223
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81227
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
As input we get:
(gdb) p debug_tree (val1)
unit size
align 8 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x76d572a0 precision 1
min max >
arg 0
visited
def_stmt _9 = b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #57 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #56 from Daniel Santos ---
[...]
> Wonderful! I presume that we still need libgcc buy-off? I'll put together a
> ChangeLog and post it to gcc-patches tomorrow.
Right. B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81230
Bug ID: 81230
Summary: False -Wimplicit-fallthrough when case has braces
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81231
Bug ID: 81231
Summary: ICE with invalid argument to __atomic_*
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81231
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81217
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81230
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81058
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The following patch fixes the failures
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-vpmovswb-1.c
2017-06-08 15:14:40.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512bw-vpmovswb-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53896
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81232
Bug ID: 81232
Summary: compiler crashes for template function overload
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81221
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 27 14:44:50 2017
New Revision: 249692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249692&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81221 fix namespace qualification for parallel mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81193
Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tuliom at linux dot
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81232
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81229
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r248387.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #8 from Jeff Hammond ---
I tried with schedule(dynamic) and schedule(static,n) for n=1,8,100. None of
this made a positive difference. Is that expected? I'm happy to make any code
changes that don't break correctness and are still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81221
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 27 16:19:16 2017
New Revision: 249697
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249697&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81221 only run new test for check-parallel
PR libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81221
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 27 16:23:46 2017
New Revision: 249698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249698&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81221 fix namespace qualification for parallel mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81221
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68491
Andy Lutomirski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luto at kernel dot org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
Bug ID: 81233
Summary: --Wdiscarded-qualifiers and
Wincompatible-pointer-types missing important detail
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68491
--- Comment #10 from Christos Zoulas ---
On Jun 27, 4:26pm, gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org ("luto at kernel dot org") wrote:
-- Subject: [Bug target/68491] libgcc calls __get_cpuid with 0 level breaks o
| I'm a bit late to the party, but this patch s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81234
Bug ID: 81234
Summary: [regression] flexible array member not at end of
‘struct
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61729
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 17:11:01 2017
New Revision: 249700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77850
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 17:11:01 2017
New Revision: 249700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80618
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 17:11:01 2017
New Revision: 249700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73650
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 17:11:01 2017
New Revision: 249700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 17:11:01 2017
New Revision: 249700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80692
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 17:11:01 2017
New Revision: 249700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80966
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 17:11:01 2017
New Revision: 249700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80902
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 17:11:01 2017
New Revision: 249700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80429
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 17:11:01 2017
New Revision: 249700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #28 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 17:11:01 2017
New Revision: 249700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68491
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #9)
> I'm a bit late to the party, but this patch seems dubious to me.
> __get_cpuid_max() fails to distinguish between CPUs that have max level 0
> (although I doubt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81234
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With schedule(static) or schedule(dynamic) etc. I believe the compiler is not
allowed to do it, at least if it can't prove it won't be observable.
So, if you have
int cnt = 0;
#pragma omp parallel for schedul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81234
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45976
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72763
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80187
--- Comment #6 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Tue Jun 27 18:19:03 2017
New Revision: 249706
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249706&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80187
* include/std/variant (variant::variant, v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81225
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72763
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80692
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 18:24:51 2017
New Revision: 249707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73650
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 18:24:51 2017
New Revision: 249707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61729
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 18:24:51 2017
New Revision: 249707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77850
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 18:24:51 2017
New Revision: 249707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80966
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 18:24:51 2017
New Revision: 249707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80618
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 18:24:51 2017
New Revision: 249707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 18:24:51 2017
New Revision: 249707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80902
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jun 27 18:24:51 2017
New Revision: 249707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backports from trunk:
2016-08-15 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81192
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #10 from Jeff Hammond ---
Thanks for the feedback. I agree that it is a huge amount of work to optimize
this.
For what it's worth, GCC and Clang perform about the same. Unfortunately, I do
not have the means to evaluate IBM XLF, wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81193
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #4)
> I think for the problem of using __builtin_cpu_, we should issue a
> warning
> (not a fatal error) if the configured GLIBC is too old saying you need to link
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81234
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |diagnostic
Known to work|6.3.1
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
