https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65215
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I can certainly remove that hunk from the patch, if the expander and other
> passes handle it well. The test can stay I guess.
Things are at least working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64453
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Mar 3 09:32:44 2015
New Revision: 221135
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221135&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-23 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64453
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Mar 4 02:06:07 2015
New Revision: 221170
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221170&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-04 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Mar 4 05:51:08 2015
New Revision: 221172
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221172&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-04 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Mar 4 05:56:54 2015
New Revision: 221173
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221173&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-04 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainline
2
ignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |thopre01 at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63743
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Mon Mar 9 01:31:42 2015
New Revision: 221276
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221276&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-09 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR tree-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Oct 31 11:55:07 2014
New Revision: 216971
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216971&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-31 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61887
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63747
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63721
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
--- Comment #2 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can reproduce, thanks for the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
--- Comment #3 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I got a local patch that makes this code compile without error and I can build
gcc with this patch. I'm now going to run the testsuite, add some more comments
and try to make a reduced testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
--- Comment #4 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch has been posted for review at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg01042.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Nov 12 09:50:20 2014
New Revision: 217409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217409&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-12 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #11 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #9)
> Author: yroux
> Date: Mon Oct 6 12:25:14 2014
> New Revision: 215929
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215929&root
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #13 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #12)
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > Any chance you could backport for 4.8 Yvan? Do you want me to do it? Or are
> > the release manager against a 4.8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #15 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll take care of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 27 11:00:15 2014
New Revision: 218118
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218118&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-27 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #16 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 27 13:58:35 2014
New Revision: 218126
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218126&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-13 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #17 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 27 14:10:10 2014
New Revision: 218127
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218127&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-27 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #7 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
> With r218705 on SH (-O2 -m4 -ml) I get the following:
>
> unsigned short test_099 (unsigned short a, unsigned short b)
> {
> retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #10 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
> (In reply to thopre01 from comment #7)
> >
> > Strange, could you show the output of -fdump-tree-bswap?
>
> Not so strange at a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #12 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #11)
> (In reply to thopre01 from comment #10)
> >
> > I have the same gimple and for me the bswap is correctly detected. Can y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #14 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #13)
> (In reply to thopre01 from comment #12)
> >
> > That's good, it means the pattern is recognized. Is there an optab defined
> &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #16 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
> (In reply to thopre01 from comment #14)
>
> > You mean with the added bswaphi2 pattern the pattern is still unchanged?
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #19 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, when doing something like (x[0] << 8) | x[1]) << 8) | x[2]) << 8) |
x[3] there is already a depth proportional to the size of the value being byte
swapped with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #8 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Mon Jun 30 01:58:45 2014
New Revision: 212133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-30 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #9 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Mon Jun 30 02:11:21 2014
New Revision: 212134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-30 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #45 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I only looked at differences in bswap so far and it all looks ok. It correctly
detects three patterns of 16bit big endian load and replace them by 16bit
unsigned loads and cast the results to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #46 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
After expand, the newly created 16bit big endian load becomes:
(insn 688 687 689 (set (reg:HI 482)
(mem:HI (reg/v/f:SI 189 [ ptr ]) [0 MEM[base: ptr_110, offset: 0B]+0 S2
A8])) /vol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61517
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #11 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Confirmed. This is because the compiler will detect that the result of (a >> 8)
depends on the sign of a and thus prevent the optimization. Before this check
incorrect code could be gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #49 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #48)
>
> From what Thomas says in comment #46 it looks like for some unknown
> reason a HI load from a 1-byte aligned address is emitted:
Y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #52 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #51)
>
> TARGET_MEM_REF is supposed to be a valid memory access for the target though
> and, by definition, an unaligned access is not va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #53 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to thopre01 from comment #52)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #51)
> >
> > TARGET_MEM_REF is supposed to be a valid memory access for the target tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61375
--- Comment #2 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Aug 1 08:56:17 2014
New Revision: 213426
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213426&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-01 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61375
--- Comment #3 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Aug 1 09:46:47 2014
New Revision: 213436
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-01 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60070
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Folding of bitfield in a union is incorrect on big endian targets. Consider the
testcase given in attachment, u.b would be folded to 0x45678 instead of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #2 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I forgot to mention the flag to use: -O1 and whatever flag is necessary to
select a big endian target (for instance -mbig-endian if the target is arm
