Re: [PATCH 5/7][Testsuite] Support ARMv8.1 ARM tests.

On 10/12/15 10:49, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Matthew Wahab wrote: On 27/11/15 17:11, Matthew Wahab wrote: On 27/11/15 13:44, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 26/11/15 16:02, Matthew Wahab wrote This patch adds ARMv8.1 support to GCC

Re: [PATCH][LTO,ARM] Fix vector TYPE_MODE in streaming-out

On 12/15/2015 04:09 PM, Christian Bruel wrote: in "normal" mode, the TYPE_MODE for vector_type __simd64_int8_t is set to V8QImode by arm_vector_mode_supported_p during the builtins type initializations, thanks to TARGET_NEON set bu the global flag. Now, in LTO mode the streamer writes the

[Bug c++/68763] [6 Regression] ICE: in verify_unstripped_args, at cp/pt.c:1132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|WORKSFORME

Re: RFA (hash-*): PATCH for c++/68309

On 12/14/2015 07:49 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote: + hash_map (const hash_map , bool ggc = false, + bool gather_mem_stats = true CXX_MEM_STAT_INFO) sorry about the late response, but wouldn't it be better to make this and the hash_table constructor explicit? Its probably less

[Bug c/68908] inefficient code for _Atomic operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Doesn't seem to be ppc64le specific in any way, and doesn't affect just > preincrement. The inefficiency I was pointing out was the redundant syncs above the

Re: [PATCH] gcc: read -fdebug-prefix-map OLD from environment (improved reproducibility)

On Tue 2015-12-15 11:08:23 -0500, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > I'm guessing you don't have an account I don't have an account (though i'd be happy to set one up if you point me toward the process). > so I'll bootstrap and test it and then commit. fwiw, I've tested it myself, and can confirm that it

Re: [PATCH 3/4][AArch64] Add CCMP to rtx costs

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:33:22AM +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > ping > > > -Original Message- > > From: Wilco Dijkstra [mailto:wilco.dijks...@arm.com] > > Sent: 13 November 2015 16:03 > > To: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' > > Subject: [PATCH 3/4][AArch64] Add CCMP to rtx costs > > > > This

RE: [PATCH 2/4 v2][AArch64] Add support for FCCMP

Adding Bernd - would you mind reviewing the ccmp.c change please? > -Original Message- > From: James Greenhalgh [mailto:james.greenha...@arm.com] > Sent: 15 December 2015 16:42 > To: Wilco Dijkstra > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4 v2][AArch64] Add support for FCCMP

Re: [PATCH] gcc: read -fdebug-prefix-map OLD from environment (improved reproducibility)

On 12/15/2015 03:14 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: On Tue 2015-12-15 07:19:30 -0500, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 12/11/2015 08:14 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: Here's a one-liner patch for this approach (also at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37007): I think that one-liner is

[PATCH] C++ FE: Show both locations in string literal concatenation error

We can use rich_location and the new diagnostic_show_locus to print *both* locations when complaining about a bogus string concatenation in the C++ FE, giving e.g.: test.C:3:24: error: unsupported non-standard concatenation of string literals const void *s = u8"a" u"b"; ~

Re: [PATCH 2/4 v2][AArch64] Add support for FCCMP

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:32:50AM +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > ping > > > -Original Message- > > From: Wilco Dijkstra [mailto:wilco.dijks...@arm.com] > > Sent: 17 November 2015 18:36 > > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > Subject: [PATCH 2/4 v2][AArch64] Add support for FCCMP > > > > (v2

Re: [PATCH, testsuite] Fix PR68629: attr-simd-3.c failure on arm-none-eabi targets

Hi! On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 17:56:13 +0800, "Thomas Preud'homme" wrote: > c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c fails to compile on arm-none-eabi targets due to > -fcilkplus needing -pthread which is not available for those targets. This > patch solves this issue by adding a

[PATCH][reload.c] Convert conditional compilation of WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS

Hi all, This converts the preprocessor checks for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS into runtime checks in reload.c. Since this one is used to guard part of a large condition, I'd appreciate it if someone double-checks that the logic is still equivalent. Bootstrapped and tested on arm, aarch64,

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #6 from Jon Beniston --- -fstrict-overflow (which is the default at -O2) tells us that we can assume it will not overflow. Even if it did, on most targets it makes no difference to the result.

