https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Ping?
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Preud'homme [mailto:thomas.preudho...@arm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:38 PM
To: Thomas Preud'homme; Richard Earnshaw; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/3, ARM, libgcc, ping6] Code size optimization
Ping?
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:23 PM
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
Cc: gcc-patches
Subject: RE: [PATCH, ARM] Fix PR64453: live high register not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Feb 5 08:06:04 2015
New Revision: 220436
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220436root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-05 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
Bug 49213 depends on bug 64757, which changed state.
Bug 64757 Summary: [5 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2353
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
What|Removed |Added
Ping?
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:02 PM
To: 'Andrew Pinski'
Cc: GCC Patches
Subject: RE: [PATCH, Aarch64] Add FMA steering pass for Cortex-A57
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64943
Bug ID: 64943
Summary: No error on ultimate allocatable components in IO list
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63776
--- Comment #8 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm not sure how you call boost::regex in your code, here's what I did:
// g++ b.cc -lboost_regex -licuuc
#include boost/regex/icu.hpp
#include boost/regex.hpp
#include iostream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43264
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Feb 6 05:34:00 2015
New Revision: 220471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220471root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/43264
* config/h8300/h8300.c
This is actually a long standing regression (though it's not marked that
way in the BZ database).
Basically there was a change from encoding the funcvec and eighbit_data
attributes in the symbol name to instead putting them in the function
decl's flags. This was, IMHO, a good thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #18 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #16)
The cost of expression p + ((sizetype)(99 - i_6(D)) + 1) * 4 computed
using normal +/-/* operators on sparc64 is 18, but the cost is 32 if it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43264
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On 2/5/2015 9:13 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
In addition to fixing markup and capitalization, I've moved things
around a little bit to improve the flow, and rephrased a few things
that I thought were awkward or confusing. I propose to commit this in
a few days unless somebody tells me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #19)
The assembly is as below on sparc64:
f1:
.register %g2, #scratch
sllx%o1, 2, %g1
mov 99, %g2
add %o0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60956
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The assembly is as below on sparc64:
f1:
.register %g2, #scratch
sllx%o1, 2, %g1
mov 99, %g2
add %o0, %g1, %o0
sub %g2,
On 02/05/15 08:53, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Hi,
this is the failure of gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt-2.c on SPARC 64-bit, but I
think that the problem is actually generic: get_shiftadd_cost only calls
shiftadd_cost to get the cost of a shift-add, which is actually a multiply
by a power-of-2 operation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60956
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I took a closer look at this one. The error I am getting is running out of
allocatable space in realloc used in fbuf.c (fbuf_alloc). We are allocating
one byte at a time, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63775
Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63920
Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
On 02/04/15 14:20, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch stops the recursion in the detection of FSM jump-threads at
loop phi nodes after having visited a loop phi node. This avoids jump-threading
two iterations forward that were possible due to a flip-flop operation that
exchange the
Tested locally with a suitably hacked up script to work on this
machine; with this patch the Show Sources links work within the
files installed to /www/gcc/htdocs.
OK for trunk?
maintainer-scripts/ChangeLog:
* update_web_docs_svn: When copying up files for the built jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #5 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 34681
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34681action=edit
_io.i.gz: larger test file
With this compiler:
firefly:~/Downloads/gambit/lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #6 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
The problem does not appear with this compiler:
maclaurin-271% gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
The H8/300 port was mis-compiling 24-28 bit ASHIFTRTs for the H8/300.
These shifts are implemented by a copying the high byte to the low byte,
then extending the sign bit through the low middle, high middle and high
bytes (with compensation code for 25,26,27,28 bit shifts).
The problem was
On 02/05/15 04:22, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi all,
location information is missing when rewrite complex component-wise
load/store.
This patch add the location info to fix the recently gcc.dg/uninit-13.c
and gcc.dg/uninit-17.c failures on arm target. The compiler warns
uninitialised usage at the
A little bit of code went missing due to the constant expressions code
being factored out. Additionally, concepts are currently dependent on
changes to CPTK_IS_CONVERTIBLE_TO, so this patch restores that. I'm
told that this was removed from trunk and that the concepts branch will
be adapted
This patch from Lynn Boger adds memprofilerate as an option for the
GODEBUG environment variable, to match the gc compiler. Bootstrapped
and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to
mainline.
Ian
diff -r 18b325ce33aa libgo/go/runtime/extern.go
--- a/libgo/go/runtime/extern.go
model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150205 (experimental) [trunk revision 220434] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O0 small.c; a.out
$ gcc-4.9 -O1 small.c; a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c
$ ./a.out
Aborted (core dumped)
$
--
int a, b;
int
main ()
{
a = 0;
for (; a 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60020
Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17306
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Feb 6 06:19:03 2015
New Revision: 220472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220472root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/17306
* config/h8300/constraints.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17306
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61720
Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
On 02/05/15 14:36, sa...@hederstierna.com wrote:
Hi
When reviewing some code from LRA, I just saw some lines that looked a bit
strange,
could it be a possible typo perhaps?
