https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81662
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Aug 3 07:07:38 2017
New Revision: 250842
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250842&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Skip fpatchable-function-entry tests for nvptx
2017-08-03 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81661
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81661
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65957
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81684
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
This bug stops the linux kernel compiling and it seems that 7.2 is
about to be shipped.
Any chance of a fix going into 7.2, or is it best to wait for 7.2.1 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #13)
> This bug stops the linux kernel compiling and it seems that 7.2 is
> about to be shipped.
>
> Any chance of a fix going into 7.2, or is it best to wait
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81673
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > What happens if you use -march=intel.
>
> With -mtune=intel, the lower half of the vector is moved directly
Tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81675
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81685
Bug ID: 81685
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline-ns-2.C -std=gnu++*
(internal compiler error) on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Memory leak in demangler|Memory leak in libiberty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81686
Bug ID: 81686
Summary: LTO hardcodes identity host to target charset mapping
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40836
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81687
Bug ID: 81687
Summary: Compiler drops label in OpenMP region
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81686
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81688
Bug ID: 81688
Summary: libgomp.c/target-3{3,4}.c fails:
GOMP_OFFLOAD_async_run unimplemented for nvptx
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81052
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 3 08:34:16 2017
New Revision: 250847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81052
* omp-low.c (diagnose_sb_0): Handle f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81688
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Already mentioned here (
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00972.html ):
...
With OpenMP/PTX offloading there are 5 additional failures in
check-target-libgomp:
Two with 'target nowait' (not imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81688
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
These tests pass on gomp-4_0-branch, because there GOMP_OFFLOAD_get_caps does
not return GOMP_OFFLOAD_CAP_OPENMP_400, while on trunk it does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81684
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81482
--- Comment #2 from kloetzl ---
I don't think that the runtime cost of the copies is measurable. My bigger
issue is that this quirks exposes the internal behaviour of the algorithm
implementation; In this case the fact that remove_if calls find_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81689
Bug ID: 81689
Summary: libgomp.c/target-link-1.c fails for nvptx: #pragma omp
target link not implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81690
Bug ID: 81690
Summary: libgomp.c/{target-32,thread-limit-2}.c fail for nvptx:
missing usleep
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81690
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||nvptx
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81691
Bug ID: 81691
Summary: libgomp.fortran/target2.f90 fails for nvptx at -O0 and
-O1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81691
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
This is with trunk r250831 and a patch to make remote testing work (a trunk
port of gomp4 patch "Forwarding -foffload=[...] from the driver (compile-time)
to libgomp (run-time)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71440
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Aug 3 09:26:17 2017
New Revision: 250848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250848&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-08-03 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/71440
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71440
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 3 09:41:55 2017
New Revision: 250849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250849&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81655
PR tree-optimization/81588
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81655
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 3 09:41:55 2017
New Revision: 250849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250849&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81655
PR tree-optimization/81588
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81650
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 3 09:43:11 2017
New Revision: 250850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250850&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/81650
* calls.c (alloc_max_size): Use HOST_WIDE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81052
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far (by rejecting it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58618
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-10-05 00:00:00 |2017-8-3
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81401
Jörg Richter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
But you get compile-time warnings for that (-Wswitch), no?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> But you get compile-time warnings for that (-Wswitch), no?
For:
cat enum.c
enum values
{
A = 1000,
B = 30,
C = 100
};
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The extra instrumention should be on NOP_EXPR/CONVERT_EXPR (dunno about
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR) from some type to enum type if the from type isn't the same
enum type or some type with equal min/max values. But gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for the switch, I think there shouldn't be any runtime error, there is no
UB.
You can have default: label even if you list all the possible in-range cases,
you can have enum values in between min/max that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81691
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Jakub said target2.f90 exposes a frontend bug (or OpenMP lowering bug, not
sure):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02397.html
This is not a target-specific issue, it should fail in a similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81662
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Aug 3 11:18:09 2017
New Revision: 250851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Error out on nvptx for fpatchable-function-entry
2017-08-03 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81662
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> As for the switch, I think there shouldn't be any runtime error, there is no
> UB.