[Bug ipa/66616] [4.9/5/6 regression] fipa-cp-clone ignores thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66616 --- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13) > > I got > > > > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr66616.C -std=gnu++11 execution test > > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr66616.C -std=gnu++14 execution

[Bug rtl-optimization/67736] Wrong optimization with -fexpensive-optimizations on mips64el

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67736 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- Couldn't it be optimized as: short func(short *a, int y) { short ret = 0; unsigned int tmp = 0; int i; for(i = 0; i < y; i++) tmp += (unsigned int)(int)a[i]; return (short)tmp; } Such that the

[Bug libfortran/68867] numeric formatting problem in the fortran library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 06:03:55PM +, seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote: > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/default_format_denormal_2.f90 -O0 execution test > FAIL: gfortran.dg/default_format_denormal_2.f90

[Bug c++/68763] [6 Regression] ICE: in verify_unstripped_args, at cp/pt.c:1132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/68906] [6 Regression] ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68906 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev --- I've prepared simple fix which cures ICE. I will send it for review tomorrow. 2015-12-15 12:50 GMT+03:00 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org : >

Re: [RFC] Combine vectorized loops with its scalar remainder.

Hi Richard, I re-designed the patch to determine ability of loop masking on fly of vectorization analysis and invoke it after loop transformation. Test-case is also provided. what is your opinion? Thanks. Yuri. ChangeLog:: 2015-12-15 Yuri Rumyantsev * config/i386/i386.c

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #4 from Jon Beniston --- Well if it is just truncating the higher bits, why can't it be done at the end of the loop? What do you think will be different if it is done at the end of the loop? Can you think of an example where the

Re: [BUILDROBOT] "error: null argument where non-null required" on multiple targets

On 12/14/2015 01:07 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: On Mon, 2015-12-14 18:54:28 +, Moore, Catherine wrote: avr-rtems http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_details.php?id=478544 mipsel-elf

[Bug libfortran/68867] numeric formatting problem in the fortran library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/63628] [c++1y] cannot use decltype on captured arg-pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63628 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3) > The second and third variants work in mainline. Yes, they were fixed by the patch for bug 68309. We need a further fix to handle the original testcase.

[PATCH][rtlanal.c] Convert conditional compilation on WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS

Hi all, This converts the preprocessor check for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS into a runtime one in rtlanal.c. Since this one was in combination with an "#if defined" and used to guard an if-statement I'd appreciate it if someone gave it a double-check that I dind't screw up the intended

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On 12/10/15 06:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote: I'm aware of some duplication in expand_omp_for_* functions, and some of the obvious duplications were already moved to helper functions. But in these cases the number of differences is even significantly bigger too, so having just one function that

[Bug libstdc++/68921] [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68921 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- This fixes it: --- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/futex.cc +++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/futex.cc @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION // we will fall back to spin-waiting. The only thing

[Bug c/68908] inefficient code for _Atomic operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod --- (In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #4) > I think we should rather handle this in the front end than with > quite complex pattern matching. > > If we want to do any complex logic with atomics in

[Bug middle-end/56934] ICE folding a COND_EXPR involving vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56934 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [build] Only support -gstabs on Mac OS X if assember supports it (PR target/67973)

On Dec 15, 2015, at 5:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Right: I'm effectively keeping just the first configure test for .stabs > support in the assembler to enable or disable > DBX_DEBUG/DBX_DEBUGGING_INFO. I'll post it later since … > ... testing revealed another

