https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
The original bootstrap failure is on aarch64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey ---
I tested Jason's patch on my Aarch64 box and it fixed the ICE. Any chance we
could check that patch in so that we could build SPEC 2017 with -flto?
I don't know if we want to allow this mismatch or not but
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When compiling the SPEC 2017 526.blender_r benchmark for peak, the compilation
that tries to generate profile
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
A recent g++ change broke the boost build. It is dying with many (many)
errors like this:
./boost/intrusive/list.hpp:1448:7: required from here
./boost/intrusive/detail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91889
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #9)
> I'll raise it with CWG; suspending until then.
Not sure if it matters but there seem to be 8 instances of this problem in
Boost (get_color, get_left, get_next, g
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
A number of gcc.target/aarch64/sve/clastb_* tests (1-8) are failing with
segfaults. This seems to have started
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr61034.C test has been failing since around Sept 15, 2019.
Looking at gcc-testresults it looks like is failing on aarch64, x86, power,
and probably more.
FAIL: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90836
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:50:05 2019
New Revision: 276721
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276721&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-08 Dmitrij Pochepko
PR tree-optimization/90836
* g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90836
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:53:03 2019
New Revision: 276722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276722&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-08 Dmitrij Pochepko
PR tree-optimization/90836
* l
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am seeing several hundred aarch64 sve tests fail with an ICE since Oct 8,
2019. One such failure is gcc.target
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This test started failing on aarch64-linux-gnu with this checkin:
commit b33f4eb038b5c30bf57de6bb10f40e11481c6be6
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Oct 7 16:33:26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83500
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
The test now passes for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83466
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 43027
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43027&action=edit
Patch file being tested
I am testing this patch for regressions, I have verified that it does fix the
small test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83500
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00348.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83285
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83285
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||8.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Yes, this is fixed for 8.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
I tested the patch on my aarch64 box, I got three regressions:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr78733.c scan-assembler adr
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr79041-2.c scan-assembler adr
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65345
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43279
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43279&action=edit
Test case
The
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||9.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #14 from Steve Ellcey ---
It looks like the fix for this is checked in. I verified that on Aarch64,
when compiling bits.cpp from 531
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
--- Comment #24 from Steve Ellcey ---
See email strings at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg00276.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-02/msg00057.html
For more discussion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89628
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/spellcheck_4.c (test for errors, line )
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/spellcheck_4.c (test for excess errors
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am seeing some Fortran regressions in my testing, but only when I build and
test with the latest Glibc. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #34 from Steve Ellcey ---
I submitted a patch that would fix gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfi_1.c back
in February but have not gotten any feedback on the final version of the
patch despite a couple of pings. I have resubmitted the pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #45 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Apr 10 20:28:19 2019
New Revision: 270266
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-10 Steve Ellcey
PR rtl-optimization/87763
* conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #46 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Apr 10 20:29:57 2019
New Revision: 270267
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270267&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-10 Steve Ellcey
PR rtl-optimization/87763
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #48 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #47)
> What's the state of regressions left? Can we xfail the rest and defer the
> bug?
I submitted a patch to fix gcc.target/aarch64/lsl_asr_sbfiz.c
That email is h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #50 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Apr 11 18:02:41 2019
New Revision: 270288
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270288&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-11 Steve Ellcey
PR rtl-optimization/87763
* conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #51 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Apr 11 18:03:49 2019
New Revision: 270289
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270289&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-11 Steve Ellcey
PR rtl-optimization/87763
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Right now there is no predefined macro in GCC that can tell if LSE is enable or
not. If you compile with -march=armv8.1-a+lse or -march
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
According to Christophe Lyon, Martin Liska is aware of these failures and will
fix them but I wanted to create a bug report to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
While I agree that we want users to use the __sync and atomic primitives,
it still seems like it would be useful in some cases to know if the LSE
operations are available and if GCC is generating code for them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71727
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The tests gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-1.c and gcc.target/aarch64/ashltidisi.c
have been failing since this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61247
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Here is a simpler C version of the problem.
