On 3/31/2014 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/31/2014 05:44 AM, dw wrote:
So, after looking over this discussion, I have updated the text. This
time no undefined terms, while still conveying all the points I had in mind:
The memory clobber tells the compiler that the assembly code performs
Hi,
I observed two different behaviors in gcc 4.8.2 and 4.9 regarding
the same issue, IMO both erroneous.
Regarding 4.8.2, #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored -pedantic doesn't
work in cases such as:
void* p = 0;
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored -pedantic
F* f2 = reinterpret_castF*(p);
(see
On 1 April 2014 14:43, Daniel Gutson wrote:
The attached patch attempts to fix this issue. Since I no longer have
write access, please
apply this for me if correct (is the 4.8 branch still alive for adding
fixes?).
For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
Regarding
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 April 2014 14:43, Daniel Gutson wrote:
The attached patch attempts to fix this issue. Since I no longer have
write access, please
apply this for me if correct (is the 4.8 branch still alive for adding
On 1 April 2014 15:00, Daniel Gutson wrote:
For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
Why not? (I don't know the criteria, please let me know).
Did it work in previous versions?
A regression means something that used to work no longer works.
Upcoming Ubuntu LTS will have
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 April 2014 15:00, Daniel Gutson wrote:
For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
Why not? (I don't know the criteria, please let me know).
Did it work in previous versions?
A regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60711
Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60714
--- Comment #2 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com ---
I looked inside the class to derive that.
maybe I made a mistake.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60495
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks similar to PR60495; the patch there (committed) solved the ICE problem
but the following issue remains (with both PRs): undefined reference to
`__final_a_T2.2437'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60724
Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Hmm...
adding the option -fno-strict-aliasing generates correct code at -O2 and -O3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60725
Bug ID: 60725
Summary: [-Wreturn-type] false positive in trivial switch
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60721
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
IMHO we need a flag on each gimple call whether that call instance is supposed
to be 'leaf' or not, similar to how we have noreturn and nothrow flags here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60724
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60714
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
std::basic_stringbuf is not a type, it's a template.
std::basic_stringbufchar is a type, so std::basic_stringbufchar::int_type
would be a type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60711
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38757
Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60726
Bug ID: 60726
Summary: [AArch64] pr40074.c regression after intrinsics a53
tuning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38757
--- Comment #5 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch has been discussed on the patches list a couple of times in the past, but
not yet applied:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00858.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60727
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
eventually this is already fixed (cannot reproduce in my development tree - but
that has a load of patches, including LTO ones).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60727
Bug ID: 60727
Summary: ICE in ipcp_verify_propagated_values, at ipa-cp.c:892
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60723
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Apr 1 09:56:29 2014
New Revision: 208980
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208980root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/60363
* gcc.target/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-4.c:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60726
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #16 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Apr 1 10:19:06 2014
New Revision: 208983
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208983root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-04-01 Dominique d'Humieres domi...@lps.ens.fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60726
--- Comment #2 from Yvan Roux yvan.roux at linaro dot org ---
I don't observe the regression in aarch64-none-elf on my side too. I'm looking
for the configuration...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
--- Comment #13 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Apr 1 10:38:19 2014
New Revision: 208984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208984root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60726
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Passes for me on a native aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu test run with r208953,
which contains the tuning patches.
Are you sure this is not an environment issue with a model or something?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60727
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can be reproduced with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01237.html
ontop of r208807 and the following reduced testcase:
typedef long unsigned int size_t;
class JSCell;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60726
--- Comment #4 from Yvan Roux yvan.roux at linaro dot org ---
I just find the logs from the build farm, and it is indeed a qemu uncaught
signal. Sorry for the false alert !
