https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81907
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to dongkyun.s from comment #9)
> I mean -ffreestanding or -fno-freestanding are not included in this
> testcase, but, mtune/ mcpu option.
Yes but your summary was saying memset was missing which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81907
--- Comment #11 from dongkyun.s at samsung dot com ---
Dear pins...@gcc.gnu.org,
Thanks for correcting title to "memset called when it does not need to be;
-mtune=cortex-a9" along with the comment :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[6/7/8 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81884
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 21 07:37:59 2017
New Revision: 251217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-21 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/81884
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
--- Comment #8 from Yvan Roux ---
On 7 branch the following should fix the issue, but as I mentioned in comment
#5, maybe TARGET_USE_MOVT is a better place to do the checking but this will
need some
s/TARGET_HAVE_MOVT/TARGET_USE_MOVT/
--- a/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81908
Bug ID: 81908
Summary: [8 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_2.f90 -O3 -g -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
Summary|[7 Regression] b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80519
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 81892 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81898
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81908
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
--- Comment #9 from ard.biesheuvel at linaro dot org ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #8)
> On 7 branch the following should fix the issue, but as I mentioned in
> comment #5, maybe TARGET_USE_MOVT is a better place to do the checking but
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81909
Bug ID: 81909
Summary: [nvptx] Missing warning in gcc.dg/pr53037-{2,3}.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81900
--- Comment #3 from pipcet at gmail dot com ---
I've investigated some more, and Mikael's bisection appears to confirm my
investigation:
The problem appears to be this chunk:
@@ -2418,7 +2423,9 @@ compute_antic (void)
inverted_post_order_comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81908
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, the anti-ranges can be made "signed" by
/* If we have an unsigned anti-range convert it to the respective
signed type. */
if (range_type == VR_ANTI_RANGE
&& TYPE_UNSIGNED (exptype)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
--- Comment #10 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #8)
>
> /* Nonzero if this chip provides the MOVW and MOVT instructions. */
> -#define TARGET_HAVE_MOVT (arm_arch_thumb2 || arm_arch8)
> +#define TARGET_HAVE_MOV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81904
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81904
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
__m128d h(__m128d x, __m128d y, __m128d z){
__m128d tem = _mm_mul_pd (x,y);
__m128d tem2 = tem + z;
__m128d tem3 = tem - z;
return __builtin_shuffle (tem2, tem3, (__m128i) {0, 3});
}
doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81907
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81910
Bug ID: 81910
Summary: [avr] ICE with "address" attribute on type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81910
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81901
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81724
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
More complete failure list:
...
FAIL: gcc.dg/stack-layout-dynamic-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/memcmp-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/strcmp-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81911
Bug ID: 81911
Summary: Constant expression from permitted result of a
constant expression is not constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81906
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81901
--- Comment #2 from Wouter Vermaelen ---
Euhm, i=0x30 should not enter case 0x00. (Or did you mean the analysis pass
that produces the warning). This code should not store anything to a[].
(I know this reduced function is useless/obfuscated. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #34 from Andreas Schwab ---
On ia64:
FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-4.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20170821/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr53037-4.C:9:1: error:
alignment for 'void foo2()'
/gcc-20170821/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr53037-1.c:42:1: warning:
alignment 2 of 'struct foo5' is less than 16 [-Wif-not-aligned]
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20170821/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr53037-1.c:75:1: warning:
alignment 2 of 'union bar3' is less than 16 [-Wif-not-aligned]
FAIL: g++.dg/p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81900
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So while there is one simple issue with the iteration, fix:
@@ -2119,14 +2170,13 @@ static sbitmap has_abnormal_preds;
static bool
compute_antic_aux (basic_block block, bool block_has_abnormal_pred_edge)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81900
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Ah ...