little endian by default).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #3 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Aug 12 02:36:37 2014
New Revision: 213846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213846&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-12 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #4 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Aug 13 09:37:41 2014
New Revision: 213899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-13 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Aug 14 06:16:56 2014
New Revision: 213941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-14 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #8 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Sep 10 04:45:32 2014
New Revision: 215101
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215101&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-10 Tony Wang
libstdc++-v3/
P
ml
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63266
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63266
--- Comment #1 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Sep 24 08:27:21 2014
New Revision: 215546
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215546&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-24 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63266
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 33559
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33559&action=edit
Testcase showing that __complex is not equivalent to __complex double in C++
In f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63366
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #4 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I detect no noticeable difference when bootstrapping gcc with or without the
patch so I think we're in for a fix. :-)
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none-eabi
Hi,
When cross-compiling forarm-none-eabi targets with current trunk, attr-simd-3.c
fails with:
xgcc: error: unrecognized command line option
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none-eabi
Hi,
The patch fixing this PR65837 added a new test in
gcc.target/arm/lto/pr65837_0.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67948
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Dec 4 08:36:07 2015
New Revision: 231249
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231249&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-04 Andre Vieira
Backport from mainline:
irmed||2015-12-08
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |thopre01 at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
irmed||2015-12-08
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |thopre01 at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Mon Dec 14 02:05:16 2015
New Revision: 231605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-14 Thomas Preud'homme
PR testsuite/68629
* lib
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |thopre01 at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
So after performing the symbolic computation, the result is: 0x04030201 with 01
being the byte represented by b. This is correct so far and n->range shows 5
since 5 bytes have been touched. However, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
The exact place where it goes wrong is in find_bswap_or_nop (not the _1 helper
function) in the following line:
for (tmpn = n->n, rsize = 0; tmpn; tmpn >>= BITS_PER_MARKER, rsize++);
This code re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Hi Christophe,
Could you paste the output of arm linux when compiling the testcase in cilkplus
effective target with -fcilkplus?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Looking more into find_bswap_or_nop, it became clear that the rsize loop is
fine for both endianness because it operates on the result of the expression
being analyzed and that result lies in register.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
I have a patch that seems to be working. Running regression testing and
bootstrap now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Dec 17 08:43:48 2015
New Revision: 231745
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231745&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-17 Thomas Preud'homme
Revert:
2015-12-14 Thom
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none-eabi
Hi,
gcc.dg/graphite/id-28.c fails on arm-none-eabi targets with:
xgcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-pthread'
The test is missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
--- Comment #56 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
My apologize, this is actually already reported as PR68913
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61441
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68810
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gn
|ia64-*-*,
|x86_64-apple-darwin14 |x86_64-apple-darwin14,
||arm-none-eabi
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
arm-none-eabi as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Yes, sorry. I had finished bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and regression
testsuite on both that and arm-none-eabi but I wanted to do a bootstrap on a
big endian system. I then got caught up by holidays.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
It does fix it for arm-none-eabi targets, the test is now unsupported. I should
have done it myself. Jakub was talking about moving it in the cilk-plus
directory. Do you think it's still necessary?
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none-eabi
Commit r232129 causes the following fail on arm-none-eabi target:
FAIL: experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Jan 8 09:21:19 2016
New Revision: 232154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-08 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69190
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
It is indeed. Thanks
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none-eabi
Hi,
libstdc++ fails to build on arm-none-eabi with -fno-exceptions:
libstdc++-v3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net, CaptainSifff at gmx dot de,
redi
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenther at suse dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none-eabi
Created attachment 37400
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37400&acti
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenther at suse dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none-eabi
Created attachment 37402
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69378
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Sadly no, it didn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69378
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
This patch works for me on this testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Doh, I should have caught that earlier. The bug can be seen in:
% grep -c dg-option special_functions/18_riemann_zeta/check_value.cc
3
Using dg-additional-option for the timeout solves the issue. Maybe
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none-eabi
17_intro/headers/c++2011/linkage.cc fails on arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Jan 21 08:29:28 2016
New Revision: 232664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-21 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69406
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
It does indeed. Thanks
t com,
||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Hi Joseph,
It seems you already fixed this bug in trunk. Is there any plan to backport to
4.9 branch?
Best regards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Patch can be backported without any changes and fixes the issue. I'll launch
regression testing tomorrow and ask for it to be committed on 4.9 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
There is something strange about this bug. I compiled an arm-linux-gnueabihf
gcc only (using make all-gcc) twice, once with an arm-none-eabi cross binutils
in the PATH and once without. The bug is repro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Thanks doko. I meant to do it today but lacked the time. As to the variation
issue I've been experiencing, I'll create a new PR when I isolate the source of
variation.
Best regards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #13)
> Thanks doko. I meant to do it today but lacked the time. As to the variation
> issue I've been experiencing, I'll create a new PR when I isolate the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66168
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
The C standard says nothing about the cumulative effect of several shift so I'm
guessing that the real issue is probably that the type is signed. Quoting C99
section 6.5.8 paragraph 4:
"If E1 has a sign
301 - 400 of 431 matches
Mail list logo
