https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
Bug ID: 63778
Summary: Segfault with r217178 building 416.gamess from cpu2006
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
--- Comment #8 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Bootstrap tested at r217238 with the remaining uncommitted patches applied
using...
Configured with: ../gcc-5.0-20141107/configure --prefix=/sw
--prefix=/sw/lib/gcc5.0 --mandir=/sw/share
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
--- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #6)
Sorry, stupid typo on my part in the latest build. Indeed, with the three
patches mentioned, my build is proceeding fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
--- Comment #2 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #1)
> I suppose as a first approach, we could make it equivalent to id.
Not really, apparently: the answer there gives a quite complete description
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61515
--- Comment #28 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Nov 7 22:55:00 2014
New Revision: 217239
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217239&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/61515
* tree-ssa-threadedge.c (invalidate_equ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I think this is hard warning to avoid in the compiler as we don't know if
> foo calls longjmp or not. Note we don't know if alloc_jmp_buf does a push
> somewher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
--- Comment #6 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #5)
> (In reply to howarth from comment #4)
> > Did you apply the PA ICF aliasing restriction patch from
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Is the setup for the memory store different? ie, in the sibcall case are we
making it hard for DSE to see that we have argument stores? different base
register perhaps?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
--- Comment #5 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #4)
> Did you apply the PA ICF aliasing restriction patch from
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33843?
Yes, I have it in my tree. Yet I still get t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 11/7/2014 5:13 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> Agreed, seems that RTL DSE is eliminating the stores. Presumably its not
> considering the call as potentially reading the argument stores.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is hard warning to avoid in the compiler as we don't know if foo
calls longjmp or not. Note we don't know if alloc_jmp_buf does a push
somewhere else.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
--- Comment #4 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #3)
> I'd like to help, but it's such a mess. There is not one PR per distinct
> issue, but various things reported in long threads.
>
> Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54232
Stupachenko Evgeny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
--- Comment #2 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #0)
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33915 from
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534#c55
>
> for disabling nonlocal goto receiver and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63605
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63605
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 7 20:57:01 2014
New Revision: 217238
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217238&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-07 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63605
* fold
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #65 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Fri Nov 7 20:42:36 2014
New Revision: 217237
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217237&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/63534
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.md (builtin_setjmp_rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63777
Bug ID: 63777
Summary: bootstrap failure under x86_64 Fedora 15 in the
linkage of libstdc++.so.6.0.21
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63710
--- Comment #1 from Chengnian Sun ---
I find the following test case, which seems related to this bug. The locations
of both warnings point to the condition instead of the expressions which
require conversion.
$: cat t.c
unsigned f(long l, cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63774
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
At least it was deliberate. I did wonder if anyone would complain when I wrote
the patch...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63776
Bug ID: 63776
Summary: [C++11] Regex collate matching not working
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63775
Bug ID: 63775
Summary: [C++11] Regex range with leading dash (-) not working
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #19 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63774
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This code is undefined as you are returning an address of local variable.
Andrew, that's what I was unsure about and thus reported it. Should it
actually be imple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63774
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63774
Bug ID: 63774
Summary: wrong code at all optimization levels on
x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63773
Bug ID: 63773
Summary: [meta-bug] Restoring darwin bootstrap for gcc 5.0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33912|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63772
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libgcc |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63772
Bug ID: 63772
Summary: Double included .h files in gcc/gtype-desc.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61515
--- Comment #27 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Richi,
I thought you had mentioned something along those lines as well and I scanned
for it yesterday but didn't see it. Maybe it's in a different BZ or
something. I'll probably come across it as a I wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #16)
> > Hmm, the 5.0 issue was fixed by r217214. Maybe the fix should be
> > backported to 4.9?
>
> The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63198
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Bernard ---
I think I found the root of the problem. I'm preparing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #4)
> It turned out that wrong PR number was used in ChangeLog. In fact this bug
> was fixed:
You can also edit the svn:log with:
svn propedit 'svn:log' --rev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #16)
> Hmm, the 5.0 issue was fixed by r217214. Maybe the fix should be
> backported to 4.9?
The 5.0 issue was new in 5.0. What testcase of the very many in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63366
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Nov 7 16:21:15 2014
New Revision: 217229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63366
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Fix __complex meaning __co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Revision: 211263
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Fri Nov 7 16:15:52 2014
--
--- svn:log (origin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61319
--- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Revision: 211263
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Fri Nov 7 16:15:52 2014
--
--- svn:log (origi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63463
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- Comment #14 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63771
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
> --with-as=/home/slug/optware/cs08q1armel/toolchain/arm-2008q1/bin/arm-none-linux-gnueabi-as
>
> 9828c9828
> < return \".word\\t0xe7f000f0\";
> ---
> > return \".inst\\t0xe7f000f0\";
> 9830c9830
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #64 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #63)
> Please stop mixing the problems introduced by r216154 and r216305. While I
> agree that the first step is to fix bootstrap, there is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
The original testcase still ICEs on ppc64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63617
--- Comment #2 from Adi ---
Can you tell me what are the "supported" version(s) now?
