http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54212
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-08-15
07:56:48 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Aug 15 07:56:41 2012
New Revision: 190407
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190407
Log:
Fix PR target/54212
2012-08-15 Ramana Rad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54262
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53420
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53432
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54268
Bug #: 54268
Summary: std::string::reserve not consistent with
std::vector::reserve
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54263
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu
Target Mile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #38 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-15
08:57:51 UTC ---
What are the code generation deficiencies you are targeting with this? For
testcase #1 I get
sptr_result:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movqS+8(%rip), %rdx
mo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54264
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54259
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Component|libst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54201
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #39 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-08-15
09:13:36 UTC ---
avoiding BLKmode avoids unnecessary spills to memory. See Bug 28831 and Bug
41194 for examples.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-15 09:29:02 UTC ---
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, chip at pobox dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
>
> --- Comment #39 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-08-15
> 09:13:36 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
Bug #: 54269
Summary: [4.8 Regression] memory usage too large when
optimizing
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-08-15 09:57:13 UTC ---
seems like it is triggered by unrolling, using
gfortran -O2 -funroll-loops -ffree-form -D__LIBINT hfx_contraction_methods.F
is enough. A bt at the first point where memory seems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-15
10:05:26 UTC ---
Well, that's ENABLE_CHECKING code. Are you sure 4.7 built with
--enable-checking=yes does not exhibit this behavior?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-08-15 10:59:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Well, that's ENABLE_CHECKING code. Are you sure 4.7 built with
> --enable-checking=yes does not exhibit this behavior?
I'm pretty sure this was not ob
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-08-15
11:00:53 UTC ---
hmmm MEM_SIZE for the offending load appears to be 32 bytes. Something is fishy
here.
vld1.32 {d16}, [r3:128]! <= Offending load
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-08-15
11:18:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> hmmm MEM_SIZE for the offending load appears to be 32 bytes. Something is
> fishy
> here.
>
> vld1.32 {d16}, [r3:128]! <= Offending load
(insn 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-08-15 11:37:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Well, that's ENABLE_CHECKING code. Are you sure 4.7 built with
> --enable-checking=yes does not exhibit this behavior?
it looks like --enable-checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54270
Bug #: 54270
Summary: [4.8 Regression] spurious warning with
-Wunused-function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54270
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54270
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-15
12:44:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Considering the following test case:
By the way, if you compile your test case with "-O" you will see that the
compiler has properly optimized away the func
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-08-15
13:03:41 UTC ---
That ain't the root cause and that patch should really not be applied.
The problem really is in neon_dereference_pointer where we expand such builtins
- that's the one that is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #3 from T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt
2012-08-15 13:17:47 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 15 13:17:42 2012
New Revision: 190411
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190411
Log:
gcc:
2012-08-15 Bill Schmidt
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-08-15
13:27:38 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 15 13:27:29 2012
New Revision: 190412
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190412
Log:
gcc:
2012-08-15 Bill Schmidt
PR tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #41 from Gary Funck 2012-08-15 13:47:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> What are the code generation deficiencies you are targeting with this? For
> testcase #1 I get
>
> sptr_result:
> .LFB0:
> .cfi_startproc
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 13:58:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> (In reply to comment #36)
> > (In reply to comment #35)
> > > Note that for the test case in comment #34 (and comment #9) to fail that
> > > the
> > > MAX_FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54268
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51359
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #43 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 14:21:05
UTC ---
The problem is we return a TI union in XF register
because the x86-64 psABI.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54271
Bug #: 54271
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] libgcrypt CRC24RFC2440 30% slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-15
14:28:02 UTC ---
yes it was only ok very briefly, and has been slow again since then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54271
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54268
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-08-15 14:31:48 UTC ---
clang behaves similarly (even with -stdlib=libc++)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27930|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 14:34:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I actually wonder how could target attribute work the way it is implemented
> right now so far.
