http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59610
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59610
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jan 8 15:06:22 2014
New Revision: 206428
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-08 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/59610
* ipa-prop.c (ipa_comput
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59610
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jan 8 15:32:50 2014
New Revision: 206430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-08 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/59610
testsuite/
* gcc.dg/ipa/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59610
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59722
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2014-01-09
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Confirmed, mine.
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 31831
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31831&action=edit
Testcase
I discovered this problem when multidelta-red
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59736
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59736
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jan 17 19:05:52 2014
New Revision: 206729
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206729&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-17 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/59736
* ipa-cp.c (prev_edge_cl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59736
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55260
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jamb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 32030 [details]
> gcc49-pr60026.patch
>
> The problem is that for -O0 we don't create vdef/vuse at all, but I'd say we
> shouldn't be cloning -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Not so easily, the problem is that copy_forbidden is called without fun
> being actually cfun, and set_cfun is very expensive.
I think we can do the test without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 32032 [details]
> gcc49-pr60026.patch
>
> If you prefer say this, sure, it can be done instead (and fixes the testcase
> too).
Yes, I do. Tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55260
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Fix to this second issue (which is indeed very similar to the initial
one) has been sent to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00201.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60061
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I see init cloned in both -fwhole-program ipa-cp dumps and in WPA
-flto dumps (i.e. when omitting the -S option).
Apparently, when creating fat LTO object file -fwhole-program does not
apply during the compil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59776
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 32104 [details]
> gcc49-pr59776.patch
>
> So, do we want to do this instead? In this particular case, even no
> DW_OP_GNU_reinterpret is neede
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 32136
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32136&action=edit
Patch doing ipa-prop function body analysis in dominator order
Yuri, this patch should make the requested propag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55260
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Feb 20 13:28:34 2014
New Revision: 207941
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-20 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/55260
* ipa-cp.c (cgraph_edge
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55260
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor ---
Not yet on the 4.8 branch, but I'm re-running the tests there now and hopefully
will commit it also there today or tomorrow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55260
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Feb 21 13:05:40 2014
New Revision: 207990
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207990&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-21 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/55260
* ipa-cp.c (cgraph_edge
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60266
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #2)
> It's caused by mixing -O0 and -O2 with LTO:
>
Indeed. Patch fixing this ICE is pending approval at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01325.ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60266
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Feb 24 12:39:52 2014
New Revision: 208067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-24 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/60266
* ipa-cp.c (propagate_co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60266
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
I've come across this verify_flow_info failure when attempting to LTO
build Firefox. I'm attaching a small testcase (I'm using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 32289
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32289&action=edit
Part one of a testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 32290
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32290&action=edit
Part two of a testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #200 from Martin Jambor ---
I currently cannot build Firefox with LTO due to PR 60449 (yeah, I
know, using gcc configured with checking makes life hard, sometimes
unnecessarily).
I get errors like
/home/mjambor/mozilla/mzc2/media/lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 32291
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32291&action=edit
Untested proposed fix
Untested proposed fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60461
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60461
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Mar 14 10:49:05 2014
New Revision: 208566
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208566&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-13 Martin Jambor
PR lto/60461
* ipa-prop.c (ipa_modify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67470
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Confirmed. Started with r212034 (interesting).
Even the revision before that ICEs with --param allow-store-data-races=0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg00858.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
For the record, the patch got into trunk as revision r228654, I made a
mistake in the ChangeLog tag and so it did not appear here. I am
about to backport it to gcc 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Oct 26 14:36:43 2015
New Revision: 229367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Also remap SSA_NAMEs of PARM_DECLs in IPA-SRA
2015-10-26 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68064
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68064
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
The problem is that IPA-CP does not handle zero-aligned pointers (what
would they be?) but get_pointer_alignment_1 actually returns zero for
one and itself returns true, meaning it claims it knows the alignme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68064
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed committing the fix on the mailing list
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03383.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Nov 2 14:04:19 2015
New Revision: 229666
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229666&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-02 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimization/67794
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2015-02-11
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
The problem is that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, so here are my findings. Switching off IPA-CP helps because the
pass then does not propagate polymorphic context from
_ZN8MySoPlexC2EN6soplex6SoPlex4TypeENS1_14RepresentationE/5887 to
_ZN6soplex9SPxSolve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> The same bug affects 252.eon in SPEC CPU 2000 on x32:
...
>
> The fix isn't sufficient since adding -fno-ipa-cp fixes eon on x32.
I really doubt that it is "the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #19 from Martin Jambor ---
HJ, how do I configure build an x32 gcc? I have working x32 debian
chroot environment but building gcc fails with:
checking for int64_t underlying type... long long
configure: error: error verifying int64_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #41 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #24)
>
> IPA-CP missed _ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev which calls
> _ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_ with 8-byte aligned rPrimary.
If I am not mistaken and this call is in between nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #43 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #42)
> Does it skip a jump func when its argument alignment is unknown?
