On 10/12/2014 10:32 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# cat test.cc
const char n() { return 1; }
const char c = n();
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# /usr/local/bin/g++ -Wall -O0 -c -o test.o test.cc
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# /usr/local/bin/g++ -Wall -O2 -c -o test.o test.cc
On 12 October 2014 16:32, Chen Gang gang.chen.5...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello All:
I found an issue about g++, it is OK for -Wall -O0, but will report
-Wunused-variable for -Wall -O1|2|3|s. The original version (e.g.
gcc 4.8.3 redhat version) does not report warning for -Wall -O?.
The related
On 10/13/14 18:58, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 12 October 2014 16:32, Chen Gang gang.chen.5...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello All:
I found an issue about g++, it is OK for -Wall -O0, but will report
-Wunused-variable for -Wall -O1|2|3|s. The original version (e.g.
gcc 4.8.3 redhat version) does not
On 10/13/14 18:53, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/12/2014 10:32 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# cat test.cc
const char n() { return 1; }
const char c = n();
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# /usr/local/bin/g++ -Wall -O0 -c -o test.o
test.cc
[root@localhost qemu_cc]#
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:10:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Oh, yes. Originally I got this warning by compiling Qemu. And sorry for
my sample (test.cc) may be not quite precise.
For me, I guess:
- If the constant number is defined in the header file, and never be
used, our g++ need not
On 10/13/14 21:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:10:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Oh, yes. Originally I got this warning by compiling Qemu. And sorry for
my sample (test.cc) may be not quite precise.
For me, I guess:
- If the constant number is defined in the header file,
On 10/13/14 21:59, Chen Gang wrote:
On 10/13/14 21:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:10:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Oh, yes. Originally I got this warning by compiling Qemu. And sorry for
my sample (test.cc) may be not quite precise.
For me, I guess:
- If the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:01:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Is it correct?
This mailing list is for development of GCC, not the right place to learn
C++. Please ask either on gcc-help mailing list, or on some C++ user
forums.
Jakub
On 10/13/14 22:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:01:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Is it correct?
This mailing list is for development of GCC, not the right place to learn
C++. Please ask either on gcc-help mailing list, or on some C++ user
forums.
OK, since I am not
Hi all,
although this is a problem of the C standard, I still
find it annoying that the following code produces warnings
about incompatible pointer types (this has been discussed
before, see below):
extern void test(const double x[2][2]);
void foo(void)
{
double x[2][2];
Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#constmismatch
(If others have comments that are not covered in the FAQ, or believe
the answer there
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com:
Thank you for your quick response.
Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#constmismatch
On 14 October 2014 00:01, Martin Uecker wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com:
Thank you for your quick response.
Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com:
Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#constmismatch
(If others have comments that are
Am Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:05:47 +0100
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com:
On 14 October 2014 00:01, Martin Uecker wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com:
Thank you for your quick response.
Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
This will be controlled by a
Gentlemen, your feedback would be greatly appreciated!
I was investigating why locals were not being early dumped, and realized
Michael's patch was skipping decls_for_scope() unless
DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION-gimple_df was set. I assume this was to wait
until location information was available.
On 14 October 2014 01:12, Martin Uecker uec...@eecs.berkeley.edu wrote:
Converting a pointer to an array to a pointer to a constant array
is safe. Converting a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer
to a constant is not (as the CFAQ points out).
You are probably right that it is safe.
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com:
On 14 October 2014 01:12, Martin Uecker uec...@eecs.berkeley.edu wrote:
Converting a pointer to an array to a pointer to a constant array
is safe. Converting a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer
to a constant is not (as the CFAQ points
Hi All,
Good day for everyone .
We benchmarked the code coverage algorithms like
a)Optimal Edge Profiling
(ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/pub/techreports/1991/TR1031.pdf .) that are
adopted by GCC and LLVM
b)Dominator Leaf
instrumentation(http://users.sdsc.edu/~mtikir/publications/papers/issta02.pdf)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63520
Bug ID: 63520
Summary: ICE: in get_biv_step, at loop-iv.c:824 with
-fsanitize=undefined on ppc64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
Created attachment 33691 [details]
a possible patch
The previous patch was buggy, it always generated a PR toggle sequence, even
if a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #18)
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
Created attachment 33691 [details]
a possible patch
The previous patch was buggy, it always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
I've just built gcc trunk with clang and it looks as if producing
a similar warning to clang will flush out five bugs in gcc trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 13 07:58:05 2014
New Revision: 216138
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216138root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-13 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
Bug ID: 63521
Summary: The AArch64 backend doesn't define REG_ALLOC_ORDER.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This corresponds to ticket 4402 in the ARM database.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63225
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Oct 13 08:19:45 2014
New Revision: 216139
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216139root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ada/63225
* uintp.adb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63225
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Oct 13 08:20:30 2014
New Revision: 216140
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216140root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ada/63225
* uintp.adb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63225
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Oct 13 08:21:19 2014
New Revision: 216141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216141root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ada/63225
* uintp.adb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63225
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63496
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yep, the second offset was meant to be tci-offset. I am testing the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33695
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33695action=edit
Patch that looks into non-canonical VALUEs for AND addresses
Patch in testing.
This patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
David, would you mind testing with a recent revision? In those cases where
Clang warns and GCC doesn't, could you figure out a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Uff, this is caused by a pasto where I forget to remap TREE_TYPE of array.
Index: tree-inline.c
===
--- tree-inline.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am testing the following
Index: tree.c
===
--- tree.c (revision 216141)
+++ tree.c (working copy)
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61558
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It seems that C++ FE do not produce any assembler name for b (because it is not
instantiated?).
(gdb) p debug_tree (node-decl)
var_decl 0x76ae4bd0 b
type integer_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61347
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Oct 13 10:00:27 2014
New Revision: 216142
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216142root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-13 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63345
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Oct 13 10:00:27 2014
New Revision: 216142
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216142root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-13 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63506
--- Comment #5 from Steffen Müthing steffen.muething at iwr dot
uni-heidelberg.de ---
The exact same problem is present on operator[] :
//---
struct proxy {};
struct iterator
{
proxy operator*() { return proxy();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63522
Bug ID: 63522
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5.0] ICE: unexpected expression
'ElementIndices' of kind template_parm_index
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11685
Kohei Takahashi flast at flast dot jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||flast at flast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63504
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61048
Ilya Palachev i.palachev at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.palachev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61558
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11685
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ideally, a port should not need to define reg_alloc_order; it's rather a blunt
instrument.
Better would be for the register allocator to have a better understanding of
which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
Bug ID: 63523
Summary: [5.0 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c -Werror=format breaks
bootstrap on sparc-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63496
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Oct 13 12:44:00 2014
New Revision: 216146
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216146root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/63496
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
Kaz, could you please add the proposed patch to your test run and let me
know of the result? I'd like to sort this out before proceeding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3)
I've just run make -k check-gcc with the patch on my environment and got
no new failures.
Great. Thanks! I'll try patching GDB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63514
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63512
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63496
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
If the failures on my side go away after that, I'll commit
the patch from comment #2, OK?
Please go ahead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57350
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 13 14:08:44 2014
New Revision: 216149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216149root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/57350
* include/std/memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57350
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41628
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56109
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63379
clyon at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63524
Bug ID: 63524
Summary: FAIL:
27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_arithmetic/char/hexfloat
.cc (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63376
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
No I didn't. That was a patch for PR 63260. Sorry for the noise.
Now I have. For both '-m4 -ml' and '-m4 -mb' there are a few new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Oct 13 14:43:24 2014
New Revision: 216150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216150root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/62127
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Since this testcase also involves VLA, can you, please, test if the patch for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
(now in mainline) fixes the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57740
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Since r213922 pthread_create should get linked in, but apparently not
pthread_join.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57997
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57997
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'd rather work on improving the warnings so we can tell the user how bad his
code is, but in case, we had a similar request in GMP, a code that was inspired
by libstdc++ valarray:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33697
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33697action=edit
gcc5-pr63464.patch
WIP patch. What is missing:
1) the optimize_range_tests_to_bit_test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Nobody ever reviewed the changes :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #24)
Arg, looks very similar so maybe another instance of the duplicate
threading is slipping through? My own lto profiled bootstrap succeeded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33698
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33698action=edit
bittest.c
Testcase I've been playing with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63514
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
The fortran frontend must do sth wrong here - it seems to mark the function
pure itself and either fold or the FE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57622
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucier at math dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Have done a quick investigation, it's caused by the implementation of
TARGET_LIBGCC_CMP_RETURN_MODE
aarch64_libgcc_cmp_return_mode
AArch64 define the return mode to be SImode which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33695|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
Created attachment 33699 [details]
Updated patch
I have started native alpha bootstrap with the above attached patch.
The idea implemented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63525
Bug ID: 63525
Summary: unnecessary reloads generated in loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
Bug ID: 63526
Summary: O1 O2 O3 optimization and inline template constructor
- uninitialized member
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:02:35 2014
New Revision: 216152
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216152root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/63471
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Why do you think the member should be zero-initialized? Your constructor fails
to initialize it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
--- Comment #2 from Dávid Éles eles.david.88 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
Why do you think the member should be zero-initialized? Your constructor
fails to initialize it.
I uses the default mechanism to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8340
--- Comment #9 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:26:49 2014
New Revision: 216154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216154root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/8340
PR middle-end/47602
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55458
--- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:26:49 2014
New Revision: 216154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216154root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/8340
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
--- Comment #16 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:26:49 2014
New Revision: 216154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216154root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/8340
PR
1 - 100 of 270 matches
Mail list logo
