[Bug target/81753] Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81753] Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- rs6000-p8swap.o as well :-)

[Bug tree-optimization/81723] [7/8 Regression] fortran build doesn't terminate on 64bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81723 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.2

[PATCH][v2] Fix target attribute handling (PR c++/81355).

On 08/02/2017 09:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 08/02/2017 01:04 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 07/28/2017 05:13 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> Hello. >>> >>> Following patch skips empty strings in 'target' attribute. >>> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. >>> >>>

[Bug target/81753] Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Apparently it's not enough: g++ -no-pie -O0 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Do refactoring of attribute functions and move them to attribs.[hc].

Hello. I'm sending final version that I'm going to install. Compared to the previous version I tested all targets in contrib/config-list.mk. Martin >From 860a6af96c27be95ead1163e7512fdca4cc6a67a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 13:39:54 +0200

Re: [1/2] PR 78736: New warning -Wenum-conversion

On 1 August 2017 at 00:10, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 11 July 2017 at 17:59, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> On 13 June 2017 at 01:47, Joseph Myers wrote: >>> This is OK with one fix: >>> +C ObjC

Re: [RFC] propagate malloc attribute in ipa-pure-const pass

On 31 July 2017 at 23:53, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 23 May 2017 at 19:10, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> On 19 May 2017 at 19:02, Jan Hubicka wrote: * LTO and memory management This is a

RE: [PATCH] [Aarch64] Optimize subtract in shift counts

Richard, The pattern will only be matched if the value is positive. More specifically if the constant value is 32 (SImode) or 64 (DImode). -Original Message- From: Richard Kenner [mailto:ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu] Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 6:56 PM To: Michael Collison

[Bug c++/81764] New: Visibility for explicitly instantiated template class get warned if it was implicitly instantiated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81764 Bug ID: 81764 Summary: Visibility for explicitly instantiated template class get warned if it was implicitly instantiated Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

RE: [PATCH] [Aarch64] Optimize subtract in shift counts

> On Aarc64 SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED is only true if SIMD code generation > is disabled. This is because the simd instructions can be used for > shifting but they do not truncate the shift count. In that case, the change isn't safe! Consider if the value was negative, for example. Yes, it's

[Bug target/81763] Issues with 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 --- Comment #2 from Mike Lothian --- Sorry I should have been more clear, this is LLVM trunk I'm using these flags: CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -pipe" CXXFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -pipe" LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed"

[Bug target/81763] Issues with 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- There are some known issues with older versions of LLVM, maybe you are using too older version of LLVM. That is some versions of LLVM have undefined C++ code in them. GCC 7.1 is more aggressive of

[Bug c/81763] New: Issues with 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 Bug ID: 81763 Summary: Issues with 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+ Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

Re: [PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:24:27 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote: > What I don't like is that the patch is inconsistent, it sets DECL_CONTEXT > of the child function for all kinds of outlined functions, but then you just > choose one of the many places and add it into the BLOCK tree.

Re: [PATCH 00/22] RFC: integrated 3rd-party static analysis support

On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 21:00 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote: > On 8/4/17, David Malcolm wrote: > > This patch kit clearly isn't ready yet as-is (see e.g. the > > "known unknowns" below), but I'm posting it now in the hope of > > getting early feedback. > > > > Summary > > ===

[Bug target/81593] Optimize PowerPC vector set from vector extract

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81593 --- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Mon Aug 7 23:51:27 2017 New Revision: 250936 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250936=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-07 Michael Meissner PR

RE: [PATCH] [Aarch64] Optimize subtract in shift counts

On Aarc64 SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED is only true if SIMD code generation is disabled. This is because the simd instructions can be used for shifting but they do not truncate the shift count. -Original Message- From: Richard Kenner [mailto:ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu] Sent: Monday, August 7,

[Bug c++/81668] LTO ODR warnings are not helpful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81668 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

Re: [PATCH][PR target/81535] Fix tests on Power

Hi Yuri, Sorry I missed this. Please cc: me to prevent that from happening. On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 05:42:00AM +0100, Yury Gribov wrote: > This patch fixes issues reported in > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81535 > > I removed call to g in pr79439.c because gcc was duplicating

