[Somehow I managed to drop newlib from the recipient list. Re-added]
On Mar 10 19:19, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 10 17:03, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi fellow developers,
I'm happy to inform you that the move of Newlib/Cygwin from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #36 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Mar 10 21:06:41 2015
New Revision: 221336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221336root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-10 Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65368
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 10 21:03:21 2015
New Revision: 221335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221335root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65368
* config/i386/i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65382
Bug ID: 65382
Summary: pointer-to-noexcept-function typealias allowed via
using
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 05:08:16PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2015-03-11 14:27:25 +0100, Robbert Krebbers wrote:
But what about long long on 32 bits machines. For example:
union {
long long a;
struct { char b1; long long b2; } b;
} u;
Will GCC perform similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #46 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #45)
If we change the PC returned by backtrace_full, and then use that changed PC
to look up file/line information, we might get different results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65238
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65384
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00627.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Mar 10 17:03, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi fellow developers,
I'm happy to inform you that the move of Newlib/Cygwin from the src CVS
repository to the new, combined GIT repository is now final.
I note that this repository includes the
Hello!
Test O2 ref patchedOfast + LTO ref patched
164.gzip12 0 (-100%)39 0 (-100%)
175.vpr 0 0 (-0%) 4 0 (-100%)
176.gcc 141 6 (-96%) 294 10 (-97%)
181.mcf 4 0
On 03/10/2015 01:03 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Good question, but we don't have this issue, because for that we emit
anyway:
65370.C:11:36: error: default argument specified in explicit
specialization [-fpermissive]
Cint::C(const CU, bool = false);
nothing changes about that kind of testcase,
On 05/02/15 11:28 +, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi all,
This patch simply remove the target selector. It should pass for all target
which applies.
The comment in the code is not correct. stderr is redirected, not the stdout.
Therefore, the return status which is streamed into stdout should properly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65387
Bug ID: 65387
Summary: cpp -C emits extraneous comment header on every file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Hi!
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:23:21 + (UTC), BogDan bog_dan...@yahoo.com wrote:
This http://www.g-truc.net/post-0714.html great article explans better
what SPIR-V is.
Note that I don't know anything about SPIR-V, and I'm currently too busy
to learn about it, but:
I checked them a little
I'd like to backport the following patch that suppresses bogus ubsan errors.
I had to tweak the testcase a bit since 4.9 doesn't know -fno-sanitize-recover.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for 4.9?
2015-03-10 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com
Backported from mainline
On 11/03/2015 02:11, 박준모 wrote:
Hi all,
This patch only affect sha2 crypto instruction's order when gcc
performs instruction scheduling(rtl-sched1,2).
There are no definition for crypto_sha256_fast, crypto_sha256_slow on
cortex-a57.md.
This makes poor result of instruction
current trunk fails to build on x86*-linux, when configured for x32 multilibs
because libmpx doesn't support these. Disable them.
ok for the trunk?
* Disable libmpx x32 multilib builds.
--- a/config-ml.in
+++ b/config-ml.in
@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@
Makefile=${ac_file-Makefile}
Hi Jakub,
with my OPC UA Server, I observe a reproducible crash in
ScopedReport::AddThread: tctx==NULL
in if ((u32)rep_-threads[i]-id == tctx-tid).
Apparently, Dmitry has already fixed that in the obvious way.
So we should cherry pick these two changes from LLVM: 224508 and 224755
See
Attached patch as text.
2015-03-11 Junmo Park junmoz.p...@samsung.com
* config/arm/cortex-a57.md (cortex_a57_crypto_simple): Add
crypto_sha256_fast.
(cortex_a57_crypto_complex): Add crypto_sha256_slow.
Ok to commit to trunk?
OK, Thanks Sebastian.
regards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65391
--- Comment #3 from Aaron Sawdey acsawdey at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
I tried applying the patch that Thomas posted for 64616
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00272.html) to trunk 221350 but
that did not change the generated code
On 2015-03-11 17:39:31 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 05:31:01PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
(in C only one union member can be active at any time,
we as extension allow type punning through unions etc.)
I disagree that it is an extension. The standard does not
On 03/11/15 08:44, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This bug was one I unfortunately introduced with the -mupper-regs support. If
the reload pass needed to reload a PLUS operation (for example, due to using
odd address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64705
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #6)
Since it works on gcc 3.4, so I consider this as a regression and applied
the patch. Should be fixed now.
Hi Vlad, could you please
James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 04:24:07PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Attached patch as text.
