https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66745
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66743
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66746
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00174.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66746
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On powerpc32, the address candidate doesn't have the period precision to
eliminate conditional iv. That's why bdn is generated.
On powerpc64, the address candidate does have the period precision be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
--- Comment #8 from Serg Iv ---
Forgot to say that C99 standard has the same sentences.
Useful links:
C99 draft http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf
C11 draft http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1570.pdf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37072
--- Comment #3 from gerald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gerald
Date: Fri Jul 3 01:35:18 2015
New Revision: 225367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/37072
* doc/invoke.texi (i386 and x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
Serg Iv changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergei.ivn+bugzilla at gmail
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66747
Bug ID: 66747
Summary: The commit r225260 broke the builds of the
mips-{mti,img}-linux-gnu tool chains.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66743
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 3 00:45:34 2015
New Revision: 225365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66743
* pt.c (for_each_template_parm_r) [UNDERLYING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66743
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 3 00:45:43 2015
New Revision: 225366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225366&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66743
* pt.c (for_each_template_parm_r) [UNDERLYING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66746
Bug ID: 66746
Summary: Failure to compile #include with -miamcu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66725
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
--- Comment #6 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4)
>
> Hmm, bootstrap succeeded for me on gcc110. I used r225278, but I don't
> think anything significant changed between the two.
Mike Meissner and I ran vari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|Bootstrap failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66745
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 35900
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35900&action=edit
C++ source code, compressed with xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66745
Bug ID: 66745
Summary: ice in check_unstripped_args
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Jul 2 20:39:56 2015
New Revision: 225354
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225354&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-02 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52846
* decl.c (get_pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66744
Bug ID: 66744
Summary: Bootstrap failure due to conflicting access() on
i686-w64-mingw32
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66725
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
A more extensive list of different cases :
close (1, status=257)
open (1, access=257)
open (1, action=257)
open (1, asynchronous=257)
open (1, blank=257)
open (1, delim=257)
open (1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66743
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jul 2 18:54:41 2015
New Revision: 225353
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225353&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/libcpp
2015-07-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/53690
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66728
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Testing a patch. It involves tightening the mode of the rtx returned
by rtl_for_decl_location, as well as new asserts, so some fallout is
likely...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66743
--- Comment #1 from W E Brown ---
Further reduced test case:
template< class T >
using u_t = __underlying_type(T);
int main( ) { }
plate< class T >
struct
type_is { using type = T; };
template< class T >
using underlying_type = type_is<__underlying_type(T)>;
int
main( )
{
return 0;
}
Compiler version:
concepts-g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20150702 (experimental)
Command line (numerous -W options elided):
conc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jul 2 17:29:04 2015
New Revision: 225349
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225349&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-02 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/56520
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66728
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jul 2 17:02:10 2015
New Revision: 225348
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225348&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-02 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66545
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767
James Almer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamrial at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66706
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66706
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jul 2 16:27:11 2015
New Revision: 225344
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225344&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/66706
* combine.c (make_compound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #11 from James Greenhalgh ---
There is a patch for this on the Mailing List. Jeff has approved the
code-changes and I need an Ack for the test-case (ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg02216.html ).
After that I'll ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37239
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||26163
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61649
--- Comment #5 from Richard PALO ---
kind reminder to push these two patches:
1) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33031
2) and https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61649#c1 (*)
* NB https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742
Bug ID: 66742
Summary: abort on sorting list with custom compiler that is not
stateless
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66741
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I don't see where we inline-expand __builtin_tolower at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66741
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613
--- Comment #5 from BENAÏSSA ---
Thank you for your mail.I do not know where is the error but after execution I
do not have the good result. anyway!
Compile Flags:
-std=c99
-Warray-bounds
-Wall
-Wextra
-Waddress
-Wbad-function-cast
-Wfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66741
--- Comment #1 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
i.e. maybe something more along the lines of
$ cat <
#include
#include
void
sse_tolower_strcpy (const char *d, const char *s)
{
__m128i ranges =
_mm_setr_epi8 ('A', 'Z', 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613
--- Comment #4 from BENAÏSSA ---
Thank you for your mail.