[Bug fortran/52387] I/O output of write after nonadvancing read

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED --- Comment #14 from Eric

[Bug lto/41565] -m32 causes an ICE when the object files were compiled with 64bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41565 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2009-10-04

[Bug fortran/81758] [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 --- Comment #2 from DIL --- No, at this point I do not, unfortunately. These OOP bugs tend to show up at higher levels, so it is not always clear how to reduce it to something small. I will try to reduce it to something smaller, but not sure how

[Bug c++/81762] New: errors defining attribute target overloads of the same function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81762 Bug ID: 81762 Summary: errors defining attribute target overloads of the same function template Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH 1/2] simplify-rtx: The truncation of an IOR can have all bits set (PR81423)

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:25:49AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 04:06:39PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > 2017-07-24 Segher Boessenkool > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ > > > PR rtl-optimization/81423 > > > *

Re: [Patch] Testsuite fixes for failures caused by patch for PR 80925 - loop peeling and alignment

I am not sure why this is failing on Solaris/SPARC, do you have the vector dump file from the test so we can see what it says about the loop it stopped vectorizing?  I don't have a Solaris/SPARC system here, I tried to build an 'initial' gcc for sparc-sun-solaris2.11 but I  could not reproduce the

[Bug c++/81721] precompiled header : internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721 Juro Bystricky changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juro.bystricky at intel dot com ---

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix diagnostic fallout for 32-bit

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:25:51PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > A previous patch addressed capitalization issues with diagnostics in the > POWER backend. > Unfortunately I failed to test this code on 32-bit targets, and there are > some additional > test cases that run only in 32-bit mode that

[Bug c++/81721] precompiled header : internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721 --- Comment #1 from Juro Bystricky --- This patch fixes the issue: http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2017-August/140486.html

Re: [PATCH] Improve -Ofast vectorization of std::sin etc. (PR libstdc++/81706)

On 07/08/17 23:02 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:59:04PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > If it is outlined without the first 7 lines, i.e. just the body of if (b), > then it could be duplicate_one_attribute (tree *, tree, const char *); > called like if (b)

[Bug c++/81761] New: assembler error on __func__ et al. on attribute target overloads

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81761 Bug ID: 81761 Summary: assembler error on __func__ et al. on attribute target overloads Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH], PR target/81593, Optimize PowerPC vector sets coming from a vector extracts

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:18:30AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > I don't like using NULL as a magic value at all; it does not simplify > > this interface, it complicates it instead. > > > > Can you move the "which half is high" decision to the callers? > > I rewrote the patch to eliminate

[Bug target/81759] Improve data tracking for _pext_u64 and __builtin_ffsll

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81759 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug c++/81760] New: attribute target uses the wrong default function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81760 Bug ID: 81760 Summary: attribute target uses the wrong default function argument Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/81759] New: Improve data tracking for _pext_u64 and __builtin_ffsll

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81759 Bug ID: 81759 Summary: Improve data tracking for _pext_u64 and __builtin_ffsll Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

define VXWORKS_HAVE_TLS for the AE/653/MILS series

Hello, After the changes introduced to take advantage of the recent TLS support in VxWorks 7 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01991.html The attached patch is needed to allow builds for the AE/653/MILS series of VxWorks targets. Committing to mainline, fixing PR target/81755

[Bug fortran/81758] [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libfortran/80850] Sourced allocate() fails to allocate a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850 --- Comment #11 from DIL --- The additional problem you observe with gfortran/7.1 described in the comment "2017-05-26 22:43:21 UTC" seems to be another gfortran compiler bug introduced in GCC/7.0. I have just filed a bug report for it (#81758).

