https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67738
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67738
--- Comment #2 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
Oops, sorry, did not notice your comment about PR 61321
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67738
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67739
Bug ID: 67739
Summary: name clash between builtin functions and local
variables when optimization is on
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67738
Bug ID: 67738
Summary: infinite recursion in libiberty/cp-demangle.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #31 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #29)
Tests for 5-branch with/without -mlra completed with no new failures
on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67737
Bug ID: 67737
Summary: ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1299
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67312
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67340
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Bug 64164 depends on bug 67340, which changed state.
Bug 67340 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in convert_move, at expr.c:279
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67340
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Bug 64164 depends on bug 67312, which changed state.
Bug 67312 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in expand_expr_real_1
(expr.c:9561) with -ftree-coalesce-vars
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67312
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Bug 64164 depends on bug 67490, which changed state.
Bug 67490 Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr16458-1.c
scan-assembler-not cmpw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67490
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67490
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67736
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you try the patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00401.html ?
I never got around to updating it for the comments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67736
Bug ID: 67736
Summary: Wrong optimization with -fexpensive-optimizations on
mips64el
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67735
Bug ID: 67735
Summary: internal compiler error while trying to use
__direct_bases to create parallel hierarchy of classes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67734
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67734
Bug ID: 67734
Summary: Gcc warning "gcc: warning: couldn’t understand
kern.osversion ‘14.5.0"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57195
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66762
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> I tried to investigate:
> gfortran ./gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/submodule_6.f08 -flto
>
> If I compare corresponding argument passed to output_addr_const w/o LTO, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67733
--- Comment #4 from graham.stott at btinternet dot com ---
Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2
Original message From: "pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org" Date:27/09/2015 17:25
(GMT+00:00) To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug
target/6773
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67733
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Igor Kozhukhov from comment #2)
> /usr/ccs links old and unused.
> also - illumos != solaris and can use his own layout.
> at this moment it's not easy try to move to 'illumos' platform definitio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67733
--- Comment #2 from Igor Kozhukhov ---
/usr/ccs links old and unused.
also - illumos != solaris and can use his own layout.
at this moment it's not easy try to move to 'illumos' platform definition
because autotools not ready to define and use it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67733
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67733
Bug ID: 67733
Summary: elfdump and readelf in perl scripts should to use env
vars ELFDUMP and READELF
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #30 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #29)
> I think so, though we should test it on 5-branch. I'm running tests
> on 5-branch now.
No new failures on sh-elf with
make -k check
RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67732
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36402
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36402&action=edit
CSiBE comparison
This is the detailed CSiBE comparision of no LRA vs. LRA.
There are some improvements with LRA, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #29 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #26)
> OK, I'll commit attachment 36400 [details] to trunk then. Do you think it's
> safe for GCC 5 branch, too? Or shall we test it on the branch?
I think so, though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #116 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #91)
>
> I can confirm the -1140 bytes / -0.04% on the CSiBE set.
Since r228176 this is no longer true. Now the gap of no-LRA and LRA is a bit
wider:
3345527 -> 3334351
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #28 from Oleg Endo ---
I've created a new PR for the LRA addsi3 thing .. PR 67732.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67732
Bug ID: 67732
Summary: [SH] Strange LRA addsi3 usage
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Bug 64164 depends on bug 67597, which changed state.
Bug 67597 Summary: [6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure on ppc64le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67597
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67597
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #27 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Sep 27 11:55:55 2015
New Revision: 228176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/67391
* config/sh/sh-protos.h (sh_lra_p): D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #26 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #25)
> Yes, 36400 fixes that failure:
> PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/sync-3.c -O1 (test for warnings, line )
OK, I'll commit attachment 36400 to trunk then. Do you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #24)
> Could you please re-run that test with attachment 36400 [details]?
Yes, 36400 fixes that failure:
PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/sync-3.c -O1 (test for warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67731
Bug ID: 67731
Summary: Combine of OR'ed bitfields should use bit-test
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67730
Bug ID: 67730
Summary: [5.2 Regression] No warning when returning NULL in
void function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo ---
Thanks!
Could you please re-run that test with attachment 36400?
(Because the problem was triggered only by this test, I think we don't need to
fully re-test it)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67617
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #23 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
My tests are done. Only
gcc.c-torture/compile/sync-3.c -O1 (internal compiler error)
for -mno-lra is the new test that fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #55 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sun Sep 27 09:02:00 2015
New Revision: 228175
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228175&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
revert to assign_parms assignments using default defs
Revert the frag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67729
Bug ID: 67729
Summary: scanf is missing buffer length sanity check ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67597
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sun Sep 27 09:02:00 2015
New Revision: 228175
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228175&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
revert to assign_parms assignments using default defs
Revert the fragi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67490
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sun Sep 27 09:02:00 2015
New Revision: 228175
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228175&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
revert to assign_parms assignments using default defs
Revert the fragi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67312
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sun Sep 27 09:02:00 2015
New Revision: 228175
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228175&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
revert to assign_parms assignments using default defs
Revert the fragi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67340
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sun Sep 27 09:02:00 2015
New Revision: 228175
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228175&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
revert to assign_parms assignments using default defs
Revert the fragi
47 matches
Mail list logo