https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Sure, but some of the mentioned SSA_NAMEs are registered for update and SCEV
> code is called before that happens.
Yes, sure. That still doesn't necessarily
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84111
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83323
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83302
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz ---
In any case, this is not something that GCC could do anything about. A probe
necessarily has to be a write, and writing to something not belonging to own
stack (or guard page) will always have this problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83302
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz ---
I guess the problem described in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/10/188 is, that
the stack probe itself accesses a page which _doesn't_ belong to this threads
stack, but to something else. golang seems to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80609
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82365
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Richard/Micha, thoughts on that?
None better than what you came up with. It'd solve this specific instance
of the problem (and not the one with swapped call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80794
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80609
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz ---
Created attachment 41303
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41303=edit
preprocessed file
% ./gcc/cc1 -fpreprocessed libgcov-driver.i -quiet -dumpbase libgcov-driver.i
-auxbase-strip _gcov.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80609
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Component: ipa
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: matz at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Bootstrap on ia64 just got this:
0x417dc5ff crash_signal
/gcc/spec/sb-terbium-head-64/gcc/gcc/toplev.c:337
0x408c7570 base_pool_allocator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
--- Comment #70 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #69)
> As I noted elsewhere union members in C++ seem to be pure convenience and a
> union contains implicit members of all types (well, somehow factor in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
--- Comment #68 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #65)
> It accesses b, but it doesn't access the object stored in b's char[N] member
> via placement new.
Okay, let's go with this. So the copying of the union is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
--- Comment #67 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #66)
> The operator semantics described in clause 5 [expr] apply to the built-in
> operators, not any overloaded operators. Assignment of classes is always
> done by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78384
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78384
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Mon Jan 23 13:57:31 2017
New Revision: 244811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244811=gcc=rev
Log:
fix pr78384
PR tree-optimization/78384
* tree-ssa-loop-split.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78384
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Any progress with this?
It fell through the cracks over christmas vacation, I'll get to it this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78725
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Dec 13 14:14:41 2016
New Revision: 243606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243606=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix pr78725
PR tree-optimization/78725
* tree-ssa-loop-split.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78725
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #4)
> Thanks for the second testcase as well. It's not quite the same
> miscompilation
> (the induction vars don't overflow), but a related one (the value of d
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78725
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
Thanks for the second testcase as well. It's not quite the same miscompilation
(the induction vars don't overflow), but a related one (the value of d
considered in the conditional statement is the final one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78725
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #23 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #22)
> Does this patch replace the one in comment 8 or should they both be used?
I checked it in isolation, but the former one does fix a bug as well, so
probably use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #20 from Michael Matz ---
The below patch fixes at least the gcc.c-torture/execute/20030408-1.c
testcase. Checking others as well, perhaps I manage to bootstrap later.
But if Dominik is faster... :)
diff --git a/gcc/combine.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #18 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #17)
> Combine should probably not try to generate this extract, I wonder if it
> can exist on any target. So where is it coming from?
Easy:
(subreg:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #16 from Michael Matz ---
Uhh:
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (subreg:DI (reg:SI 73) 0)
-(lshiftrt:DI (reg/v:DI 63 [ X ])
-(const_int 56 [0x38])))
+(zero_extract:DI (reg/v:DI 63 [ X ])
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #15 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #14)
> With the fix I couldn't reproduce the error message in four attempts, but
> genattrtab still hangs. Maybe this is bad luck, but maybe the error is
> gone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #12 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #11)
> That didn't fix the ia64 bootstrap failure.
Would have been too easy I guess :-) Okay, can you try to find a testcase
that regressed by not bootstrapping but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #10 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #9)
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:03:03PM +0000, matz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I'm just bootstrapping s390x with the fix; would you like me to
> run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz ---
The aarch64 fail is fixed by the below patch. It will take a while for me
to try this on s390, so if somebody beats me to test this I won't complain.
diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
index
at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz ---
Mine.
||2016-11-17
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz ---
Impressive how a seemingly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77881
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] |[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77881
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Nov 15 14:02:28 2016
New Revision: 242414
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242414=gcc=rev
Log:
PR missed-optimization/77881
* combine.c (simplify_comparison):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78088
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78072
Bug 78072 depends on bug 78060, which changed state.