[PATCH] C FE: use correct location range for static assertions

When issuing diagnostics for _Static_assert, we currently ignore the location/range of the asserted expression, and instead use the location/range of the first token within it, which can be incorrect for compound expressions: error: expression in static assertion is not constant _Static_assert

[Bug middle-end/62069] [GCC-5] ICE: in int_cst_value, at tree.c:10625

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62069 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[PATCH][combine] Check WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS normally rather than through preprocessor

Hi all, As part of the war on conditional compilation here's an #if check on WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS that seems to have been missed out. Bootstrapped and tested on arm, aarch64, x86_64. Is it still ok to commit these kinds of conditional compilation conversions? Thanks, Kyrill 2015-12-15

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey --- My understanding (I don't have a C/C++ standard handy) is that the addition done by 'ret + a[i]' is done in integer mode (not as short). This results in an integer value that may be outside the range of a

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey --- If we did not truncate ret on each loop iteration then ret could get large enough to overflow the maximum integer value before we truncate it at the end, leading to undefined results. But if we truncate ret

[Bug target/56309] conditional moves instead of compare and branch result in almost 2x slower code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56309 --- Comment #35 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #26) > Another analysis by Jake in PR54037: Eh, PR 54073.

Re: [COMMITTED] Add myself to MAINTAINERS (Write After Approval)

Sorry about that. Committed revision 231657 Index: ChangeLog === --- ChangeLog(revision 231656) +++ ChangeLog(working copy) @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -2015-12-15 Alessandro Fanfarillo +2015-12-15

[Bug libstdc++/68921] New: [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68921 Bug ID: 68921 Summary: [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug rtl-optimization/68920] [6 Regression] Undesirable if-conversion for a rarely taken branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- Another incarnation of PR 56309 ?

Re: [PATCH][combine] PR rtl-optimization/68651 Try changing rtx from (r + r) to (r << 1) to aid recognition

Hi Bernd, On 15/12/15 14:22, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 12/14/2015 01:25 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: PR 68651 is a code quality regression for GCC 5 and GCC 6 that was introduced due to updated rtx costs for -mcpu=cortex-a53 that affected expansion. The costs changes were correct (to the extent

[Bug middle-end/57348] [TM] ICE for transaction expression in gimplify_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57348 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Cost CCMP instruction sequences to choose better expand order

On 15/12/15 10:33, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: -Original Message- From: Wilco Dijkstra [mailto:wilco.dijks...@arm.com] Sent: 13 November 2015 16:03 To: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' Subject: [PATCH 4/4][AArch64] Cost CCMP instruction sequences to choose better expand order This patch adds CCMP

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug middle-end/63383] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9389

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63383 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[patch] libstdc++/68912 Fix cv-qualifiers in std::bind invocation

The first patch fixes an inconsistency between the return type and the function body, as described in the PR. The second patch removes the TR1 return type support from _Mu, because it isn't necessary in C++11. The third patch is because the second one accidentally removed a "volatile" (removing

[PATCH][reload1.c] Convert conditional compilation on WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS

Hi all, This converts the preprocessor check for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS into a runtime check in reload1.c. Since this one is used to guard part of a condition, I'd appreciate it if someone double-checks that the logic is still equivalent. Bootstrapped and tested on arm, aarch64, x86_64.

[Bug ipa/66616] [4.9/5/6 regression] fipa-cp-clone ignores thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66616 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13) > I got > > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr66616.C -std=gnu++11 execution test > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr66616.C -std=gnu++14 execution test > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr66616.C -std=gnu++98

[Bug libfortran/68867] numeric formatting problem in the fortran library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867 Bill Seurer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug libstdc++/68921] [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68921 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/16107] missed optimization with some math function builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16107 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/55180] Missed optimization abs(-x) -> abs(x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55180 Bug 55180 depends on bug 16107, which changed state. Bug 16107 Summary: missed optimization with some math function builtins https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16107 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/57600] Turn 2 comparisons into 1 with the min