> You can have default: label even if you list all the possible in-range
> cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81676
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81692
Bug ID: 81692
Summary: Bogus noreturn warning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81430
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Aug 3 11:37:55 2017
New Revision: 250852
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250852&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Apply finish_options on DECL_FUNCTION_SPECIFIC_OPTIMIZATION for ACCEL_COMPI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81430
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81692
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81148
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 3 11:52:00 2017
New Revision: 250853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250853&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-03 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/81148
* fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
Bug ID: 81693
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr25967-*.c -O* execution test
on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81687
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, openmp
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
Bug ID: 81694
Summary: VRP optimization may introduce buffer overflow
vulnerabilities into applications
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
--- Comment #1 from Yuan Deng ---
Created attachment 41913
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41913&action=edit
patch for this vulnerability
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
Yuan Deng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Yuan Deng ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Overflow cannot be checked after the fact. It needs to be checked before the
overflow has happened. Just like a buffet overflow should not be checked
after.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
GCC exploits undefined behavior throughout the compilation pipeline, if you
want a methodical workaround, you need compilation mode that makes overflow
defined (-fwrapv), and likewise for other sources of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81687
--- Comment #2 from Joachim Protze ---
Why do you classify the testcase to be invalid code? Neither OpenMP nor C
forbid the use of a label there. Is this an undocumented restriction of the
&&-extension?
Also, clang and icc accept the code despit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79959
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81687
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
In this particular case we are not exactly copying the region, we are only
moving (outlining) it to a separate function. We could properly remap the
label.
But in general GCC is indeed confused about ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Please show gdb backtrace as well as disassemble fn/main.
The best I can do without further directive
Current executable set to './a.out' (x86_64).
(lldb) run
Process 25263 launched: './a.out' (x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r172261. Will take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
Bug ID: 81695
Summary: [5/6/7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: in
size_binop_loc, at fold-const.c:1768
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81696
Bug ID: 81696
Summary: ICF ICE on non-local goto
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Please compile it with -g and provide stack backtrace.
Please also provide the assembly codes of fn and main.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
--- Comment #7 from Yuan Deng ---
When compiled with O0 or O1, the program work well,
inspite of val is overflowed, the program is actually very safe, and
can not be exploited.
But when compiled with O2 or O3, the result is different. The progra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|VERIFIED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81696
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81697
Bug ID: 81697
Summary: Incorrect ASan global variables alignment on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Note the folding we do here is not safe (but I hesitated to remove all the
copies...). It can end up confusing data dependence analysis (read:
wrong-code).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Note the folding we do here is not safe (but I hesitated to remove all the
> copies...). It can end up confusing data dependence analysis (read:
> wrong-code).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81697
Slava Barinov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 41915
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41915&action=edit
Assemby for pr25967-1
> Please compile it with -g and provide stack backtrace.
This is what I have done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, one mistake in the folding is that
if (TREE_CODE (sub) == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR
&& TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (sub, 1)) == INTEGER_CST)
{
tree op00 = TREE_OPERAND (sub, 0);
tree op01 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > Note the folding we do here is not safe (but I hesitated to remove all the
> > copies...). It can end up confus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81696
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81687
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If there is a concern that the attribute could be used on declarations in
> existing code that the optimization might break, then the a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81698
Bug ID: 81698
Summary: expand_omp_sections generates unusual switch
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81686
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The hook is specified to take an input that's in the basic source
character set ($ is also used with it). Maybe LTO should store the
complete mapping for basic source characters in the obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Just guessing, but maybe _exit doesn't like misaligned stack on MacOS. We may
need to emit some dummy pushes to keep it aligned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81621
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 3 14:41:08 2017
New Revision: 250857
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250857&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81621
* bb-reorder.c (pass_partition_blocks::exe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57271
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 41917
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41917&action=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81698
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That seems like expand_case bug to me. We don't rely on order of edges for say
GIMPLE_COND either, but determine which one is which by EDGE_FALSE_VALUE vs.
EDGE_TRUE_VALUE. For GIMPLE_SWITCH, I think it sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 41917 [details]
> A patch
>
> Please try this.
Sorry it does not work:
=== gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===
# of unexpected failures14
# of unresolved testc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67209
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81699
Bug ID: 81699
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-23.c fails
starting with r250853
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 30065, which changed state.
Bug 30065 Summary: Could use indexed addressing to reduce const costs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30065
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30065
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> > Created attachment 41917 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Please try this.
>
> Sorry it does not work:
>
Please compile gcc.dg/torture/pr25967-1.c with -g and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61203
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47495
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81699
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On August 3, 2017 5:05:36 PM GMT+02:00, "seurer at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81699
>
>seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
> What|Removed
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
