https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84903
--- Comment #2 from Marcin Krotkiewski ---
Great, the trunk works for both the test, and the production code. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #43 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
>
> --- Comment #42 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84953
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 20 07:55:41 2018
New Revision: 258671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/84953
* builtins.c (fold_builtin_strpbrk): For strpbr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84953
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] |[6/7 Regression] misleading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
--- Comment #10 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Tue Mar 20 08:11:35 2018
New Revision: 258672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81647: Fix testcase.
2018-03-20 Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84986
Bug ID: 84986
Summary: Performance regression: loop no longer vectorized
(x86-64)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84945
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 20 08:14:42 2018
New Revision: 258673
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258673&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84945
* config/i386/i386.c (fold_builtin_cpu): F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84986
--- Comment #1 from Gergö Barany ---
Created attachment 43714
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43714&action=edit
test driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84959
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84960
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #44 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #43)
> I don't like to see plain optimize_size uses in match.pd, so yeah,
> just close the PR.
Excellent.
>
> Disclaimer: if we ever need to do sth like that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84961
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84962
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84986
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84963
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc, wrong-code
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84964
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84826
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So I looked into this. Turns out the actual issue is that USE_RETURN_INSN
> (FALSE) changes its value and becomes false after pass ce3.
>
> According to what I can see, arm_r3_live_at_start_p() starts to r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84966
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84957
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84965
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84957
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84967
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84968
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84288
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
> I'm not sure if r258388 fixes the linker issue on Solaris, but it should make
> it much easier to fix; e.g. to apply your patch here:
> https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84970
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84971
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84969
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2018-03-19 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84945
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
It might be worthwhile putting in some code to detect when the number
of features goes over 64. Maybe a simple assert would be enough.
I suspect there is no need yet to have code to handle the over 64 cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84972
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84973
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84974
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84974
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84975
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84977
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84976
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 84945, which changed state.
Bug 84945 Summary: [8 Regression] UBSAN: gcc/config/i386/i386.c:33312:22:
runtime error: shift exponent 32 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84945
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84962
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84615
--- Comment #16 from Janne Blomqvist ---
The following patch regtests cleanly on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, i686-pc-linux-gnu,
and successfully passes the #c5 testcase on i686 with -fdefault-real8, and the
#c8 testcase on i686 (I didn't test other test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84984
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84985
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71638
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84963
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We run into
2949 /* Canonicalize the PT uid of all aliases to the ultimate
target.
2950 ??? Hopefully the set of aliases can't change in a way
that
2951 changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84978
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84980
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84979
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84972
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84970
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84974
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84973
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84979
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84935
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84961
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Doesn't ICE with C, where it is rejected with:
pr84961.c: In function ‘foo’:
pr84961.c:3:15: error: lvalue required in asm statement
void foo () { asm("" : "=a"(b = a)); }
^~~
pr84961.c:3:15:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84982
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84985
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84954
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Mar 20 09:14:07 2018
New Revision: 258674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Fix prevent_branch_around_nothing
2018-03-20 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84964
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84982
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84954
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84954
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #65 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #62 from Richard Biener ---
> Waiting for Solaris engineer input... (or a machine to be able to debug this
I'll send it along shortly: just didn't manage to in time befo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84987
Bug ID: 84987
Summary: ice in vectorizable_reduction with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78651
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84988
Bug ID: 84988
Summary: Compiler hang in chkp_type_bounds_count for large
arrays
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84978
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84961
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84952
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Mar 20 10:31:23 2018
New Revision: 258676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Fix bar.sync position
2018-03-20 Tom de Vries
PR targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84989
Bug ID: 84989
Summary: _mm512_broadcast_f32x4 triggers internal compiler bug
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84961
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84961
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84964
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
I think the difference is that pending_stack_adjust and stack_pointer_delta
used to be int-based rather than HWI-based, so the size of the stack allocation
was previously truncated to from 1<<6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84962
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84970
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
G
DETECTED==
+
[ 1614s] | 8.0.1 20180320 (experimental) [trunk revision 258674]
(powerpc64-suse
-linux) GCC error:|
[ 1614s] | in assemble_variable, at varasm.c:2297
|
[ 1614s] | Error detected around ../../gcc/ada/libgnat/s-rident.ads:75:16
|
[ 1614s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84974
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84990
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux, |powerpc64*-*-*, aarch64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
--- Comment #21 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sudi
Date: Tue Mar 20 10:54:42 2018
New Revision: 258677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][PR82989] Fix unexpected use of NEON instructions for shifts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84990
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
And I didn't use --enable-checking=release on aarch64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84845
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 20 10:59:26 2018
New Revision: 258678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84845
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (*aarch64_reg_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84987
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #1 from Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84990
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43718
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43718&action=edit
gcc8-pr84990.patch
Can't reproduce with a cross, but just from the ICE line I guess this could fix
it. There i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84913
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84987
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84990
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84990
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 43718
> --> https://gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84978
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
This ICE apparently depends on whether we perform NRVO or not. If the size of
S is <=16B we pass it in registers and it compiles fine. But if the size of S
is >16B, then we pass in memory, and we NRV-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84988
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84978
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
So we can be more careful there and do:
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -4111,7 +4111,15 @@ cxx_eval_constant_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
tree t,
/* We ask for an rvalue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84952
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xaxxon at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
