On 3/21/2014 2:57 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:07:21AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
Over the years there has been a great deal of traffic on these lists
caused by misunderstandings of GCC's inline assembler. That's partly
because it's inherently tricky, but the
Matthew Fortune matthew.fort...@imgtec.com writes:
Thanks Joseph. I guess I'm not really pushing to have don't-care
supported as it would take a lot of effort to determine when code does
and does not care, you rightly point out more cases to deal with
too. I'm not sure if the benefit would
Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com writes:
From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com writes:
-mno-float causes gcc to define the macro __mips_no_float, which the
implementation can use when deciding whether to bother
Sorry for the slow response.
dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com writes:
On 3/3/2014 3:36 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Well, like you say, things can be moved across branches. So, although
this is a very artificial example:
asm (x);
asm (y);
could become:
goto bar;
foo:
On 22/03/14 01:47, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/21/14 18:35, DJ Delorie wrote:
I've found that removing uneeded moves through registers is
something gcc does poorly in the post-reload optimizers. I've written
my own on some occasions (for rl78 too). Perhaps this is a good
starting point to look at?
On 22/03/14 01:35, DJ Delorie wrote:
Is it possible that the virtual pass causes inefficiencies in some
cases by sticking with r8-r31 when one of the 'normal' registers
would be better?
That's not a fair question to ask, since the virtual pass can *only*
use r8-r31. The first bank has to be
I want to ask how I can find the bugs in bugzilla which are listed in
the Quality Data Table. It feels that there are more bugs which are
not listed. For example:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57694
Actually the compiler returns not implemented while compiling the
given example code
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Thanks Joseph. I guess I'm not really pushing to have don't-care
supported as it would take a lot of effort to determine when code does
and does not care, you rightly point out more cases to deal with
too. I'm not sure if the benefit would
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20140322 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20140322/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60603
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Mar 22 07:18:38 2014
New Revision: 208763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208763root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR debug/60603
c-family/
* c-opts.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60603
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0, 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60607
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Variation of the problem without -march=native:
markus@x4 tmp % cat foo.ii
markus@x4 tmp % cat bar.ii
typedef int __m128i __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
__m128i a,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60600
--- Comment #5 from lucdanton at free dot fr ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #2)
Well, this is ICE on code with undefined behavior. Function test
calls itself with a parameter which is a reference to an object of
type child2 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60620
Bug ID: 60620
Summary: missing gnattools dependency causes highly parallel
build failure with --disable-bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This also happens for regular objects on stack, i.e. with a MEM_EXPR:
int a;
int
main (void)
{
char e[3] = { 0, 0, 0 }, f = 0;
if (a == 131072)
f = e[a];
return f;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55850
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58189
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58331
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58644
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58620
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56038
tim.lebedkov at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tim.lebedkov at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59202
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56670
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56491
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60613
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Mar 22 16:25:50 2014
New Revision: 208766
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208766root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/60613
* internal-fn.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60613
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46800
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41816
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30830
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36815
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47506
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60334
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57079
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55849
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55758
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47605
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46496
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46020
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47648
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49331
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59537
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60601
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60477
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60601
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
fix_up_fall_thru_edges is apparently looking for EDGE_CAN_FALLTHRU edges but
this flag is only set during bb-reorder. Testing trivial patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52176
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
With valgrind 3.7.0 and gfortran 4.9.0 r208594, I no longer see the
Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialized value
if I don't use -flto, while I still see them with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48961
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60601
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The next error is:
In file included from /home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/gcc.c:36:0:
/home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/../include/obstack.h: In function 'const char*
handle_spec_function(const char*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59537
--- Comment #4 from Lorenz Hüdepohl bugs at stellardeath dot org ---
From the above gfortran is right to reject the code with initialization.
Without the SAVE statement it compiles fine.
From the above (C513) this is a bug, the code should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29892
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60621
Bug ID: 60621
Summary: std::vector::emplace_back generates massively more
code than push_back
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59537
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|An automatic object shall |No
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35667
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42945
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49802
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60622
Bug ID: 60622
Summary: [4.9 Regression] symbol missing when compiled with
-flto
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27436
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Adding to my list
Do you mean that you assign this PR to you?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60623
Bug ID: 60623
Summary: FAIL: libstdc++-abi/abi_check
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Il 21/03/2014 18:05, Rainer Orth ha scritto:
The following patch adds it and indeed macro_list now is non-empty, as
expected. I'm just not sure if cc1 is the correct one in
gcc/Makefile.in, or if it should rather be $(COMPILERS) instead.
Anyway, with that patch a i386-pc-solaris2.10 bootstrap
On March 22, 2014 2:40:37 AM CET, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
Minor dumping fix.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for stage 1?
It's OK now.
Thanks,
Richard.
Thanks,
Teresa
2014-03-21 Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com
* ipa-utils.c
On March 21, 2014 9:30:25 PM CET, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi!
--with-build-config=bootstrap-ubsan on i686-linux showed
most often these two issues.
The first one is that 32-bit signed time_t is multiplied by 1000, which
overflows the int type. The result is then cast to unsigned,
On March 21, 2014 9:32:54 PM CET, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi!
As MINUS_EXPR is not commutative, we really can't swap op0 with op1
for testing whether subtraction overflowed, that is only possible for
PLUS_EXPR, for MINUS_EXPR we really have to know if op1 is constant
or negative or
Can you add some documentation to gfortran.texi. I think we need to make
clear that for library extension, the flag used for compiling the main
program is relevant. Additionally, I believe some of the extensions are
always on while others are only enabled with a flag - if so, I think we
should
Mention gcc-ar, gcc-ranlib, gcc-nm in the documentation.
OK?
Tobias
2014-03-22 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
* doc/invoke.texi (-flto): Expand section about
using static libraries with LTO.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 4c183a3..78ddde0 100644
---
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:06:43AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/13/14 09:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I've been told that the SC has approved the secondary platform list changes,
so I went ahead and committed the changes to our web pages.
Thanks. I should have taken care of this a few
Ping!
On 03/13/2014 11:54 AM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
Ping!
On 03/06/2014 07:44 PM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
Ping!
On 02/27/2014 11:44 AM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
Ping!
On 02/20/2014 12:11 PM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
Hello all,
Pinging this patch review request again.
Hi,
This patch updates node's inline summary after edge_summary is
updated. Otherwise it could lead to incorrect inline summary.
Bootstrapped and gcc regression test on-going.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-03-21 Dehao Chen de...@google.com
*ipa-inline.c
Hi!
Here is an updated patch for what Tobias has posted earlier:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00043.html
While that version bootstrapped/regtested fine, most of the Fortran
tests ICEd, primarily because the 3 operand __builtin_expect wasn't being
removed from the IL and for
70 matches
Mail list logo
