||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
--- Comment #17 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #0)
> Created attachment 41989 [details]
> preprocessed linux/mm/shmem.c file, compressed
>
> I ran into a few files in the linux kernel that while building wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
--- Comment #18 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
>
> > That certainly appears to be a better approach prima-facie and a quick
> > experiment with a
> >
> >
> > if (target_word_relocations)
> > return false;
> >
> > in arm_valid_symbolic_addre
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
||2017-10-31
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org,
||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82248
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Miscompiles mpfr for us on armv7. Isn't it easy enough to handle this in
> the insn pattern by using some non pre/post-indexed memory_operand predicate
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #21 from Ramana R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Works as expected in GCC 6.
||2017-11-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|Inexplicable use of NEON|[7/8 regression ]
|for 64-bit math |Inexplicable use of NEON
||for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2017-11-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|7.0 |c++-concepts
Summary|ICE in extract_insn, at |[8 regression] ICE in
|recog.c:2305 on aarch64 |extract_insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82973
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82248
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Dec 5 16:32:55 2017
New Revision: 255428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch ARM] Fix probe_stack constraint.
The probe_stack pattern u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||2016-09-15
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||6.0, 7.0
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed then
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
Known to fail||6.0, 7.0
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed for GCC 6.3 then.
||2016-09-15
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed
||2016-09-15
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||7.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed on trunk-
Works on trunk but not on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67904
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2016-09-16
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed then.
Ramana
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2016-10-06
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[Aarch64, ARM64] Add|[Aarch64] Add 'naked'
|'naked' function
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2016-10-10
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed.
||2016-10-27
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||7.0
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77730
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60459
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Raghu from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Can you try a newer version than GCC 4.2.1?
> >
> > Also can you provide the exact options you compiled your source
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mshawcroft at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Kugan from comment #2)
> Created attachment 32342 [details]
> Proposed RFC patch
>
>
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-03-20
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Mohamed Shafi from comment #2)
> So this is fixed in 4.7 then. Any plan to back port this?
No plans to backport any of the prolo
||2014-03-20
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Unfortunately there is no easy fix for this one without actually making a
source change to remove
||2014-03-20
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45932
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37436
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37436
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54051
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Rad
||2014-03-21
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed - reducing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 32418
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32418&action=edit
Reduced testcase
Reduced testcase. Looks prima-facie like lengths are messed up somewhere which
needs care
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
The expression being put out is :
(const:SI (not:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("*.LANCHOR0") [flags 0x182])))
#0 0x003105033410 in exit () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x011c56b8 in diagnostic_action_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |debug
--- Comment #3 from Ramana R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Command lines I was using to reproduce this with a cross compiler.
./cc1 -g -mthumb -fdata-sections -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mfloat-abi=hard -O2
-march=armv7-a
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-03-25
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||2014-03-25
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed.
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> As discussed yesterday with Ramana on IRC, my suggested fix for this for 4.9
> is something like:
> --- gcc/dwarf2out.c 2014-03-03 08:24:14.841895755 +010
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-03-27
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|ICE [ARM] error: insn does |[ARM] ICE with asm (&quo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60650
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Mar 31 14:21:58 2014
New Revision: 208961
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208961&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Adjust testcase for softfp cases.
PR target/60650
2014-03-31 Ram
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60758
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Fri Apr 4 16:10:07 2014
New Revision: 209121
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR debug/60655 - part 1
This is a partial fix for PR60655 whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Partially fixed on trunk - need to handle the failure without -fdata-sections
and -g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60657
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Apr 7 13:17:11 2014
New Revision: 209185
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209185&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix testcase for PR target/60657
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I haven't had enough time to work on this one but in the interest of getting
this sorted for 4.9, I'm handling this as suggested by Jakub in the backend
under targetm.const_not_ok_for_debug_p and disal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 32564
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32564&action=edit
patch...
Fix so far tested just on the reduced and the full testcase. No issues. Now
bootstrapping and re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60459
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32564|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Apr 10 08:13:30 2014
New Revision: 209269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR debug/60655 part 2.
2014-04-10 Ramana Radhakrishnan
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
While fixing PR60655 Jakub noted that the problem really was that var-tracking
and debug info generation can play a bit fast and loose in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60034
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed||2014-04-24
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39501
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
> Do we plan to keep these scan-assembler tests? or go with just functional
> tests?
No, not these scan assembler tests. They serve no purpose.
I'm expecting them to get replaced by the testsuite yo
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
I've recently started seeing these testfailures on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf.
Appears to be from the wide-int merge.
$TOPDIR/configure --t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61155
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
These also look related to the same
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v32qi.c -O2 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v32qi.c -O2 (test for excess errors)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Targ
||2014-05-15
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
What's the version, command line options used so that someone can even begin to
repr
||2014-05-16
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #3)
> This code is doing an OImode ASHIFT and fails the check:
>
> #if TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT == 0
> /* This asse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Jun 2 08:22:30 2014
New Revision: 211129
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211129&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/61154
2014-06-02 Ramana Radhakrishnan
PR tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61353
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61353
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Ramana
||2014-06-06
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55701
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56313
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56924
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
trunk and FSF 4.9.0 currently generates on ARM.
and r0, r0, #224
cmp r0, #224
bxnelr
b bar
which looks way better than what 4.8 generates.
I'm no
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
./cc1 -O2 -march=armv7-a fixed-bit.i
#0 0x in ?? ()
#1 0x0052b152 in assign_by_spills () at /work/gcc/gcc/lra-assigns.c:1434
#2 0x0052b3b6 in lra_assign () at /work/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61522
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Tar
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Looks like a dup of 61522 but that has pre-processed file etc.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 61522 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61522
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Same failure also with
./cc1 -O2 -fPIC -march=armv7-a test.c
$> cat test.c
typedef int(__kernel_cmpxchg64_t)(const long long *oldval,
const long long *newval, lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61522
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christophe.lyon at st dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61522
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Appears to begin with
Commit 211655:
2014-06-13 Vladimir Makarov
* lra-assign.c (assign_by_spills): Add code to assign vector regs
to inheritance pseudos.
* config/i386/i3
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 32946
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32946&action=edit
compressed testcase
./
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61523
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61522
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Presumably fixed now.
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Somewhere between 210455 and 210475 these tests started failing on
arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61532
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61532
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This is likely to also be failing on the 4.9 branch, since the weekend
I was about to add 4.9 but then couldn't find a link to post.
(In reply to Jon
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
rev: 211358
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-06/msg00821.html
rev: 211354
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61536
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||link-failure
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61536
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61536
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3)
> By the way, it would be useful if you could confirm the analysis, thus run
> nm on your runtime .so and double check that those two symbols are there,
> bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61536
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6)
> Created attachment 32955 [details]
> Draft
I see other failures that include operator std::type_info::operator!= , so I'll
see how to extend this if it fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61536
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #9)
> Well, up to you really: maybe operator!= is special for you because it just
> thinly wraps operator== which is exported for you. If adding back *only*
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61536
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2)
> Pretty sure it's my change because typeinfo::before and typeinfo::operator==
> are special on some targets and I couldn't notice on x86-linux:
>
> #if !_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61536
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #9)
> Well, up to you really: maybe operator!= is special for you because it just
> thinly wraps operator== which is exported for you. If adding back *only*
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61536
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Jun 18 09:44:15 2014
New Revision: 211774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211774&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix libstdc++/61536 - Export out of line typeinfo comparison oper
501 - 600 of 1230 matches
Mail list logo