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60726
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60721
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60721
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60728
Bug ID: 60728
Summary: recover() should not work in recursive deferred
fucntions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60728
Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60721
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60721
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
*** Bug 60721 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
See there for another proposed fix to retain per-call 'leaf' (well,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60640
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32513
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32513action=edit
Miscompiled run time testcase
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
I still see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
*** Bug 60721 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
See there for another
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||xfail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60640
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This one has them all, in addition to fixing a real problem:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00016.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60729
Bug ID: 60729
Summary: Compiler failure for combination of -ftrapv and -O3:
compiler error: in prepare_cmp_insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60729
--- Comment #1 from rppawlo at sandia dot gov ---
Created attachment 32515
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32515action=edit
output file generated with -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60729
--- Comment #2 from rppawlo at sandia dot gov ---
Created attachment 32516
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32516action=edit
error file generated from compiler failure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong |[4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60725
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60729
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60704
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Apr 1 14:40:27 2014
New Revision: 208989
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208989root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/60704
* config/i386/i386.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60650
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32562
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60716
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60650
--- Comment #11 from Yvan Roux yvan.roux at linaro dot org ---
Thanks for the analysis Vladimir, let me know if I can help you for the
validation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60723
Nicholas nicholas.ormrod at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60730
Bug ID: 60730
Summary: 'Round of a fixed point type incorrectly truncates its
operand instead of rounding it
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60730
Georg georggcc at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||georggcc at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=378
Doug Dawson Doug at CSFi dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Doug at CSFi dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=378
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Recent releases of GCC are built with linker options to allow larger data
section. Are the user process limits (ulimit) set large enough? One could
rebuild GCC cc1 and cc1plus with even
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60704
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60727
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What happens is that we do not remove an unreachable cgraph_node. We
don't do it because the node has used_from_other_partition set which I
assume is always bogus at the beginning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60704
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Apr 1 16:39:18 2014
New Revision: 208990
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208990root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/60704
* gcc.dg/pr60704.c: New
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
Bug ID: 60731
Summary: dynamic library not getting reinitialized on multiple
calls to dlopen()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55794
--- Comment #4 from Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On hppa64-hp-hpux11.11, I don't see any debug information at all unless
I add -g to compile options.
The dg-options line adds -g2 -dA to the compile options.
In the assembly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55794
--- Comment #5 from Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Janis Johnson from comment #1)
For arm-none-eabi the line that is recorded is 33 rather than 30.
I see from gcc-testresults that the test also fails for moxie-elf,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41174
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 1 17:28:29 2014
New Revision: 208991
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208991root=gccview=rev
Log:
Core DR 475
PR c++/41174
PR c++/59224
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59224
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 1 17:28:29 2014
New Revision: 208991
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208991root=gccview=rev
Log:
Core DR 475
PR c++/41174
PR c++/59224
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59224
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.3 |4.7.4
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60727
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, the bit is actually calculated when streaming the node out (ugh)
in the following way:
bp_pack_value (bp, tag == LTO_symtab_analyzed_node
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60642
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 1 17:49:38 2014
New Revision: 208992
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208992root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60642
* decl2.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60713
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55794
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 4/1/2014 1:04 PM, ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
The patch that this test case was part of was supposed to fix that problem by
adding a call to debug_hooks-source_line from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60708
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55794
--- Comment #7 from ccoutant at google dot com ---
but the change is no longer in the current 4.9 code.
Ah, right. See PR 54499 and this thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00706.html
-cary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732
Bug ID: 60732
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler
_Z3fooDv*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=378
--- Comment #12 from Doug Dawson Doug at CSFi dot com ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #11)
Recent releases of GCC are built with linker options to allow larger data
section. Are the user process limits (ulimit) set large enough? One
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55794
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 4/1/2014 2:17 PM, ccoutant at google dot com wrote:
Ah, right. See PR 54499 and this thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00706.html
I think I see what's needed in arm.c.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60708
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 1 19:14:00 2014
New Revision: 208996
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208996root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60708
* call.c (build_array_conv):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60713
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 1 19:13:50 2014
New Revision: 208995
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208995root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60713
* typeck2.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60713
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60708
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60642
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60495
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60374
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60657
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
--enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20140401 (experimental) [trunk revision 208971] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c; a.out
$ gcc-4.8 -flto -O3 small.c; a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -flto -O3 small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:12:1: error: definition in block 10 follows
-linux-gnu/4.9.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20140401 (experimental) [trunk revision 208971] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-4.8 -O3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
Bug ID: 60734
Summary: Undefined behavior in g++-v4/bits/stl_tree.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60374
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60374
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 1 21:25:20 2014
New Revision: 208999
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208999root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60374
* pt.c (coerce_template_parms):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59361
--- Comment #1 from Eric Niebler eric.niebler at gmail dot com ---
Anybody?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
Bug ID: 60735
Summary: GCC targeting E500 with SPE has errors with the
_Decimal64 type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32520
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32520action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
The issue is there was no insn to support movdd if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60736
Bug ID: 60736
Summary: Crash in preprocessor including stdc-predef.h when it
does not exist on glibc-based systems
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60736
Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60737
Bug ID: 60737
Summary: rs6000 expand_block_clear uses word stores on double
word pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60737
--- Comment #1 from Anton Blanchard anton at samba dot org ---
It looks like by the time we get to expand_block_clear we don't have any
alignment info (align_rtx == 1).
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