2015-03-11 Junmo Park junmoz.p...@samsung.com
* config/arm/cortex-a57.md (cortex_a57_crypto_simple): Add
crypto_sha256_fast.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #36 from Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
and for rtl level improvement, need to enable DF_DU_CHAIN build on top of
existing DF_UD_CHAIN (may cause extra compile time resource consumption).
one draft patch is here, no
BTW, the following is forbidden (and makes no sense), but is accepted
by GCC without a warning:
int foo (void)
{
union { char a[8]; int b; } u = { .a = { 0 }, .b = 1 };
return u.b;
}
--
Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: https://www.vinc17.net/
100% accessible validated (X)HTML -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65397
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem is in resolve_ordinary_assign (resolve.c):
9428 /* Assign the 'data' of a class object to a derived type. */
9429 if (lhs-ts.type == BT_DERIVED
9430
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65394
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=65398
Bug ID: 65398
Summary: [C++11] GCC rejects constexpr variable definitions
with valid initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
Bug 64342 depends on bug 64895, which changed state.
Bug 64895 Summary: RA picks the wrong register for -fipa-ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65397
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See also gfortran.dg/coarray_38.f90 of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00057.html (assuming it will
eventually appear on the server)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65397
Bug ID: 65397
Summary: [Coarrays][OOP] ICE in resolve_ordinary_assign
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
Bug ID: 65400
Summary: tsan mis-compiles inlineable C functions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65391
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
0x1a00 +1024: bl 0x15b0 _init+112
0x1a04 +1028: ld r2,24(r1)
0x1a08 +1032: lwz r9,224(r1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-10 00:00:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65394
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65396
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65399
Bug ID: 65399
Summary: error: invalid use of non-static data member
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
0x1a00 +1024: bl 0x15b0 _init+112
0x1a04 +1028: ld r2,24(r1)
Hi,
Instrumented function pointer may be propagated into not instrumented indirect
call and vice versa. It requires additional call modifications (either remove
bounds or change callee). Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2015-03-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65384
--- Comment #2 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Mar 12 08:58:08 2015
New Revision: 221378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221378root=gccview=rev
Log:
libmpx/
PR other/65384
* configure.ac: Fix
2015-03-12 12:02 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:51:51AM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 09 Mar 15:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 01:25:43PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
--- a/gcc/toplev.c
+++ b/gcc/toplev.c
@@ -1376,6 +1376,11
Hi,
This is a ping for: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00775.html
Regtested with aarch64-linux-gnu on QEMU.
This patch has no regressions for aarch64_be-linux-gnu big-endian target too.
OK for the trunk? Thanks.
Index: gcc/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65044
--- Comment #2 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Mar 12 09:23:06 2015
New Revision: 221379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221379root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65044
* toplev.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65103
--- Comment #1 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Mar 12 09:53:36 2015
New Revision: 221380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221380root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65103
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65388
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 12 08:34:00 2015
New Revision: 221376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221376root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65388
Modified:
Hi Thomas,
How can i progress about giving official proposal? Which topics are
GCC interested in?
So far, i have been tried to influence the evolution of the omp 4.0
accelerator model. Sum up of my small achievements until now
- Using Shared Memory in a efficient way
--- I allowed array
On 09 Mar 15:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 01:25:43PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
--- a/gcc/toplev.c
+++ b/gcc/toplev.c
@@ -1376,6 +1376,11 @@ process_options (void)
{
if (targetm.chkp_bound_mode () == VOIDmode)
error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39429
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65044
ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37954
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
This just updates the status link on the homepage from the 4.9.2-rc1
announcement to the final release announcement a week later.
Committed to CVS.
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #13)
Markus, are you sure about comment #9? I completely disabled the bswap pass
and still see a failure of the testcase at -O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
Bug ID: 65403
Summary: -Wno-error=not implemented is an error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
Bug ID: 65404
Summary: cgo tool on powerpc-linux-gnu maybe incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65402
Bug ID: 65402
Summary: global register variables miscompiled when unit
contains sse4.2 functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Mar 12 13:40:50 2015
New Revision: 221387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221387root=gccview=rev
Log:
[simplify-rtx] PR 65235: Calculate element size correctly
Hi all
we have merged the gcc-4_9-branch into linaro/gcc-4_9-branch up to
revision 221341 as r221360. We have also backported this set of revisions:
* r212011 as r221216 : PR tree-optimization/61607
* r214942 as r221216 : Abstract away marking loops for removal
* r214957 as r221216 : Sanity
Hi,
We have a problem with declare target variables in fortran modules, here is a
small reproducer:
+ share.f90:
module share
integer :: var_x
!$omp declare target(var_x)
end module
+ test.f90:
use share
var_x = 10
!$omp target update to(var_x)
end
+
$ gfortran -fopenmp -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65399
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
(Also you should have seen the duplicate bug with *exactly* the same error
message when submitting this one)
Agreed, I should have
On Mar 11, 2015, at 8:53 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com wrote:
...