The file lra.c from GC5 master branch current date
Line 469:
/* Try x = index_scale; x = x + disp; x = x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
Bug ID: 64946
Summary: For Aarch64, vectorization with abs instruction is
not hapenning with vector elements of char/short type.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #1 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The test case is got from gcc.target/aarch64/vect-abs-compile.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64941
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64516
--- Comment #3 from Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer markus at oberhumer dot com ---
Just for reference, here is the expected result:
$ clang -target armv5-unknown-linux-gnu -marm -mfloat-abi=soft --version
clang version 3.5.1 (tags/RELEASE_351/final)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64943
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
In principle, we do have a similar check in resolve.c's resolve_transfer.
The question is why it doesn't trigger.
Answer: Only
Users of GNATprove can now specify pragma Warnings for GNAT and GNATprove
separately, to selectively disable warnings from the compiler or the
formal verification tool. This also allows detecting useless pragma
Warnings with switch -gnatw.w
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64349
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Better now?
Yes, I have bootstrapped a clean revision r220437 on x86_64-apple-darwin10,
regtesting in progress.
For the record, I still see the warning
ld: warning: can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64326
--- Comment #5 from tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
make_forwarder_block is definitely wrong on not capping. But I do not see
how vectorizing can get us to a frequncy over FREQ_MAX? So probably some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
James Greenhalgh jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64943
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In principle, we do have a similar check in resolve.c's resolve_transfer. The
question is why it doesn't trigger.
if (ts-type == BT_CLASS)
{
/* FIXME: Test for defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64940
--- Comment #4 from Bill Torpey bill.torpey at ullink dot com ---
That was the first thing I tried, but the system limits.h does an include_next
which fails, and the system features.h doesnt include compiler-specific
definitions, so that also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64947
--- Comment #1 from Lorenz Hüdepohl bugs at stellardeath dot org ---
Also present in 4.8.3:
# gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (SUSE Linux) 4.8.3 20141208 [gcc-4_8-branch revision 218481]
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GNU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64349
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
Better now?
Yes, I have bootstrapped a clean revision r220437 on x86_64-apple-darwin10,
regtesting in progress.
For the
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:38:21PM -0800, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
2015-01-29 Segher Boessenkool seg...@kernel.crashing.org
gcc/
PR target/64580
* config.rs6000/rs6000.c (compute_vrsave_mask): Reverse loop order.
(rs6000_stack_info): Add assert.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:38:21PM -0800, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
2015-01-29 Segher Boessenkool seg...@kernel.crashing.org
gcc/
PR target/64580
* config.rs6000/rs6000.c (compute_vrsave_mask):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64947
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:12:25AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:09:54PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
Jakub, was your suggestion to use get_last_insn_anywhere() based on
not wanting to expose details that should be internal to
emit-rtl.[ch]?
Yes. But if it doesn't
Just to ensure that this obvious commit gets noted... ( the other copy
of the patch is buried in this AArch64 specific thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00328.html )
By the sort of exceptional bad luck that only comes around once
every thousand builtins, we now define enough
Hello!
When hard frame pointer isn't needed, the register for hard frame pointer
may be reused. This patch clears alignment on hard frame pointer if hard
frame pointer isn't needed. OK for trunk after bootstrap and test on
Linux/x86-64?
LRA can set up frame_pointer_needed in some
Hi!
On the following testcase we fail -fcompare-debug, because in .LASAN0
initializer we get a NOP_EXPR optimized away only in one of the cases.
The reason is that cgraph* is looking at DECL_ABSTRACT_P flag of
__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ and that flag is different between -g and -g0.
The DECL_ABSTRACT_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64947
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Internal compiler error: in |ICE in
Hi,
this is the failure of gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt-2.c on SPARC 64-bit, but I
think that the problem is actually generic: get_shiftadd_cost only calls
shiftadd_cost to get the cost of a shift-add, which is actually a multiply
by a power-of-2 operation. Since SPARC doesn't have a lea-like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64205
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34680
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34680action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64205
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:42 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:02 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:37 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Hi
When reviewing some code from LRA, I just saw some lines that looked a bit
strange,
could it be a possible typo perhaps?
The file lra.c from GC5 master branch current date
Line 469:
/* Try x = index_scale; x = x + disp; x = x + base. */
last = get_last_insn ();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64955
David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Dear Tobias,
That is OK for trunk.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On 5 February 2015 at 22:04, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
A rather simple patch.
Build and reg-tested on x86-64-gnu-linux.
OK for the trunk?
Tobias
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a
Hi Petar,
I've put your patch inline below and switched to plain text. I suspect
your post was bounced by gcc-patches.
I'm OK with this change but I'd like Catherine to comment before committing.