Bug 78060 Summary: [7 Regression] -O3 causes "error: type mismatch in binary
expression"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz ---
Verified with a cross compiler that it's indeed fixed with r241551.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78088
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Wed Oct 26 12:54:30 2016
New Revision: 241551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241551=gcc=rev
Log:
fix pr78060 pr78061 pr78088
PR tree-optimization/78060
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Wed Oct 26 12:54:30 2016
New Revision: 241551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241551=gcc=rev
Log:
fix pr78060 pr78061 pr78088
PR tree-optimization/78060
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Wed Oct 26 12:54:30 2016
New Revision: 241551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241551=gcc=rev
Log:
fix pr78060 pr78061 pr78088
PR tree-optimization/78060
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78088
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77881
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
Actually, it's merely a deficiency in current combine not simplifying
intermediate expressions enough. One of the things that need to happen is
the following transformation:
(compare:CCZ (subreg:QI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77881
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz ---
Exactly. Whatever makes it currently work for >=0 should be made to work for
<0 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70238
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz ---
In this particular case the ABI could have been kept compatible if the
_V2::error_category member _M_message (under the old ABI, for the new ABI
the message(int) member) would have been added to the end of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70238
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #4)
>
> Basically our shared library (not just the object files) has a change in
> one symbol, and we didn't bump either the symversion or the soname,
> which I'd say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70238
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz ---
Please try https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg01875.html
if possible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69464
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > That means we need #define USE_ALGORITHM before #include "system.h" in
> > genmodes.c with a comment.
>
> But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68392
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Nov 24 16:00:51 2015
New Revision: 230818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230818=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/68392
* g++.dg/pr68392.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68392
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68392
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: matz at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
$ cat s390x-ice-datetime.i
/* -O2 -march=z196 --> ICE in s390_emit_compare */
extern long useme (long, ...);
void foo (void)
{
long secs = useme (41);
long utc_secs = useme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68015
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67272
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Aug 25 16:02:38 2015
New Revision: 227176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227176root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/67272
PR target/67296
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67296
--- Comment #1 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Aug 25 16:02:38 2015
New Revision: 227176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227176root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/67272
PR target/67296
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67296
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67272
--- Comment #1 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Which options and which svn revision are you using? I can't reproduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67272
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: matz
Date: Wed Aug 19 15:55:19 2015
New Revision: 227014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227014root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/67272
* hsa-regalloc.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67272
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, with -O0, can reproduce now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67272
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66782
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66592
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can't reproduce with r224605 and r224647. Can you update and retry?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: matz
Date: Thu Jun 18 13:31:17 2015
New Revision: 224605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224605root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66253
* tree-vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63623
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: matz
Date: Fri Jun 12 14:06:41 2015
New Revision: 224434
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224434root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2014-10-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63623
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: matz
Date: Fri Jun 12 14:13:33 2015
New Revision: 224435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224435root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2014-10-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue May 26 16:00:32 2015
New Revision: 223704
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223704root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66251
* tree-vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you check if the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02133.html
helps also gemsfdtd?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
I tried and I still got
Running Benchmarks
Running 459.GemsFDTD ref peak lnx32e-gcc default
*** Miscompare of sphere_td.nft; for details
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61772
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Jul 15 14:11:06 2014
New Revision: 212563
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212563root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/61772
* ifcvt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
--- Comment #17 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The testsuite failure on m68k is indeed caused by r212352. In particular
this hunk:
@@ -1641,8 +1609,7 @@ record_equality (tree x, tree y)
long as we canonicalize on one value
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: matz at gcc dot gnu.org
This is reduced from a bug our kernel people hit. The problem is
the use of asm volatile gotos inside a conditional, when the outgoing
blocks of the asm-goto are itself both empty. Ala
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61772
--- Comment #1 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33102
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33102action=edit
Patch
Possible patch for the problem. There are many predicates for testing various
forms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61203
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
same spot. No idea what to do against this though, treating a CLOBBER as a
barrier for propagation of addresses to other local variables
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: matz at gcc dot gnu.org
Came up in IRC, GCC invalidly moves a conversion innerwards:
% cat x.c
extern void abort (void);
float global;
int main()
{
unsigned long z = 1;
float x = -z;
global = x;
if (global 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57886
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42485
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57725
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57723
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to petschy from comment #7)
Is it a plausible assumption that if a function is not marked as 'noreturn'
and the loop doesn't change the program's state then the loop could
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57723
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57569
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's cse, and it's because it indeed uses the wrong dependence test.
The CSE tables holds values read from memory which are supposed to be
clobbered by following writes, i.e. write-after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57569
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My guess is that it's again somewhere using the wrong predicate
to test directed rw/wr/ww dependencies.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
It seems the code really wants to use anti_dependence, not true_dependence.
We have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52448
--- Comment #9 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-08 12:31:28
UTC ---
Author: matz
Date: Fri Feb 8 12:31:19 2013
New Revision: 195883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195883
Log:
PR tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-14 15:55:51
UTC ---
The patch should lead to wrong code at some places (when peeling for
alignment actually does something). The problem is, you
calculate base and step
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #13 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-19 13:12:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
What do you mean by invalid? It is certainly not undefined behavior.
No, but the expectation implicitely coded
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11 15:48:10
UTC ---
Or with the more recent -fexcess-precision=standard option.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #34 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-03 15:39:20
UTC ---
Author: matz
Date: Mon Sep 3 15:39:15 2012
New Revision: 190897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190897
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46590
101 - 200 of 357 matches
Mail list logo