I would agree that one should avoid it. I'd be wary of removing it
from GCC at this point since it might break working code.
It certainly would. It’s not all that common, but I have seen this done in
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:56:35PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
This happens because the var_x is added into offload tables for both share.o
and
test.o. The patch below fixes this issue. Regtested on x86_64-linux and
i686-linux. However I'm not sure how to create a regression test, which
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote:
The patch fixes that by calculating the size of the first element by
taking the size of the outer mode and subtracting the size of the second
element.
I've added an assert to make sure that the second element is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Besides that the error also complains about -Werror= instead of -Wno-error=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Known to fail|5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com ---
That should be -O3 -fno-inline.
The patch fixes that by calculating the size of the first element by
taking the size of the outer mode and subtracting the size of the second
element.
I've added an assert to make sure that the second element is not also a
const_int, as a vec_concat of const_ints doesn't make sense as far
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65401
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
I was in this code recently, so mine.
For P a subprogram, P'Code_Address is expected to return
the address at which the machine code for P starts.
It differs from 'Address on targets where function
symbol names denote the address of a function descriptor,
a record from which the code address can be fetched
(e.g. on ppc-aix).
On such
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-12 00:00:00 |2015-03-10 0:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #51 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Here is the change I made to go-callers.c. This patch along with my previous
changes to extern.go and pprof.go allows the test identified in this issue to
report the correct line number on
After noticing tree-parloop.c passing crap to split_block (a tree
rather than a gimple or an rtx) I noticed those CFG functions simply
take void * pointers. The following patch fixes that and adds
two overloads, one for GIMPLE use and one for RTL use.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65401
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In the
9345 else if (GET_CODE (rhs) == AND
9346paradoxical_subreg_p (XEXP (rhs, 0))
9347GET_CODE (SUBREG_REG (XEXP (rhs, 0))) == MEM
9348
CFG cleanup currently searches for calls that became noreturn and
fixes them up (splitting block and removing the fallthru). Previously
that was technically necessary as propagation may have turned an
indirect call into a direct noreturn call and the CFG verifier would
have barfed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #8 from Honggyu Kim hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #6)
(In reply to Honggyu Kim from comment #4)
Can I add this testcase with your modification as my first gcc contribution?
:)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #3 from TC rs2740 at gmail dot com ---
Depends on how http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2443 comes out in
LEWG, it might be a good idea to go with a solution that maintains the
`constexpr`-ness so that it doesn't have to
Hi,
I have wrote a testcase that reproduces argument overwriting bug during arm
code generation.
I wrote this testcase with the help of Mikael Pettersson.
If some format is not proper to run in gcc testsuite framework, please
correct me.
Please refer to the following bugzilla link for details:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
Honggyu Kim hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.2
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
2015-03-09 Martin Liska marxin.li...@gmail.com
* config/i386/i386.c (def_builtin): Collect union of all
possible masks.
(ix86_add_new_builtins): Do not iterate over all builtins
in cases that isa value has no intersection with possible masks
and(or) last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
: default_check
{
using default_check::check; // #1
using type = decltype(checkvoid(0));
};
int main() {}
gcc HEAD 5.0.0 20150312 (experimental) reports
prog.cc:9:31: error: expected primary-expression before 'void'
using type = decltype(checkvoid(0));
^
prog.cc:9:31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sth like
@@ -672,8 +650,18 @@ cleanup_tree_cfg_bb (basic_block bb)
if (single_succ_p (bb)
can_merge_blocks_p (bb, single_succ (bb)))
{
- merge_blocks (bb,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
I think the trouble starts at opcua_string.c.039t.fnsplit :
OpcUa_String_Clear (struct OpcUa_String * a_pString)
{
...
bb 5:
# _25 = PHI 0(2), 1(3), 0(4)
if (_25 ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #22 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Could you please attach the unreduced testcase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #24 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35020
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35020action=edit
Unreduced translation unit of the test program.
Compil and run like so:
$ gcc -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52579
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Strange, this fails with my builds on our internal POWER8 box, but doesn't with
my build on the external gcc112 POWER8 compile farm system. I'll try and track
down what the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
There is nothing in the cgo tool which would cause this error.
When the command runs go, which go tool is actually running? The difference
may be that on platforms other than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The original test doesn't show any valgrind errors so these could be the result
of using delta to reduce the test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah. In md4_digest, for (i = 0; i 16 - 2; i++) look writes data[0] through
data[13], data[14] is stored after the loop, but data[15] is uninitialized,
but md5_transform reads it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35019
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35019action=edit
pr65369.c
Adjusted testcase that now works reliably at -O0, and even with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Mar 12 16:08:48 2015
New Revision: 221395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221395root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR fortran/60898
fortran/
* resolve.c
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