On aarch64 in LP64 mode setting TYPE
to int, long int, or unsigned long int allows for vectorization
but using unsigned int does not get vectorized.
In ILP32 mode,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87433
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Based on that email string, gcc.target/aarch64/ashltidisi.c can be
fixed by looking for 3 asr instructions instead of 4. That seems
simple enough. The new code has two fewer instructions that the
old code:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71625
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87433
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Sep 28 14:41:45 2018
New Revision: 264691
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264691&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-28 Steve Ellcey
PR testsuite/87433
* gcc.dg/zero_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87433
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Sep 28 14:44:15 2018
New Revision: 264692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264692&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-28 Steve Ellcey
PR testsuite/87433
* gcc.target/a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87433
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
While teaching the reassociation pass about fma's seems like the right answer
would it be reasonable (and simpler) to do the fma pass
(pass_optimize_widening_mul) before
the reassociation pass (pass_reassoc) t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #5)
> (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #4)
> > While teaching the reassociation pass about fma's seems like the right
> > answer would it be reasonable (and simpler) to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83983
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Feb 22 17:06:31 2018
New Revision: 257907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-22 Steve Ellcey
PR target/83335
* config/aarch64/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Feb 22 17:08:10 2018
New Revision: 257908
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257908&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-22 Steve Ellcey
PR target/83335
* gcc/testsuite/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey ---
> Can you let me know if my workaround helped? If useful I could backport it
> to GCC7 as well.
Yes, the patch helped. I ran spec 2017 fp rate and saw a small improvement
(0.7%). Most of the speed up was i
-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
With this test case:
int foo(int a, int b, int *c, int i, int j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71625
--- Comment #24 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Oct 5 15:26:40 2018
New Revision: 264874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-05 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/71625
* /gc
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following tests fail on aarch64 after r265398 (combine: Do not combine
moves from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
I looked at one of the failing tests (gcc.target/aarch64/cvtf_1.c)
the code looks worse than before, generating an extra instruction
in each of the routines. Here is an example from one function where
there i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55399
Bug #: 55399
Summary: pch tests fail on mips-mti-linux-gnu target
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55399
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2012-11-19 23:53:08
UTC ---
Do you have any suggestions of where I should start? The failures are with
tests that create preprocessed header file, remove the original header file,
then compile a program th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55399
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey 2012-11-20 00:32:22
UTC ---
OK, forget the comment about stdc-predef.h, I was looking in my GCC install
area instead of the glibc root area. I do have stdc-predef.h.
The failure mode is a refusal to use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55399
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey 2012-11-21 21:28:41
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Nov 21 21:28:30 2012
New Revision: 193709
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193709
Log:
2012-11-21 Steve Ellcey
PR pch/55
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55399
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54061
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2012-12-10 22:19:22
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Dec 10 22:19:16 2012
New Revision: 194372
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194372
Log:
2012-12-10 Steve Ellcey
PR target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39244
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55688
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey 2012-12-14 22:50:43
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Dec 14 22:50:38 2012
New Revision: 194512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194512
Log:
2012-12-14 Steve Ellcey
PR regres
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2012-12-14 22:52:23
UTC ---
Fixed by adding
// { dg-require-profiling "-fprofile-generate" }
to the test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55721
Bug #: 55721
Summary: -mabi=64 compilation results in unknown UNSPEC note
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55721
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2012-12-17 18:55:30
UTC ---
Thanks for the pointer.
Unfortunately, this note also happens when compiling testsuite_abi during the
libstdc++ testsuite, that is where I first noticed it.