[Bug libstdc++/81751] __basic_file::sync() may flush _all_ files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/81757] function reference on nonnull and noexcept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81757 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug target/72804] Poor code gen with -mvsx-timode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72804 --- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner --- I'm testing a patch. The root cause is that the vsx_le_permute_*, vsx_le_perm_load_* and vsx_le_perm_store_* patterns do not support the TImode values in integer registers and it is these patterns that LRA

Re: [PATCH] Improve -Ofast vectorization of std::sin etc. (PR libstdc++/81706)

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:59:04PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > If it is outlined without the first 7 lines, i.e. just the body of if (b), > > then it could be duplicate_one_attribute (tree *, tree, const char *); > > called like if (b) duplicate_one_attribute (_ATTRIBUTES (b), s, "omp > >

Re: [PATCH] [Aarch64] Optimize subtract in shift counts

> That is simplify: > (SHIFT A (32 - B)) -> (SHIFT A (AND (NEG B) 31)) > etc. I think you need SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED to be true for this to be valid, but this is exactly what I was getting at in my last message.

Re: [PATCH] Improve -Ofast vectorization of std::sin etc. (PR libstdc++/81706)

On 07/08/17 17:27 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 10:54:18AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: On 08/07/2017 05:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > +tree s = lookup_attribute ("omp declare simd", > + DECL_ATTRIBUTES (newdecl)); > +

Re: [PATCH] [Aarch64] Optimize subtract in shift counts

> This patch improves code generation for shifts with subtract > instructions where the first operand to the subtract is equal to the > bit-size of the operation. I would suspect that this will work on lots of targets. Is doing it in combine an option?

[Bug fortran/81758] New: [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 Bug ID: 81758 Summary: [OOP] Broken vtab Product: gcc Version: 7.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee:

Re: [Patch][aarch64] Use IFUNCs to enable LSE instructions in libatomic on aarch64

It would probably help if I included the patch. Steve Ellcey sell...@cavium.com 2017-08-07  Steve Ellcey   * Makefile.am (ARCH_AARCH64_LINUX_LSE): Add IFUNC_OPTIONS and libatomic_la_LIBADD. * config/linux/aarch64/host-config.h: New file. *

Re: [PATCH] [Aarch64] Optimize subtract in shift counts

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Michael Collison wrote: > This patch improves code generation for shifts with subtract instructions > where the first operand to the subtract is equal to the bit-size of the > operation. > > > long f1(long x, int i) > { > return x >>

[Patch][aarch64] Use IFUNCs to enable LSE instructions in libatomic on aarch64

This patch uses the libatomic IFUNC infrastructure so that aarch64 machines that support the LSE instructions can use them.  Note that aarch64 still isn't enabling IFUNC support by default though I have submitted a patch to do that.  You can enable IFUNC support by configuring with

[Bug rtl-optimization/81625] GCC v4.7 ... v8 is bloating code by > 25% compared to v3.4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81625 --- Comment #5 from Fredrik Hederstierna --- I tried build several AVR toolchains from 3.4.6 to 7.1.0 and I can confirm that code size increases as described. I suspect for AVR this might start already

[PATCH] [Aarch64] Optimize subtract in shift counts

This patch improves code generation for shifts with subtract instructions where the first operand to the subtract is equal to the bit-size of the operation. long f1(long x, int i) { return x >> (64 - i); } int f2(int x, int i) { return x << (32 - i); } With trunk at -O2 we generate: f1:

[Bug target/81755] Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755 Olivier Hainque changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/81755] Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755 --- Comment #2 from Olivier Hainque --- Author: hainque Date: Mon Aug 7 20:13:53 2017 New Revision: 250931 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250931=gcc=rev Log: Olivier Hainque PR target/81755 *

Re: [PATCH] i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access

Arjan van de Ven writes: > On 8/7/2017 8:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 08:39:24AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> When Linux/x86-64 kernel is compiled with -fno-omit-frame-pointer. >>> this optimization removes more than 730 >>> >>> pushq %rbp >>> movq

[patch, fortran] Fix PR 81116, missing dependency handling for allocatable character

Hello world, the attached patch fixes the PR by adding a dependency check for the case of concatenation operators. Regression-tested. OK for trunk? Regards Thomas 2017-08-07 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/81116 * frontend-passes.c

[Bug tree-optimization/81741] Misoptimisation : replacing a constant field read access by a function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81741 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Pelissier --- I can reproduce the behavior without __builtin_constant_p by removing it from the M_ASSUME macro : # define M_ASSUME(x)\ ( (x) ?

