https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61123
--- Comment #2 from Hale Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> All ABI changing options should be also enabled for LTO and they also deserve
> handling in lto-opts.c (always stream, not only if explicitely set) and
> lto-wrapper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #6)
> There is a call to pthread_cond_timedwait() in the libiomp5 implementation
> but I don't see any such calls in libgomp. Perhaps this is the related to
> the increa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth ---
There is a call to pthread_cond_timedwait() in the libiomp5 implementation but
I don't see any such calls in libgomp. Perhaps this is the related to the
increased performance in libiomp5 on darwin?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth ---
It would be interesting to find out what Intel openmp is doing differently on
darwin since it is significantly faster on four threads.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334
Bug ID: 61334
Summary: [4.10 Regression] lto-cgraph.c:976:68: error:
'strnlen' was not declared in this scope
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58670
David changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gccbugzilla@limegreensocks.
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The reason why GCC on linux is better is because it uses the futex syscall to
have better locking (lower overhead). See config/linux/{mutex,lock}.c.
While on Darwin, it directly calls into pthread_mutex cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth ---
FYI, the timings on clang are for clang 3.4.1 with a merge of current clang-omp
github commit f9e2fd7640f8fc06ebe1ef2f065c6158f6b4b6ef and openmp svn trunk
from llvm.org at r208472/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 32867
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32867&action=edit
heated_plate_gcc.sh shell script to collect timings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 32866
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32866&action=edit
heated_plate_openmp.c test code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
Bug ID: 61333
Summary: potential target specific performance issue with
libgomp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61332
--- Comment #2 from Maksymilian A ---
It seems that we have two problems here:
1 The first is memory allocation without GC_malloc (when GC used)
2 If OBJC_WITH_GC is not definied, objc_malloc() also check result of malloc()
-
objc_malloc (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #7 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-05/msg00316.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61332
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The difference between malloc and objc_malloc is minor when not using GC. In
fact the program will crash is malloc returns NULL anyways.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 27 20:14:22 2014
New Revision: 210980
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/56724
* c-typeck.c (convert_arguments): Get location of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61182
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61332
Bug ID: 61332
Summary: libobjc unsafe malloc use instead objc_malloc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13590
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Since I'm not sure if any of the examples here are meant to be accepted (some
definitely aren't) here's the example from the standard which should compile:
struct A { int x; };// S(x,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #9 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > Is the object here to burn all bridges with the darwin target and leave
> > those users only the option of using llvm based compilers as of gcc 4.10?
>
> Well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61327
--- Comment #2 from Pavel ---
// Clang compiles without errors.
class B {
protected:
void f() {}
};
template
struct S;
template
struct S{
template
static void caller(T *p) {p->B::f();} // error: 'void B::f()' is
protected
//s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61222
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > Still does not matter, the compiler is broken and should be reported to
> > Apple. The time for work around in bro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
The comdat definition needs to the biggest alignment
generated by any compilers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
A patch has been posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02173.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth ---
I would also add that you are playing with fire here. Currently no company has
a motivation to expend money or resources for fortran development on llvm as
long as FSF gcc is buildable. If you start removing c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13590
darkdragon-001 at web dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||darkdragon-001 at web dot d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61202
java4ada at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||java4ada at yahoo dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61331
--- Comment #1 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Created attachment 32865
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32865&action=edit
unwind-arm.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61331
Bug ID: 61331
Summary: [ARM] GCC build broken since r210964/r210954
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61329
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61329
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
giorgio.signorini at unifi dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giorgio.signorini at u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61170
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61233
--- Comment #2 from Pedro Alves ---
This fixes it:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02279.html
See bug 61321.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61321
--- Comment #3 from Pedro Alves ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02279.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #3 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Johann,
The primary reason I added the diff relocs was to prevent linker relaxation
messing up DWARF line number information - as you know, relaxation can shorten