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57600 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug libstdc++/68921] [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68921 Carlos O'Donell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carlos at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/68923] New: SSE/AVX movq load (_mm_cvtsi64_si128) not being folded into pmovzx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68923 Bug ID: 68923 Summary: SSE/AVX movq load (_mm_cvtsi64_si128) not being folded into pmovzx Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: fix scheduling antideps

On Dec 11, 2015, at 1:22 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> This patch allows a target to increase the cost of anti-deps to better >> reflect the actual cost on the machine. > > But it can already do it via the TARGET_SCHED_ADJUST_COST hook, can't it? The undocumented

Re: [patch] libstdc++/68921 add timeout argument to futex(2)

On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 18:46 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > This fixes a missing argument to the futex syscall. > > Tested powerpc64le-linux. This needs to be fixed for gcc-5 and trunk. > OK. Thanks!

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Wide int support.

"Ulrich Weigand" writes: > Dominik Vogt wrote: > >> +; Note: Although CONST_INT and CONST_DOUBLE are not handled in this >> predicate, >> +; at least one of them needs to appear or otherwise safe_predicate_mode will >> +; assume that a DImode LABEL_REF is not accepted either

[Bug c++/68922] New: g++ fails to generate code for catch clause with specific optimizations enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68922 Bug ID: 68922 Summary: g++ fails to generate code for catch clause with specific optimizations enabled Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/68921] [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68921 --- Comment #3 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org --- LGTM, thanks. Would be nice to backport this.

[Bug target/68924] New: No intrinsic for x86 `MOVQ m64, %xmm` in 32bit mode.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68924 Bug ID: 68924 Summary: No intrinsic for x86 `MOVQ m64, %xmm` in 32bit mode. Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 URL: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34279513/loading-8-

[PATCH] Better error recovery for merge-conflict markers (v5)

On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 18:44 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 12/09/2015 05:58 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 14:56 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > >> > >> This seems like fairly low impact but also low cost, so I'm fine with it > >> in principle. I wonder whether the length of

[Bug target/68923] SSE/AVX movq load (_mm_cvtsi64_si128) not being folded into pmovzx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68923 Peter Cordes changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization, ssemmx

[Bug libstdc++/61347] std::distance(list.first(),list.end()) in O(1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61347 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 57600, which changed state. Bug 57600 Summary: Turn 2 comparisons into 1 with the min https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57600 What|Removed |Added

Re: fix scheduling antideps

On Dec 11, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 12/11/2015 02:22 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>> This patch allows a target to increase the cost of anti-deps to better >>> reflect the actual cost on the machine. >> >> But it can already do it via the TARGET_SCHED_ADJUST_COST

[patch] libstdc++/68921 add timeout argument to futex(2)

This fixes a missing argument to the futex syscall. Tested powerpc64le-linux. This needs to be fixed for gcc-5 and trunk. commit ea5726fb770a1e89f6102c903f828ec6d71a1e3d Author: Jonathan Wakely Date: Tue Dec 15 18:34:52 2015 + libstdc++/68921 add timeout argument

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |debug Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/68906] [6 Regression] ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68906 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/53223] [c++0x] auto&& and operator* don't mix inside templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/68910] New: SPARC/cypress: Poor code generation, huge stack frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68910 Bug ID: 68910 Summary: SPARC/cypress: Poor code generation, huge stack frame Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #2 from Jon Beniston --- Hi Steve. I'm not sure I'm follow your explanation. As I understand it, signed overflow is undefined behaviour (http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/120), so I'm not sure why we need to worry about changing

[Bug debug/58315] [4.9/5 Regression] Excessive memory use with -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315 Bug 58315 depends on bug 66688, which changed state. Bug 66688 Summary: [6 Regression] compare debug failure building Linux kernel on ppc64le https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66688 What|Removed

[Bug debug/66688] [6 Regression] compare debug failure building Linux kernel on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66688 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

RE: [Patch,rtl Optimization]: Better register pressure estimate for Loop Invariant Code Motion.