[Bug target/81755] Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755 Olivier Hainque changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/81116] Last character of allocatable-length string reset to blank in an assigment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81116 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/81359] [7/8 Regression] bogus error: constructor required before non-static data member for ‘Foo::Bar::test’ has been parsed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81359 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/81525] [7/8 Regression] Invalid codegen with constexpr variable template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81525 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- The bug is that GCC is replacing the auto with the implicit template argument of the generic lambda.

[Bug c++/81525] [7/8 Regression] Invalid codegen with constexpr variable template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81525 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[PATCH] Fix PR81354 (SLSR, insert on edges)

Hi, PR81354 describes an ICE in SLSR that occurs when a GIMPLE PHI statement changes address during the SLSR pass. SLSR contains a mapping table from GIMPLE statements to entries in the candidate table that relies on this address remaining constant. The address change occurs during

Re: [PATCH] [PR79542][Ada] Fix ICE in dwarf2out.c with nested func. inlining

On 05/26/2017 10:12 AM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: On 05/08/2017 06:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: That seems like a bug; if gen_typedef_die is going to generate a DIE for a cloned typedef, it needs to associate the type with the DIE. Hm… gen_typedef_die generates a DIE for a DECL node, but

[Bug c++/81757] New: function reference on nonnull and noexcept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81757 Bug ID: 81757 Summary: function reference on nonnull and noexcept Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

Re: [PATCH] i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> >> [hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr81736]$ >> >> >> >> Does it mean clang is broken? >> > >> > In my book, yes. >> >> Does GCC do this for all targets or just x86? > > No idea. If so I'd say

[committed] Add support for OpenMP atomics on bitfields (PR c/69389)

Hi! Apparently there is no restriction on #pragma omp atomic not being done on a bitfield, so this patch handles it by performing atomics on DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE instead. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk. 2017-08-07 Jakub Jelinek

[Bug c/69389] bit field incompatible with OpenMP atomic update

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69389 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Aug 7 18:34:29 2017 New Revision: 250929 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250929=gcc=rev Log: PR c/69389 * gimplify.c (goa_stabilize_expr): Handle

Re: C++ PATCH to fix ICE with bit-fields and ?: (PR c++/81607)

OK.

[PATCH, rs6000] Fix diagnostic fallout for 32-bit

Hi, A previous patch addressed capitalization issues with diagnostics in the POWER backend. Unfortunately I failed to test this code on 32-bit targets, and there are some additional test cases that run only in 32-bit mode that now fail. This patch cleans those up. Tested on

Re: [PATCH 3/3] matching tokens: C++ parts (v2)

On 08/01/2017 04:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote: @@ -27632,6 +27769,9 @@ cp_parser_sizeof_operand (cp_parser* parser, enum rid keyword) { tree type = NULL_TREE; + matching_parens parens; + parens.peek_open (parser); I was puzzled by this until I found that

[Bug fortran/67493] -fcheck=recursive not thread aware

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67493 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries --- patch with test-suite (In reply to cesar from comment #8) > Because num_gangs exceeds largest unsigned value that can be represented by > the induction variable. I think what you're trying to say here is

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #8 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Because num_gangs exceeds largest unsigned value that can be represented by the induction variable.

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to cesar from comment #6) > I'm not sure that solution is correct. Why ?

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org --- I'm not sure that solution is correct. A better solution would be to report an error/warning stating that num_workers exceeds the size of the induction variable. Also, in the case that user

[Bug target/81753] Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org

[openacc, PR78266, committed] Fix diff_type in expand_oacc_for char iter_type

Hi, this fixes PR78266, an openacc PR. When compiling a gang loop with an iteration variable of type 'unsigned char' and 256 gangs: ... #pragma acc parallel loop num_gangs (256) for (unsigned char j = 0; j < 5; j++) .. we run into trouble. The 'diff_type' in expand_oacc_for is set to 'signed

[PATCH][OBVIOUS] Add missing header file attribs.h to couple of targets.