Here is a C++ te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55777
Bug #: 55777
Summary: Inlining nomips16 function into mips16 function can
result in undefined builtins
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52152
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey 2012-12-21 18:54:05
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Dec 21 18:54:00 2012
New Revision: 194676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194676
Log:
2012-12-21 Steve Ellcey
PR boots
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2012-12-21 23:43:57
UTC ---
Works for me too on ToT. I do not see any partial loads. I am going to close
this as unreproducable. Simon, if you can
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey 2012-12-21 23:56:28
UTC ---
It looks like this bug was fixed for 4.6 and backported to 4.5 so I am closing
it. I don't see any reason for it still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42661
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2013-01-07 22:16:53
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Jan 7 22:16:45 2013
New Revision: 194998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194998
Log:
2013-01-07 Steve Ellcey
PR target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55904
Bug #: 55904
Summary: g++.dg/torture/vshuf-v8hi.C fails on MIPS with -O3
-mel -mips16
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.8.0
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2013-01-08 16:37:05
UTC ---
Fixed on ToT for 4.8 release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55721
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey 2013-01-09 20:24:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> OK, I've got a patch for this, but probably won't be able to test
> it until the weekend.
If you want to attach it to this defect (or email it to me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55721
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey 2013-01-09 21:15:53
UTC ---
I am still seeing some UNSPEC notes during my mipt-mti-elf build, here is a
testcase cut down from newlib/libc/misc/init.c, (ps and pe were originally
__preinit_array_start and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55721
--- Comment #12 from Steve Ellcey 2013-01-09 21:52:59
UTC ---
Here is another testcase that looks different then the others, it is cutdown
from newlib/libm/math/k_rem_pio2.c.
% cat bug3.c
static const int init_jk[] = {2,3,4,6};
double
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55721
--- Comment #13 from Steve Ellcey 2013-01-09 23:09:15
UTC ---
Here is a C++ test case in case it involves differences from the C examples.
This comes from libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/pointer_type_info.cc
% cat bug4.cc
namespace std
{
cla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27338
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55777
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey 2013-01-14 21:34:09
UTC ---
gcc.target/mips/mips32-dspr2.c fails for the same reason.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53073
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68400
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Jan 28 22:25:55 2016
New Revision: 232952
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232952&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-28 Steve Ellcey
PR target/68400
* config/mips/mip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68400
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Jan 28 22:28:04 2016
New Revision: 232954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68400
* gcc.target/mips/mips.exp (mips_option_group
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65604
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Jan 29 16:29:58 2016
New Revision: 232985
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232985&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65604
* config/mips/mips.c (mips_output_division):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65604
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Jan 29 16:31:18 2016
New Revision: 232986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232986&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65604
* gcc.target/mips/div-delay.c: New test.
Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
--- Comment #13 from Steve Ellcey ---
I have submitted a patch for this defect:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02350.html
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
MULTILIB_EXCLUSIONS is not documented anywhere. MULTILIB_EXCEPTIONS is
documented, but not MULTILIB_EXCLUSIONS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68126
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
--- Comment #28 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Hector Oron from comment #27)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> > Re-adding GCC 6 as regression, though graphviz is not gsoap.
>
> Right, I initially thought it was the same issu
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: aarch64-*-*
Target: aarch64-*-*
Build: aarch64-*-*
Created attachment 41837
--> https://gcc.gnu.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: aarch64-*-*
Target: aarch64-*-*
Build: aarch64-*-*
Created attachment 41838
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #18 from Steve Ellcey ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01862.html for a proposed
patch to update the tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #19 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Jul 31 21:44:34 2017
New Revision: 250752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-31 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/80925
* gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #20 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Aug 1 15:37:22 2017
New Revision: 250783
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250783&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/80925
* gcc
||2017-08-01
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Looking at the slp dump file on aarch64 where this also fails I see these
messages:
slp-pr56812.cc:18:1: note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81096
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #22 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #21)
> I think this change caused regressions on armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf
> --with-cpu=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=neon-fp16 (works OK
> --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16-fp16)
Ranie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
101 - 200 of 314 matches
Mail list logo
