https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 13 07:33:51 2015
New Revision: 222040
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222040&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-13 Richard Biener
PR target/65660
* config/i386/i3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65699
--- Comment #4 from Goswin von Brederlow ---
Yes, a simple statement like that was exactly what I had in mind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65742
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65737
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65745
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #7 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Mon Apr 13 08:59:55 2015
New Revision: 222043
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222043&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-13 Yury Gribov
PR sanitizer/64839
libsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65740
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Negative badness values are expected (it is really a negation of goodness).
Independently on that the inliner should skip inlining when it thinks code size
will grow:
Considering void move3Servos(Servo, float,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65751
Bug ID: 65751
Summary: Bogus &L in error message
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65750
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49551
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Please consider backporting it to gcc-5-branch, but at this point only after
5.1 is released.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65510
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710
--- Comment #32 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> 2015-04-13 Terry Guo
>
> PR target/65710
> * gcc.target/arm/pr65710.c: New.
>
Terry, any particular reason you use -march=armv6-m instead of -march=armv6 ?
Some of my test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65204
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 13 12:42:41 2015
New Revision: 222049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222049&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65204
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65744
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Could be reproduced with:
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="i386.exp=avx512f-vaddpd-1.c
--target_board=unix/-Werror/-Wsystem-headers/-Wconversion"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63387
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65751
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
Bug ID: 65752
Summary: Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65753
Bug ID: 65753
Summary: [i386] Incorrect tail call inhibition logic on i386
(32-bit)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51509
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51509
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|kugan at gcc dot gnu.org |cbaylis at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65375
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Kugan and Jim Wilson have posted a patch for this on March 26th.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62182
Arnaud Bienner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arnaud.bienner at ensimag dot
fr
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65753
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Example testcase:
void *lookup_f(void);
void g()
{
void (*f)(void) = lookup_f();
f();
}
With -O2 -fPIC, on x86-64 GCC produces the desired tail call:
g:
subq$8, %rsp
calllookup_f@PL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63387
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I am not sure about signalling NAN issues, but doesn't it otherwise also apply
> to code like the following? At least in terms of gene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65744
--- Comment #2 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Created attachment 35306
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35306&action=edit
Proposed patch.
Conversion of decls of masked built-ins to make
masking unsigned (QI/HI->UQI/UHI) is a matter o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, gcc at robbertkrebbers dot nl wrote:
> NB 1: I do not think that DR #260 applies here
Why not? It seems clear enough that optimizations based on pointer
origins are i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65753
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
For a simpler testcase:
void g(void (*f)(void))
{
f();
}
gcc/cc1 -fPIC -O2 -m32:
g:
subl$12, %esp
call*16(%esp)
addl$12, %esp
ret
Here %ebx does not come into play at all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
--- Comment #9 from drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 35307
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35307&action=edit
Little hello world
Probably copied from the documentation, nothing special.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65754
Bug ID: 65754
Summary: [5 Regression] missing exports for fstream
constructors
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65754
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65754
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch posted to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00605.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 35308
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35308&action=edit
Patch tested on powerp64*-*-*
This patch lets the affected tests pass on powerp64*-*-* but due to bug 65749,
cau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65754
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Apr 13 18:41:42 2015
New Revision: 222059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65754
* config/abi/pre/gnu.ver: Export base object c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to drepper.fsp+r...@gmail.com from comment #9)
> Created attachment 35307 [details]
> Little hello world
>
> Probably copied from the documentation, nothing special.
You need to set GCC_JIT_BOOL_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10)
> You need something
"something like", I meant to say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65749
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Replacing the computation:
uptr pc = GetPreviousInstructionPc(trace[i]);
with the assignment:
uptr pc = trace[i];
makes the PC in active frame in the stack trace consistent with the one
reported on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65754
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Apr 13 19:25:53 2015
New Revision: 222060
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222060&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65754
* config/abi/pre/gnu.ver: Export base object c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65755
Bug ID: 65755
Summary: incorrect reflection of struct fields with gccgo
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65754
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65750
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65750
--- Comment #3 from Adam Butcher ---
Agreed. Upon seeing the 'auto' in the parameter list, we'll synthesize a
template parameter for 'g'. I think Paolo added the diagnostic for virtual to
fix an ICE.
I'm not sure immediately how to handle this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65755
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks, here is a small test case.
package main
import (
"reflect"
)
type S1 struct{}
func (S1) Fix() string {
type s struct {
f int
}
return reflect.TypeOf(s{}).Field(0).Name
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64382
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |abutcher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #2 from Robbert ---
This example may seem academic, but there is a real problem underneath.
Of course, I do agree that optimizations based on pointer origins are useful,
but it is not an "all or nothing situation". As long as repres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #3 from Robbert ---
(In reply to Robbert from comment #2)
> * Writing the representation of a chunk of memory containing pointers to
> memory.
"to memory" should be "to disk"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64296
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65756
Bug ID: 65756
Summary: undefined reference to __atomic_store for odd-sized
std::atomic
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65756
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You need to link to libatomic for objects with sizes that aren't supported
natively by the CPU.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757
Bug ID: 65757
Summary: gfortran gives incorrect result for anint with real*16
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58638
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65756
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65758
Bug ID: 65758
Summary: [6 Regression] 191.fma3d in SPEC CPU 200 failed to
build
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65758
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710
--- Comment #33 from Terry Guo ---
(In reply to clyon from comment #32)
> > 2015-04-13 Terry Guo
> >
> > PR target/65710
> > * gcc.target/arm/pr65710.c: New.
> >
>
> Terry, any particular reason you use -march=armv6-m instea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65759
Bug ID: 65759
Summary: atomic_is_lock_free inconsistency between C and C++
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65756
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Interesting. For some programs and libraries, GCC too gives a diagnostic
that's more helpful than just: undefined reference to `foo'
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/cccCqEak.o: undefined reference to symbol
'pthread_creat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65760
Bug ID: 65760
Summary: invalid use of incomplete type with
std::is_convertible
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
65 matches
Mail list logo