No, I don't think it does. Cur is initialized to unknown alignment
and then only overwrites the who
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #46 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #45)
>
> Can you see anything wrong with the new dump?
release_ssa is an early optimization pass, wpa dump is not helpful.
We need release-ssa dump from the compilation st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #50 from Martin Jam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #51 from Martin Jambor ---
So unless I made some mistake, we are looking a the following chain of
calls and aliases
main/48071 -> _ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev/50391 ->alias->
_ZN18eonImageCalculatorC2Ev/50390 ->
->_ZN12ggPhotometerC1E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #52 from Martin Jambor ---
So, as you might have guessed from the previous comment, this is the
fix. I should have left the office half an hour ago so I will
properly bootstrap and test and submit it tomorrow, but feel free to
do all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #59 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #36)
> We end up with algnment unkonwn instead of a. (did not managed to reproduce
> the wrong alignment here). What about the following:
It is certainly better than w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #3)
> ix=1 and m_vecpfx.m_num=1 in this case.
> Let me know what other debugging info may be useful to you.
Well, it might be difficult debugging this without re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 34951
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34951&action=edit
Patch testing pass-through jump function indices
Here is the same patch as an attachment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63661
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> Started with r204698 , you can use -O2 -fpic -mtune=corei7 in compilers that
> don't grok -mtune=nehalem.
So it's probably mine. I will take a look but please
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Host: x86_64-linux-gnu
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Created attachment 33876
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Dominique, if you could pinpoint exactly the revision causing this, it
would be great. Most of us do not have access to a darwin machine.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #21)
> This is expanded thunk produce dby cgraph_node::expand_thunk
> Did not look into the testcase if it should be there or not.
>
Indeed. expand_thunk creates this
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 34056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34056&action=edit
Untested fix
I'm testing this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> indeed, somewhere we need to view convert the aggregate value... Predicates
> works on conditions on arguments, so I suppose this ought to happen at
> ipa-prop side
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63661
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor ---
So had a look at what my tiny bit in IRA does with this testcase and
while it certainly triggers the bug, I don't think it causes it. It
performs exactly the same modifications as when -mtune=nehalem is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02832.html
If it gets accepted, please feel free to add the testcase(s). I only
checked using a darwin cross compiler an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted the fix to the mailing list as well:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02842.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63661
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin.li at arm dot com
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
*** Bug 64041 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64041
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #27 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #26)
> > I proposed a fix on the mailing list:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02832.html
>
> I have this patch in my working tree as wel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Dec 1 12:05:41 2014
New Revision: 218205
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218205&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-01 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/63551
* ipa-inline-analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Dec 1 12:52:58 2014
New Revision: 218208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-01 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/63551
* ipa-inline-analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
,
||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Honza, does this assert in possible_polymorphic_call_targets:
gcc_assert (odr_violation_reported);
make sense even when called from ipa-cp? (And thus possibly with
illegal polymorphic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63661
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64139
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
And by the way, neither ipa-cp nor ipa-prop invents anything funny
here. It feeds ipa-devirt exactly the same context that it created in
ipa_compute_jump_functions_for_edge (i.e. that the constructor created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #28 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Dec 2 10:12:27 2014
New Revision: 218265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-02 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/63814
* ipa-cp.c (same_node
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2014-12-02
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 34171
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34171&action=edit
Untested fix
I'm testing this fix - but on a x86_64-linux, together with other stuff, just
to be sure, I have d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I've posted the patch to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00205.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 3 14:05:51 2014
New Revision: 218316
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218316&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/64153
* ipa-inline-analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 3 15:17:37 2014
New Revision: 218320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/64153
* ipa-inline-analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551
Bug 63551 depends on bug 64153, which changed state.
Bug 64153 Summary: [5.0 regression] r218205 miscompiles libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64167
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #3)
> Introduced in r218208 on 4.9:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2014-12/msg00015.html
>
> Also present on trunk.
Can you please check that it is not a duplic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Recently I rewrote the implementation of -fsanitize=unreachable and now I
> get an Illegal instruction on the testcase attached. So is there anything
> else to d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Hm, the only one I can reproduce is the gcc.dg/vect/pr60196-1.c
failure, but I will start with that and have a look. Hopefully it is
the same issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I'm still in the process of testing the following fix. I believe it will solve
all these problems. Sorry for such a stupid mistake:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00507.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 5 18:14:37 2014
New Revision: 218433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-05 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/64192
* ipa-prop.c (ipa_comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> Everywhere I guess.
I'm not getting this warning neither on x86_64-linux nor on i686-linux,
otherwise I would not have committed the patch. Any information abou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> The gcc.dg/ipa/pr63551.c test fails on the 4.9 branch on 32-bit
> targets (i386, arm, s390):
> gcc.dg/ipa/pr63551.c:24:9: warning: this decimal constant is unsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Honza, given what you wrote in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01033.html
do you want to take over this bug?
1301 - 1400 of 2365 matches
Mail list logo