It works by miracle. See PR 37565.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm |arm-linux-gnueabi, arm-eabi
K
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54259
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-15
14:46:11 UTC ---
Re component -> c++
Although the error is due to a limitation in the FE, it's not a regression in
the FE, as SFINAE has never respected access control until very recently on
trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #44 from Gary Funck 2012-08-15 14:45:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> The problem is we return a TI union in XF register
> because the x86-64 psABI.
Is this the same problem documented in comment #9?
The patch that you suggest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #45
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #47 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-15
15:07:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #46)
> Created attachment 28020 [details]
> Faster rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa
After this patch, IRA is the only major bottle-neck left, although there are
st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54267
--- Comment #8 from David Keller 2012-08-15
15:55:16 UTC ---
According to http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=28191, the man is
wrong, FreeBSD look at LD_LIBRARY_PATH before rpath.
So, when LD_LIBRARY_PATH contains /lib:, it crashes as se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #46 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 16:01:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> Changing this is generally very risky for ABI incompatibilities, many targets
> base some of the decisions how to pass parameters or return values on the type
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54272
Bug #: 54272
Summary: [SH] Add support for addv / subv instructions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54272
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54273
Bug #: 54273
Summary: [4.7] ICE in extract_constrain_insn_cached with
--float=soft, --target=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54111
--- Comment #5 from Leonid Volnitsky 2012-08-15
17:34:41 UTC ---
More combinatorics and more test (gcc-trunk, clang-trunk and gcc463). Now
everything in one file.
-
#include
#inc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
--- Comment #18 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-08-15
18:00:39 UTC ---
What will it take to get this fixed? Pass by value is Big in C++11 style, with
move semantics designed to tie right into the optimization that's being missed
here.
This is sucking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-15 18:01:58
UTC ---
That is correct, the original test fails with -fcompare-debug on a mipsel*
target
or a mips* (big-endian) target. The cutdown test case only fails on mips*
big-endian targets.
The ori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37995
Tom Tignor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ttignor at us dot ibm.com
--- Comment #14 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54250
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54276
Bug #: 54276
Summary: Lambda in a Template Function Undefined Reference to
local static
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37995
--- Comment #15 from Tom Tignor 2012-08-15 21:27:31
UTC ---
Created attachment 28022
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28022
Simple repro for "gcc" subdir in PATH bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38966
Tom Tignor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ttignor at us dot ibm.com
--- Comment #9 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38966
--- Comment #10 from Tom Tignor 2012-08-15 21:34:50
UTC ---
Created attachment 28023
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28023
Simple repro for "gcc" subdir in PATH bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
Larry Baker changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27999|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15 22:11:15 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Aug 15 22:11:03 2012
New Revision: 190420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190420
Log:
2012-08-15 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15 22:11:13 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Aug 15 22:11:03 2012
New Revision: 190420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190420
Log:
2012-08-15 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54277
Bug #: 54277
Summary: Template class member referred to with implicit this
inside lambda is incorrectly const-qualified
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-15 23:21:42
UTC ---
Created attachment 28026
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28026
Cutdown test case that fails in little endian mode
Here is a second cut-down test case, this one fai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54260
--- Comment #3 from Feto 2012-08-15 23:48:07 UTC
---
Hi,
Thanks for the response. I've looked at the corresponding config.log, and
looked into the problems there, but I can't seem to make sense of what's going
on. I get:
98 configure:3373: /
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54278
Bug #: 54278
Summary: "control reaches end of non-void function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #47 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-16 00:00:25
UTC ---
Created attachment 28028
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28028
A patch
Here is a patch which should be applied on top of
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54278
Travis Gockel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.7.0
Summary|"control reaches
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-08-16
00:57:44 UTC ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Aug 16 00:57:37 2012
New Revision: 190427
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190427
Log:
2012-08-15 Segher Boessenkool
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at doublewise dot net
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-08-16 05:29:46 UTC ---
4.7 configured with --enable-checking=yes also needs < 1.0Gb.
for a checking enable compiler, time went from 25s with 4.7 to 1m27s with 4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54279
Bug #: 54279
Summary: first stage build with g++ fails with "." as the first
component of $PATH
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54279
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54276
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54277
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38966
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
88 matches
Mail list logo