It seems a shame to duplicate the block of code but it is probably just as
ugly to define a macro
A rather simple patch.
Build and reg-tested on x86-64-gnu-linux.
OK for the trunk?
Tobias
2015-02-05 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR fortran/64943
* resolve.c (resolve_transfer): Also check structure
constructors.
2015-02-05 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR fortran/64943
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33163
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32693
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64955
Bug ID: 64955
Summary: RFE: have -Wformat suggest the correct format string
to use
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64944
Bug ID: 64944
Summary: Coarrays not registered for structure constructor with
allocatable coarray components
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/04/2015 03:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
+++ b/gcc/varasm.c
@@ -6826,11 +6826,17 @@ default_binds_local_p_1 (const_tree exp, int shlib)
(TREE_STATIC (exp) || DECL_EXTERNAL (exp)))
{
varpool_node
This is a follow-up to a change [1] in glibc. It fixes the issue [2]
when jal can not reach a target in different region.
Is it not a problem that can be solved with rearranging the order of
sections in output?
Is not this more clean solution to it? Otherwise we need to make sure that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64951
Bug ID: 64951
Summary: g++ generates incorrect code when using a register
variable within a template function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
Bug ID: 64952
Summary: Missing temporary in assignment from elemental
function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64945
Bug ID: 64945
Summary: Structure constructors and non-NULL-data-targets and
polymorphic pointer components
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On 4 February 2015 at 12:38, Marcus Shawcroft
marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 January 2015 at 15:52, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote:
Hi all,
As raised in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01237.html and
discussed in that thread, using __builtin_sqrt for
You are probably looking for:
-static-libgcc
-static-libstdc++
Cheers,
David
2015-02-04 18:06 GMT+00:00 Umesh Kalappa umesh.kalap...@gmail.com:
Hi All,
Was configured and build gcc 4.8.3 for windows on linux using mingw .
configure options as
../../src45x/gcc/configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
--- Comment #7 from Maxim Kuvyrkov mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34674
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34674action=edit
Initial patch
Marcus,
Would you please bootstrap / test this patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
--- Comment #8 from Maxim Kuvyrkov mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Markus,
I'll test it on x86/x86_64 and arm/aarch64, but I don't have a powerpc box to
bootstrap on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31934
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64947
Bug ID: 64947
Summary: Internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at
gimplify.c:8425
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60463
gene at staubsaal dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gene at staubsaal dot de
---
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:12:25AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:09:54PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
Jakub, was your suggestion to use get_last_insn_anywhere() based on
not wanting to expose details that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64580
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Feb 5 15:01:49 2015
New Revision: 220453
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220453root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/64580
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64915
gene at staubsaal dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
If an inherited subprogram is implemented by a protected function,
then the first parameter of the inherited subprogram shall be of
mode in, but not an access-to-variable parameter (RM 9.4(11/9)
After this patch the error is reported in the following example:
procedure by30015_01p is
package
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:21:46AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On February 4, 2015 10:20:06 PM CET, Sebastian Pop seb...@gmail.com wrote:
The attached patch stops the recursion in the detection of FSM
jump-threads at
loop phi nodes after having visited a loop phi node. This avoids
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64580
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Feb 5 15:06:40 2015
New Revision: 220454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220454root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/64580
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64948
Bug ID: 64948
Summary: Lambda reference capture initialization in template
function creates segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64580
Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64943
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Hi!
Long time ago, probably all FEs or most of them emitted an extra BLOCK
around the BLOCK corresponding to user scope of the function, then
the C FE has been changed not to and no_body_blocks langhook has been added
for it (and Java/Ada/Fortran were mishandled), later on r144474
removed the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64876
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Feb 5 22:52:24 2015
New Revision: 220463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220463root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/64876
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/05/2015 11:01 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Can you elaborate why it depends on COPY relocation? There
is no COPY relocation on x86-64.
Ho hum, we appear to have switched topics mid-thread.
I agree that we cannot override
:
.text
.LHOTE0:
.weak
.bss
.align 4
.type , @object
.size , 4
:
.zero 4
.ident GCC: (GNU) 5.0.0 20150205 (experimental)
.section .note.GNU-stack,,@progbits
.file initweak.i
.section .text.unlikely,ax,@progbits
.LCOLDB0:
.text
.LHOTB0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64943
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Feb 5 21:58:38 2015
New Revision: 220462
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220462root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-05 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
GCC: (GNU) 5.0.0 20150205 (experimental)
.section .note.GNU-stack,,@progbits
.file initweak.i
.section .text.unlikely,ax,@progbits
.LCOLDB0:
.text
.LHOTB0:
.p2align 4,,15
.globl foo
.type foo, @function
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movl (%rip), %eax
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size foo, .-foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956
Bug ID: 64956
Summary: __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the
5.x releases
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45633
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysato at users dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64660
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