I've been building cross compilers and this is part 2. Martin >From 924e6a075cfef0418a67eba5415fc96b841ea019 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 19:08:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Add missing header file attribs.h to couple of targets. gcc/ChangeLog:

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Mon Aug 7 17:06:11 2017 New Revision: 250925 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250925=gcc=rev Log: Fix diff_type in expand_oacc_for char iter_type 2017-08-07 Tom de Vries

[Bug c/81756] New: type attributes silently ignored on type declarations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81756 Bug ID: 81756 Summary: type attributes silently ignored on type declarations Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/81755] New: Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755 Bug ID: 81755 Summary: Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils is broken Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/68829] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Segfaults with -Ofast due to large array on stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/68829] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Segfaults with -Ofast due to large array on stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig --- It is now possible to use -fmax-stack-var-size with -Ofast. Closing.

[Bug fortran/68829] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Segfaults with -Ofast due to large array on stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829 Bug 68829 depends on bug 81701, which changed state. Bug 81701 Summary: -fstack-arrays hehavior does not match documentation https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/81701] -fstack-arrays hehavior does not match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[PATCH][OBVIOUS] Fix missing include of header file in mips.c.

Hi. This is small fallout of the patch. Installed as obvious. Martin >From ee45f39052dcd2efe468f3e6efc6608b77ab6054 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:42:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fix missing include of header file in mips.c. gcc/ChangeLog:

[Bug fortran/68829] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Segfaults with -Ofast due to large array on stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Mon Aug 7 16:43:05 2017 New Revision: 250923 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250923=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-07 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/68829

[Bug fortran/81701] -fstack-arrays hehavior does not match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Mon Aug 7 16:43:05 2017 New Revision: 250923 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250923=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-07 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/68829

[Bug target/81754] New: Building of cross compiler avr-elf is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81754 Bug ID: 81754 Summary: Building of cross compiler avr-elf is broken Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/81753] New: Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 Bug ID: 81753 Summary: Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH] i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access

Hi, On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > I'm not surprised to see one. > I'm surprised to see a useless one. > > The "perf" benefit is real, and that's why I asked for one... but the reorder > made it an expensive 3 instruction nop for all intents and purposes. > If the pop was just

Re: [PATCH] i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 8/7/2017 9:16 AM, Michael Matz wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> >>> wanting a framepointer is very nice and desired... >>> ... but if the optimizer/ins scheduler moves

Re: [PATCH] i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access

On 8/7/2017 9:16 AM, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Arjan van de Ven wrote: wanting a framepointer is very nice and desired... ... but if the optimizer/ins scheduler moves instructions outside of the frame'd portion, (it does it for cases like below as well), the value is already

Re: [PATCH] i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access

Hi, On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > wanting a framepointer is very nice and desired... > ... but if the optimizer/ins scheduler moves instructions outside of the > frame'd portion, > (it does it for cases like below as well), the value is already negative for > these > functions

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 --- Comment #10 from Max Bruckner --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > (In reply to Max Bruckner from comment #8) > > Nevertheless I disagree that there is no "overflow" or "underflow". It's a > > question of how you define the two

Re: [PATCH] i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access

On 8/7/2017 8:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 08:39:24AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: When Linux/x86-64 kernel is compiled with -fno-omit-frame-pointer. this optimization removes more than 730 pushq %rbp movq %rsp, %rbp popq %rbp If you don't want the frame pointer, why are you

PING^2: [PATCH] PR driver/81523: Make -static override -pie

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:04 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 08:04:13AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> > On Sun, Jul 23,

PING^2: [PATCH] i386: Avoid stack realignment if possible

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 4:46 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 5:56 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Max Bruckner from comment #8) > Nevertheless I disagree that there is no "overflow" or "underflow". It's a > question of how you define the two words, in a way, but being defined > doesn't make

  1   2   3   >