@@ -2396,9 +2446,6 @@ compute_antic (void)
if (e->flags & EDGE_ABNORMAL)
{
bitmap_set_bit (has_abnormal_preds, block->index);
-
- /* We also anticipate nothing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81912
Bug ID: 81912
Summary: std::distance not constexpr in C++17 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81912
--- Comment #1 from Björn Schäpers ---
Created attachment 42019
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42019&action=edit
The preprocessed test file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81912
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #34 from __vic ---
Fixed in 7.1.
Shouldn't we close this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81879
--- Comment #3 from Frediano Ziglio ---
I noted that during the link the resolution file using -static or not is
different
without -static
750 6dacea834fb099d1 PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY _ZNKSt5ctypeIcE8do_widenEc
753 6dacea834fb099d1 PREVAILING_DEF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener ---
We keep regression bugs open until all maintained branches close to be able to
correctly set known-to-fail
d model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20170821 (experimental) (GCC)
All tested targets are affected (not x86 specific).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81913
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81913
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81913
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81913
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81913
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Started with r249778.
Looks like overflow handling. Thanks for bisecting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
Bug ID: 81914
Summary: gcc 7.1 generates branch for code which was branchless
in earlier gcc version
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81915
Bug ID: 81915
Summary: bug with thread_local inline variables
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317
Jeffrey Walton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||noloader at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81915
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81900
--- Comment #7 from pipcet at gmail dot com ---
I can confirm that fixes things here, thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81915
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-*-cygwin
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #34)
> On ia64:
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr53037-4.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20170821/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/
7-1.c (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20170821/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr53037-1.c:42:1:
> warning: alignment 2 of 'struct foo5' is less than 16 [-Wif-not-aligned]
> /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20170821/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr53037-1.c:75:1:
> warn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79883
--- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Aug 21 12:39:59 2017
New Revision: 251223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79883
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_set_current_func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79883
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Aug 21 12:42:47 2017
New Revision: 251224
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251224&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79883
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_set_current_func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79883
--- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Aug 21 12:44:23 2017
New Revision: 251225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251225&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79883
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_set_current_func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79883
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81900
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 21 13:18:35 2017
New Revision: 251226
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251226&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81900
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81899
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Mon Aug 21 13:29:20 2017
New Revision: 251227
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251227&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81899
* pt.c (instantiate_class_template_1):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81899
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55809
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-02-09 00:00:00 |2017-8-21
--- Comment #24 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56272
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56951
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81906
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
A correct (for -frounding-math) SSE sequence would (for arguments with
absolute value < 2**52) add and subtract 2**52 for a positive operand,
-2**52 for a negative operand. Then it would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81906
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
(That's essentially what the generic C implementation of rint in glibc
does. I make no assertions about whether inlining this long expansion of
rint for SSE, or even the shorter -fno-roun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55588
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81906
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60917
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63374
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81912
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 21 15:14:27 2017
New Revision: 251234
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251234&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81912 make std::__iterator_category constexpr
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46091
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Aug 21 15:15:07 2017
New Revision: 251235
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251235&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/46091
* config/i386/i386.md (*btsq_imm):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68301
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81916
Bug ID: 81916
Summary: expansion of rint/nearbyint can simplified under
-fno-signed-zeros
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81893
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, it looks good now. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69103
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67928
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Yes, branchless version is faster. Here are results for code compiled with gcc
4.8.5:
BenchmarkTime CPU Iterations
--
BM_memcmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81917
Bug ID: 81917
Summary: internal compiler error: in finish_member_declaration,
at cp/semantics.c:3004
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71007
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81917
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Created attachment 42021
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42021&action=edit
q.ii.gz
q.ii.gz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81917
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I couldn't reduce it further because creduce is crashing for me.
Started with
commit 996ae1f4f1d512b4ccad62c7d52eb2f14b3e814c
Author: jason
Date: Sat Nov 8 06:06:42 2014 +
DR 1558
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60095
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66924
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77540
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78119
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78157
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79013
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |accepts-invalid, diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79595
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81903
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|compiler reports a language |[OOP] problem with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80191
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79592
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80144
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
