Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
If the GCC website is viewed on a small screen device, such as a mobile phone,
then the entire page is scaled as-is until it will fit the width of the device.
This makes it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.4 |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87565
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Not a good idea. Modern CPUs often don't predict such operations correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #15 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to coypu from comment #14)
> Also, after these two patches, my own build of arm--netbsdelf is failing
> from this:
> configure: error: Pthreads are required to build libgomp
>
> Looking at conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Oct 23 10:19:15 2018
New Revision: 265420
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265420&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] Update default CPUs during configure
There are a c
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: iii at linux dot ibm.com, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87747
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87760
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87760
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87747
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Oct 30 11:33:24 2018
New Revision: 265620
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265620&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't allow the pool allocator to be configured to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #5)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #3)
> > > IRA costing doesn't consider the possibility of a simple move being
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #10)
> it turns out the ieee_* functions are allowed in const expressions so they
> need to work at compile time too (see bug 78449), which of course won't work
> if they nee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88224
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54540
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-20
09:35:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Can this be closed now?
Well the comment 4 is still relevant, I suspect that there are still latent
issues in postreload.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-29
17:51:49 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Nov 29 17:51:40 2012
New Revision: 193943
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193943
Log:
PR target/55073
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
09:58:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hello Richard
>
> I updated my working copy of gcc to rev 193943, rebuilt the compiler, rebuilt
> the testcase I originally attached to this bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
14:00:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Richard,
>
> I apologize, building at -O0 (and handrolling an assembly routine to do the
> same computation) proves me wrong : your values are t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
14:40:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Do you think rebuilding arm-linux-androideabi-gcc on Linux to check if the
> generated code is the same is worth the time or is there no chance wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
14:55:25 UTC ---
Something else to check is that you are using the version of arm_neon.h that
comes with gcc-4.8. This file has to match the version of GCC it was designed
for.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55754
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-12-20
15:44:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This hunk needs to be reverted. op0 is modified but it is set to an equivalent
> value.
Perhaps you could update the documentation to make that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55757
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56024
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-eabi, arm-linux-gnueabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56025
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-eabi, arm-linux-gnueabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70008
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Huh? The attribute
(set_attr "arch" "*,a")
Should disable the second alternative for Thumb.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70014
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
More importantly, the constraint on operand 2 is for just a constant. but the
predicate accepts a register. That's something the register allocator could
not handle.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70089
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70088
Bug ID: 70088
Summary: ARM/THUMB unnecessarily typecasts some rvalues on
memory store
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70089
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLIC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70088
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70089
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
*** Bug 70088 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67896
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
> Ah, on second glance the peephole looks correct in itself, but the second
> branch following the bmi uses an incorrect condition code.
> So we have:
> tst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70755
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70738
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
AArch64 already has a similar option already. We've called it
-mgeneral-regs-only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70894
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70755
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78449
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
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=81720
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
--- Comment #5 from Richard E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81818
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Andrew Roberts from comment #8)
> I've tried building gcc-8-20170806 and gcc-8-20170813 with
> --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats
>
> This fails on x86-64, arm and aarch64 with the same error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81907
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to dongkyun.s from comment #13)
> > Confirmed the call on 6.4.1 but GCC 7 and trunk don't generate the call for
> > -mcpu=cortex-a9 .
>
> I also verified memset call is not generated with GCC
||2017-09-25
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rearnsha at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Mine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82175
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Sep 26 09:33:49 2017
New Revision: 253189
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253189&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR82175 - fix -mcpu=native not working correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82175
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #40 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #39)
> It is an ABI change, so I think it is highly undesirable to backport. It is
> enough that people will have to rebuild many packages built by GCC 7
> prerele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #43 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Hmm, so how about just inserting the warning in the broken compilers?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #51 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #50)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> > Started with r225465.
> > Something to do with alignment.
> > I wonder if it's related to PR69841 ?
>
> Seems t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||klug.stefan at gmx dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80149
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69841
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||biblbroks at hotmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80530
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80530
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Apr 27 14:09:55 2017
New Revision: 247340
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Fix for gcc-7 regression PR 80530
This patch f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80530
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Apr 27 14:11:47 2017
New Revision: 247341
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247341&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Fix for gcc-7 regression PR 80530
This patch f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80530
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80627
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80627
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80627
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80754
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46128
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45886
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Closing. All versions of gcc since 4.6 have supported __ARM_PCS_VFP. Older
versions are no-longer maintained.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45886
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11824
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 11824, which changed state.
Bug 11824 Summary: [ARM] Parameter passing via stack could be improved
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11824
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81168
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81229
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at acm dot org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81273
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to LdB from comment #3)
> I am stunned you could not build the code the only requirement is you
> include the stdint.h so the uint32_t types are defined. I will fix the typos
> are you really say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81273
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
--- Comment #12 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Or reload_completed || lra_in_progress, or punt on pseudos in the predicate.
I think these patterns can be generated during the expand of inlined memcpy
oper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78255
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Hmm, why is this even being considered on ARM?
arm.h:#define NO_FUNCTION_CSE 1
doc/tm.texi
@defmac NO_FUNCTION_CSE
Define this macro to be true if it is as good or better to call a constant
function addr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77904
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77933
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78974
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63829
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
From a discussion on IRC:
What's the general story on lock policies?
Are environments supposed to support all three?
(if possible)
no. it's something only used in std::shared_ptr, and generally entirely
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78397
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The __aeabi_read_tp call is to a special helper function and not really
considered to be a 'public interface'; the EABI only requires conformance to
the stack alignment constraints at public interfaces.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
--- Comment #17 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Unless people commonly use
> RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-mtune=cortex-a15,-mtune=cortex-m7\}' or
> something similar, that might work well. The amo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78397
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Alexandre Martins from comment #4)
> Unfortunatly, it's not crashing into the __aeabi_read_tp function, but into
> the dynamic linker of freebsd (rtld-elf). For info, this function is located
: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-* mips-*
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79121
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Jan 19 10:35:38 2017
New Revision: 244613
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244613&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[expand] Fix for PR rtl-optimization/79121 incorrect e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79121
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |6.0
Summary|[6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79121
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Jan 20 11:43:58 2017
New Revision: 244702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244702&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[expand] Fix for PR rtl-optimization/79121 incorrect e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79121
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79166
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78397
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71399
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-09-28 00:00:00 |2017-1-23
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79239
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rearnsha at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79239
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Patch posted here
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg02073.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79260
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Mon Jan 30 14:39:50 2017
New Revision: 245029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79260
* config.gcc (arm*-*-*):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79260
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
601 - 700 of 1670 matches
Mail list logo