instruction sequences, and the addr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue May 27 11:42:10 2014
New Revision: 210971
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210971&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/61152
* config/arm/arm.h (License): Add note to COPYING.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 27 11:41:45 2014
New Revision: 210970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/61319
* c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast.h: Condition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue May 27 11:37:49 2014
New Revision: 210969
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/61152
* config/arm/arm.h (License): Add note to COPYING.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61207
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks, will post the patch to ML.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> Thus
>
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c
Yes, this patch works f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61329
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 27 11:14:17 2014
New Revision: 210968
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61329
* include/bits/regex_automaton.tcc (_State_base
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61329
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Thus
--- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c
@@ -5,6 +5,16 @@
#include
#include "float-cast.h"
+#ifndef LLONG_MAX
+#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57543
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #10)
> Ah. I hope the following will help:
>
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-ove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah. I hope the following will help:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c
@@ -5,6 +5,16 @@
#include
#include "floa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59904
--- Comment #12 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Created attachment 32864
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32864&action=edit
ELF binary file #3
Compiled with -Os -g3 -pie -fpie -march=armv5t -mthumb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59904
--- Comment #11 from wangzheyu ---
Hi,
Could you please provide an elf file compiled with arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc
-Os -g3 -pie -fpie -mthumb -march=armv5t So that we can debug under our
hardware and easy to compared with the former one. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
CentOS 5 still fails with:
./float-cast-overflow-1.c:75:7: error: 'LLONG_MIN' undeclared (first use in
this function)
./float-cast-overflow-1.c:79:7: error: 'LLONG_MAX' undeclared (first use in
this function)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61327
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #1)
> *facepalm*
>
> Yes indeed. Does this qualify for an obvious fix as per commiting rules?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59904
--- Comment #10 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Created attachment 32863
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32863&action=edit
ELF binary file #2
Compiled with arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc -O1 -pie -fpie -mthumb -march=armv5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
*facepalm*
Yes indeed. Does this qualify for an obvious fix as per commiting rules?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61330
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue May 27 09:05:12 2014
New Revision: 210960
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210960&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2014-05-12 mainline r210322.
Backport from 2014
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61330
Bug ID: 61330
Summary: Thumb ICE for case 920507-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||52026
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61326
--- Comment #3 from Alexander ---
preprocessed source added in attachment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61326
--- Comment #2 from Alexander ---
Created attachment 32862
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32862&action=edit
the preprocessed file 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61329
--- Comment #2 from Pawel Sikora ---
_M_dot/_M_print declaration from include/c++/4.9.1/bits/regex_automaton.h needs
inline attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue May 27 08:41:24 2014
New Revision: 210959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210959&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/61152
* config/arm/arm-opts.h (License): Add GCC Runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue May 27 08:36:37 2014
New Revision: 210958
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210958&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-27 Dominique d'Humieres
PR testsuite/61319
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Sure, I'll push a patch for this as soon as I finish fixing the regressions
that poped up due to the change I made to the bswap pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61329
--- Comment #1 from Pawel Sikora ---
Created attachment 32861
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32861&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61329
Bug ID: 61329
Summary: #include and _GLIBCXX_DEBUG causes multiple
symbol definition.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Thomas,
btw, I noticed that you use duplicate dg-options in
gcc.dg/optimize-bswapsi-[12].c. Please use dg-additional-options for
the s390-*-* case to avoid the duplication.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> gcc/java/jcf.h:#define GET_u2(PTR) (((PTR)[0] << 8) | ((PTR)[1]))
>
> smells like
>
> 2014-05-23 Thomas Preud'homme
>
> PR tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
Bug ID: 61328
Summary: valgrind finds problem in find_bswap_or_nop_1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
--- Comment #11 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Please specify more exactly the affected target triplet and specify a
> known-to-work version.
>
> Marking as regression for now.
A target is for example "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61324
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
Summary|powerpc fp-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61191
--- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Thanks!
83 matches
Mail list logo