Also can you give me a kind of gcc supported version life cycle/chart/roadmap ?
Thank you,
Adi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #63 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Reading through pr63622 a second time, it appears that these fortran
> regressions were never triaged. I think we should proceed with the
> bootstrap fixes and consider the test suite regression fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #62 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #61)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #60)
> > > Martin,
> > >Using "make -k check-gfortran
> > > RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
--- Comment #6 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Arseny, I am not able to close this bug but you can do it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63770
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
--- Comment #16 from Markus Tri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt ---
With the two patches for calls.c and expr.c atop the said commit the ICE is
gone on s390x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #61 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #60)
> > Martin,
> >Using "make -k check-gfortran
> > RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'"
> > on the build from Comment 57 as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
On x86_64:
markus@x4 /tmp % cat sock.i
struct sock
{
int sk_userlocks : 4;
} a;
const struct sock b;
void
fn1 ()
{
a.sk_userlocks = b.sk_userlocks & 1;
}
markus@x4 /tmp % gcc -O2 -c sock.i
gcc: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Nov 7 13:37:41 2014
New Revision: 217222
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217222&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63580
* cgraphunit.c (cgraph_node::create_wrapper):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt ---
This still happens for me on s390x on "git-svn-id:
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@217069
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4". Is this supposed to be fixed by now?
Is one of the above patches applied?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63766
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48956
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|stevenj at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63721
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63610
--- Comment #10 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Volker Braun from comment #8)
> Another workaround is to set MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.9
>
> Libtool-2.4.3 will have the fix, gcc (and everybody else) should just
> reconfigu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63747
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63595
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63747
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Nov 7 12:35:43 2014
New Revision: 217219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63747
* gcc.dg/ipa/pr63747.c: New test.
* ipa-icf-gimpl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63595
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Nov 7 12:32:30 2014
New Revision: 217218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63595
* g++.dg/ipa/pr63595.C: New test.
* cgraphunit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63605
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
vect__4.18_102 = MEM[(int *)vectp_b.17_73];
vect_d_5.19_103 = vect__4.18_102 >> 1;
vect_patt_13.20_104 = VEC_COND_EXPR ;
late forwprop does this in forward_propagate_into_cond by dispatching to fold
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63766
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #2)
> Problem caused by the fact that now all function come to local optimizations
> in SSA form. It affects inline parameters computation and therefore
> inlining or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #60 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Martin,
>Using "make -k check-gfortran
> RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'"
> on the build from Comment 57 as a quick regression scan shows...
See pr63622 comment 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #59 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #58)
> Hello Jack.
>
> I would like to thank you for the effort you invested in testing. I'm going
> to push all IPA ICF related patches to mainline a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63676
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63676
--- Comment #1 from Jiong Wang ---
Author: jiwang
Date: Fri Nov 7 11:08:30 2014
New Revision: 217215
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217215&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] PR63676, exit tree fold when node be TREE_CLOBBER_P
gcc/
PR t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63766
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Problem caused by the fact that now all function come to local optimizations in
SSA form. It affects inline parameters computation and therefore inlining
order.
During early SRA we call convert_callers_for_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63770
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 7 10:51:06 2014
New Revision: 217214
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217214&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-07 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/63770
* match.pd: G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63764
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63771
Bug ID: 63771
Summary: internal compiler error: in lra_create_copy, at
lra.c:1532
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48956
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
Out of curiosity, what happened to this issue? (is still assigned to Steven)
Note that as far as I can see it's essentially a C issue, because the C++
front-end rejects this kind of code with an hard error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 33916
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33916&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63764
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #58
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
--- Comment #2 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can reproduce, thanks for the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63764
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> Also happens when building the Linux kernel:
That is a different issue and already recorded as bug 63569 (I reduced it
further based on thinking why it woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63764
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|tree-ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63699
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bootstrap fails with Apple |Bootstrap fails in libcc1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63699
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63750
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63699
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sasha.levin at oracle dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61515
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #25)
> So I think there's another approach. invalidate_equivalences is passed in
> the stack of temporary equivalences, which include those created by jump
> thread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63770
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
from a match.pd pattern
/* Try to fold (type) X op CST -> (type) (X op ((type-x) CST))
when profitable.
For bitwise binary operations apply operand conversions to the
binary operation result instea
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
