https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64681
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64681
zhongwei.yao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63439
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, same issues as 32-bit. So it should be fine to change sparc to vect64 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64782
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64712
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ada |testsuite
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64712
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 26 09:52:50 2015
New Revision: 220104
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/64712
* gnat.dg/unchecked_convert1.adb (Unchecked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64712
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 26 09:56:22 2015
New Revision: 220105
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220105&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/64712
* gnat.dg/unchecked_convert1.adb (Unchecke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64712
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46164
--- Comment #8 from Hale Wang ---
I have submitted a patch to community for further discussion. Refer to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02238.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64712
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #14 from tbsaunde+mozilla at tbsaunde dot org ---
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 03:56:05AM +, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > So, what is he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64787
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61594
Clemens Hammacher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WORKS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
I really wonder why IVOPTs calls convert_affine_scev with
!use_overflow_semantics.
Note that for the original testcase 'i' may be negative or zero and thus 'd'
may be zero. We do a bad analysis here becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64778
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64782
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #3)
> Did the Linux kernel format for /proc/cpuinfo settle down enough that we can
> sensibly parse it [1]?
>
> When implementing this support I guess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64794
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Bug 39627 depends on bug 60357, which changed state.
Bug 60357 Summary: [F08] structure constructor with unspecified values for
allocatable components
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrey Vihrov from comment #2)
> , and there is no warning without -fwhole-program. Of course, I can get the
> same effect by making everything "static", but this depends on me
> remembering to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
It's probably not correct to simply transfer range info from *idx to iv->base.
Instead SCEV analysis needs to track the range of CHREC_LEFT when it analyzes
the SSA use-def chain. That's of course a much b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64778
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64785
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64761
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64751
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64755
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64784
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The following, which works OK with another brand, selects the "wrong type"
> with trunk. 4.9 still segfaults. Without the use rename, 4.9 runs and gives
> the wrong result.
The following test withou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64795
Bug ID: 64795
Summary: [5.0 regression x86_64] too many memory references for
`lea'
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64795
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
possible duplicate PR64374 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
Bug ID: 64796
Summary: effective target bswap64 globally caches
target-specific use of lp64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64787
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.preudhomme at arm dot
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Created attachment 34569
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34569&action=edit
patch to disable warnings for array references generated by cunroll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #9 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Nice solution for this problem would be to have a better estimation of maximum
loop iterations number. Currently array size and index step are used to get
the maximum ignoring starting index value range.
An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64754
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jan 26 12:47:20 2015
New Revision: 220108
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220108&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Initialize ruid in new_var_info
PR bootstrap/64754
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64754
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64421
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52482
--- Comment #11 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for confirming. However, that fails before libitm, for which you should
file a separate bug report. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61594
--- Comment #6 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We can keep it open, but my guess is that it would need some volunteer to
actively drive the backporting process. I.e., with a patch and testing. Given
that TM is experimental, I think backportin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61594
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #7 from to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64739
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 34571
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34571&action=edit
segregate derived type namespaces from regular namespaces
To convince yourself that sym_root fields are never us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63439
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64755
--- Comment #5 from Alejandro Rivero Pérez ---
Yes, my bad, with no-strict-aliasing the code compiles OK and generate the
desire output. After read more info about strict-aliasing that definitely is
the problem, thanks for the help, sorry for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64766
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
Bug ID: 64797
Summary: 22_locale/conversions/string/2.cc FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #19 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> It's probably not correct to simply transfer range info from *idx to
> iv->base.
> Instead SCEV analysis needs to track the range of CHREC_LEFT when it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #12 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Ick - that will also paper over good warnings so I'd rather not do that.
I'm also worried about possible good warnings removal. Thus I disable them
only in c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
Bug ID: 64798
Summary: [5 regression] g++.old-deja/g++.eh/badalloc1.C FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64761
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64592
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64799
Bug ID: 64799
Summary: [5 regression] libffi.special/unwindtest.cc FAILs on
Solaris/SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64799
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth ---
I've never received comments on my alternative patch. Either that one, which I
prefer since it's cleaner) or the previous one (ugly and target-specific),
needs
to be applied to have AIX bootstrap, I believe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64800
Bug ID: 64800
Summary: Bad opcode produced for coldfire mcf5307 processor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> It's probably not correct to simply transfer range info from *idx to
> iv->base.
> Instead SCEV analysis needs to track the range of CHREC_LEFT when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34573
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34573&action=edit
gcc5-pr64612.patch
Lightly tested patch to do that (tested just on x86_64-linux).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64801
Bug ID: 64801
Summary: [5 Regression] kernel build failure due to ICF
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64800
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64764
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 26 14:50:03 2015
New Revision: 220111
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220111&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-26 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/64764
* tree-ssa-un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
>
> --- Comment #19 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64730
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64802
Bug ID: 64802
Summary: [ARM] Selecting an -mcpu or -march that supports only
one of ARM/Thumb should default to the ISA that *is*
supported
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
>
> --- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
>
> Bug ID: 64798
>Summary: [5 regression] g++.old-deja/g++.eh/badal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
(x) C(L, x)
#define M(a) goto L(__LINE__); __LINE__; L(__LINE__):
M(a
);
produces (gcc -E; 5.0.0 20150126)
goto L5; 5; L4:
In gcc-4.7 the result was (after '#' lines removal)
goto L5 ; 5 ; L5 : ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
> >
> > Bug ID: 64798
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #23 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Now I am less convinced that it's a tree ivopt issue. Tree optimizer has no
knowledge about stack frame information for local array variables. With the
original test, on 32-bits targets, tree ivo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Honza/Martin, any progress on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #13 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Ranges have to be used for maxiter computations to have consistent analysis in
complete unroll and vrp. Following patch allows to refine maxiter estimation
using ranges and avoid warnings.
diff --git a/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64801
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 34576
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34576&action=edit
pr64307.c.050i.whole-program for --enable-checking=release build
> Can you attach preprocessed source or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #24 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to amker from comment #23)
partially agree.
at least for the single use case given by Seb, I think tree ivopt should do it.
(I verified clang do ivopt correctly for the case)
for the rtl re-associa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #16 from David Edelsohn ---
The alternative patch works on AIX. I thought that it was going to be
installed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 34577
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34577&action=edit
pr64307.c.050i.whole-program for --enable-checking=release build
> Can you attach preprocessed source or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64803
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