The patch is modified based on the review comments from Richard, Bernd and David. The following changes are done to incorporate the comments received on the previous mail. 1. With this patch the liveness of the Loop is not stored on the LOOPDATA structures. The liveness is calculated based

[Bug testsuite/68629] FAIL: c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629 --- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon --- (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #3) > Hi Christophe, > > Could you paste the output of arm linux when compiling the testcase in > cilkplus effective target with -fcilkplus? The output is

Re: [gomp4.5] Handle #pragma omp declare target link

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 08:17:33PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote: > Here is an updated patch. Now MSB is set in both tables, and > gomp_unload_image_from_device is changed. I've verified using simple DSO > testcase, that memory on target is freed after dlclose. > bootstrap and make check on

[Bug c++/68782] [6 regression] bad reference member formed with constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3) > Hmm, any element without TREE_CONSTANT should have caused us to return > the original CONSTRUCTOR. Perhaps the TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS stuff is not needed, but for

[i386] Enable -mstackrealign with SSE on 32-bit Windows

Hi, even the latest versions of Windows still guarantee only a 4-byte alignment of the stack in 32-bit mode, which doesn't play nice with some SSE instructions. That's why some projects enable -mstackrealign by default on 32-bit Windows: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631252 This

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Chengnian Sun from comment #2) > Is it related to this recently fixed bug? > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67778 Doesn't look like it, this one has been caused by: commit

[Bug c/68845] -Werror=array-bounds=[12] doesn't turn warning into error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68845 --- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl --- Created attachment 37035 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37035=edit Alias -Warray-bounds to Warray-bounds= Tentative patch, no regressions. Please commit if OK, I don't have valid

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- This started with r229911, but it must be some RTL optimization bug instead.

[Bug target/68910] SPARC/cypress: Poor code generation, huge stack frame

o fail||6.0 --- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> --- sparc-rtems4.12-gcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20151215 (experimental)

[Bug c++/63506] GCC deduces wrong return type of operator*() inside template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63506 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---

[Bug c/68909] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [PATCH 1/2] mark *-knetbsd-* as obsolete

tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org writes: > diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc > index 882e413..59f77da 100644 > --- a/gcc/config.gcc > +++ b/gcc/config.gcc > @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ md_file= > # Obsolete configurations. > case ${target} in > # Currently there are no obsolete targets. > -

[Bug tree-optimization/68906] [6 Regression] ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68906 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Thus, not a dup of PR65496.

[Patch] S/390: Simplify vector conditionals

Hi, the attached patch simplifies vector conditional statements like v < 0 ? -1 : 0 into v >> 31. The code is largely based on the x86 implementation of this feature by Jakub Jelinek. In future, (and if useful for more backends) it could make sense to implement this directly at tree-level.

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 Chengnian Sun changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chengniansun at gmail dot com ---

[Bug target/68908] inefficient code for _Atomic operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc64 | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/21802] Two-stage name lookup fails for operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21802 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/68629] FAIL: c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629 --- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon --- After discussion on IRC, it seems better to keep your patch as-is, since cilk-plus is not supported on arm anyway.

[Bug target/68910] SPARC/cypress: Poor code generation, huge stack frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68910 --- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber --- Code generation for leon3 is also quite bad.

[Bug c++/63506] GCC deduces wrong return type of operator*() inside template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63506 --- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Tue Dec 15 10:18:13 2015 New Revision: 231646 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231646=gcc=rev Log: 2015-12-15 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug c++/63506] GCC deduces wrong return type of operator*() inside template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63506 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug rtl-optimization/67715] [6 Regression][ARM] ICE in cselib.c during reload_cse_regs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67715 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/67477] [6 Regression] ICE in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2388

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67477 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/67477] [6 Regression] ICE in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2388

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67477 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||renlin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

  1   2   3   >