https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61207
M. Hanselmann public at hansmi dot ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||public at hansmi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This testcase fails for AARCH64:ilp32 (that is AARCH64 with -mabi=ilp32).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63319
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
Bug ID: 64972
Summary: Build failure in libgomp for i686-w64-mingw32 target
after latest merge from gomp-4_0-branch
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55302
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If the atomic model allows it, the GBR logical ops can also be to implement
atomic operations on GBR relative memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hello Paul,
setting potentially_aliased should be done inside
gfc_walk_elemental_function_args, as the ss argument may be returned
unmodified.
In fact, I think it's better to do all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64976
Bug ID: 64976
Summary: Bootstrap fails with -O3 -fgraphite-identity
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57822
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64975
Bug ID: 64975
Summary: [AArch64] Thunderx should not default to crypto
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 10:49 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
4) if there has been any change on the compiler side, can you bisect when did
that happen?
From test logs:
r214122 was okay and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64974
Bug ID: 64974
Summary: [SH] Weird expansion of 'expected' operand in
atomic_compare_and_swapmode
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63744
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Feb 8 14:18:16 2015
New Revision: 220515
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220515root=gccview=rev
Log:
Use the local name instead of the original name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64467
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #9)
To wit, at r220506 still see:
assertion !t.isctype('\n', t.lookup_classname(blank,
blank+sizeof(blank)/sizeof(blank[0])-1))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34696
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34696action=edit
4.9 assembler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60529
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #25 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34695
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34695action=edit
Assembly file showing the duplicate label
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #29 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #28)
On hppa 32, the two iv uses are:
use 0
address
in statement *p_1 = 0;
at position *p_1
type int *
base p_7
step 4
base object (void *)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #28 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On hppa 32, the two iv uses are:
use 0
address
in statement *p_1 = 0;
at position *p_1
type int *
base p_7
step 4
base object (void *) p_7
related candidates
use 1
compare
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64467
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
To wit, at r220506 still see:
assertion !t.isctype('\n', t.lookup_classname(blank,
blank+sizeof(blank)/sizeof(blank[0])-1)) failed: file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64973
Bug ID: 64973
Summary: Duplicate use-statements could be diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64973
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
Boris Kolpackov boris at kolpackov dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boris at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear All,
It would be nice to commit this tonight, if possible. An impetus to do
this is added by Dominique pointing out that it fixes PRs 59765,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #30 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table.
Is this a problem with insn costs, or a problem in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 10:49 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59765
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61766
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
I just tried gcc-4.9-20150204[1] which seems to have been packaged after your
commit, and I still get the ICE.
This is probably because I commited the fix to mainline only (GCC-5), I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64953
--- Comment #7 from manuel.reimer at gmx dot de ---
I've tried to find out when the bug first occured.
This one (oldes 4.9 snapshot, I can get) already has the problem:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20140302/
And this one (newest 4.8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64953
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to manuel.reimer from comment #7)
I've tried to find out when the bug first occured.
This one (oldes 4.9 snapshot, I can get) already has the problem:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #31 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The test also fails on PowerPC, the 2 IVs are kept by ivopts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64953
--- Comment #9 from manuel.reimer at gmx dot de ---
The two commits are in different branches. How to bisect in this case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64970
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 8 20:08:21 2015
New Revision: 220518
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220518root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63566
* cgraphunit.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64864
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The list of broken packages goes on and on.
xorg-server-1.17:
sdksyms.c:313:15: error: expected expression before ‘,’ token
(void *) ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61805
gcc-bugzilla at ca dot sh13.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugzilla at ca dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 8 20:13:01 2015
New Revision: 220519
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220519root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63566
* ipa-split.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64975
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 8 21:04:41 2015
New Revision: 220520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220520root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63566
* i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 8 21:08:44 2015
New Revision: 220521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220521root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63566
* ipa-visibility.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #26 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, emutls_foo is added to symtab twice and therefore it is also output twice.
__emutls_v.foo/6 (__emutls_v.foo) @0x76973300
Type: variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does the following patch fix the problem?
Index: tree-emutls.c
===
--- tree-emutls.c (revision 220509)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34697
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34697action=edit
Patch which I am testing right now
Fix gcc.c-torture/compile/pr37433.c for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64977
Bug ID: 64977
Summary: GCC incorrectly rejects constexpr variable definition.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64976
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
--- Comment #28 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #27)
Does the following patch fix the problem?
Yes! Full regtest is underway but this particular FAIL is fixed. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64975
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
Bug ID: 64978
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: in ipcp_verify_propagated_values,
at ipa-cp.c:1060
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64953
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to manuel.reimer from comment #9)
The two commits are in different branches. How to bisect in this case?
gcc's history is linear in git. So you could start with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55115
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #32 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #30)
On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table.
Is this a problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64938
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64967
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64978
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34698
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34698action=edit
ipa-cp-dump
...
182467 IPA lattices after constant propagation, before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45390
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64916
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |5.0
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64443
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45391
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64941
--- Comment #3 from Brian M brian at soulspark dot org ---
I tried sussing the flags for my march and mtune native, but didn't have any
luck (sorry, I'm mostly hardware, not software).
The best I can do is tell you what processor I'm running:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64443
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Are these still failing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45389
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53770
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Introduced in r214176:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisionrevision=214177
77 matches
Mail list logo