Compile Flags: -std=c99
-Warray-bounds
-Wall
-Wextra
-Waddress
-Wbad-function-cast
-Wformat
-Wformat-contains-nul
-Wformat-extra-args
-Wformat-nonliteral
-Wformat-security
-Wform
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66738
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
-fno-devirtualize fixes it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66740
--- Comment #3 from tprince at computer dot org ---
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc6.0/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-cygwin/6.0.0/lt
o-wrapper.exe
Target: x86_64-unknown-cygwin
Configured with: ../con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66740
--- Comment #2 from tprince at computer dot org ---
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc6.0/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-cygwin/6.0.0/lt
o-wrapper.exe
Target: x86_64-unknown-cygwin
Configured with: ../con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66740
--- Comment #1 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Created attachment 35898
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35898&action=edit
C source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66741
Bug ID: 66741
Summary: loops not fused nor vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66740
Bug ID: 66740
Summary: omp simd reduction miscompiles at -O3 with AVX (recent
regression)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
fd425e6293fb8306af74b3048352d97e1d67b922 is the first bad commit
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@225249
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739
Bug ID: 66739
Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/subs.c
scan-assembler subs\tw[0-9]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66738
Bug ID: 66738
Summary: [5/6 Regression] optimizer bug related to exceptions
and static symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66736
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to dhekir from comment #2)
> Isn't the library implementation of log10f used to compute the literal
> constants generated in the assembly code? Would it then be a double
> precision result that wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
--- Comment #18 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #16)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
>
> > These simply won't work to together. Since we must keep LRA, we
> > should remove ix86_static_chain_on_stack.
>
> ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The test passes with:
/* { dg-additional-options "--param ggc-min-expand=10 --param
ggc-min-heapsize=10" } */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
non local goto, nested function and regparm == 3 are incompatible. Is
that possible to detect non local goto is used inside ix86_function_regparm?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> These simply won't work to together. Since we must keep LRA, we
> should remove ix86_static_chain_on_stack.
... or LRA notes that static chain reg has just been load
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65946
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 65946, which changed state.
Bug 65946 Summary: Simple loop with if-statement not vectorized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65946
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35896
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35896&action=edit
Updated trace
So the mapping we cannot find:
...
decl_value_expr_lookup could not find mapping for f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35895
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35895&action=edit
patch to trace garbage collection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35894
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35894&action=edit
patch to check overwrite
This patch checks whether hash element is accidentally overwritten by anothe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35893
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35893&action=edit
Resulting trace.
The from that cannot be found:
...
decl_value_expr_lookup could not find mapping for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66736
--- Comment #2 from dhekir at gmail dot com ---
Isn't the library implementation of log10f used to compute the literal
constants generated in the assembly code? Would it then be a double precision
result that would be precomputed and rounded to si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35892
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35892&action=edit
patch to trace decl_value_expr_insert
Using this patch, we trace decl_value_expr_insert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35891
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35891&action=edit
Patch to make error more verbose
Using this patch, we get a more verbose error:
...
decl_value_expr_l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35890
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35890&action=edit
patch to detect problem earlier
Using this patch, we can trigger the problem earlier:
...
In file inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The cause of the SIGSEGV is that for loc fdata.5 in main._omp_fn.46
DECL_HAS_VALUE_EXPR_P (loc) is set, but DECL_VALUE_EXPR (loc) is NULL:
...
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35889
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35889&action=edit
Add testcase, no need to set --target_board=unix/-O2/-g
$ make -k -j5 check-target-libgomp RUNTESTFLA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66737
Bug ID: 66737
Summary: ld: warning: -z bndplt ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, (In reply to amker from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> > stwx 10,8,9 -> *(int*)(r8+r9)=r10
>
> I am wondering how should we handle this failure. Create a new dol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Since check_effective_target_mpx caches the result, if the first
MPX check fails, none of MPX tests will run.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> stwx 10,8,9 -> *(int*)(r8+r9)=r10
I am wondering how should we handle this failure. Create a new doloop test and
change this one testing the optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65944
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> Since this fix, I am observing this regression on arm* targets:
Please see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg01240.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65944
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
stwx 10,8,9 -> *(int*)(r8+r9)=r10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66736
Bug ID: 66736
Summary: float rounding differences when using constant literal
versus variable
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
I had a look of generated assembly. The old code is as below:
.file "20050830-1.c"
.machine power4
.section".toc","aw"
.section".text"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66735
Bug ID: 66735
Summary: [C++14] lambda init-capture fails for const references
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66721
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Yes, this is know. I thought we had a PR about this already but I can't
> find it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66510#c2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #14)
> > > Created attachment 35882 [details]
> > > A patch
> >
> > Uhuh... it's correct. We want to limit regparm value with local_regparm.
>
> Please note that for som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66719
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 2 08:38:42 2015
New Revision: 225303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-02 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/66719
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66719
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > Created attachment 35882 [details]
> > A patch
>
> Uhuh... it's correct. We want to limit regparm value with local_regparm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66720
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
It misses at _least_
dg-require-effective-target vect_int_mult
(not sure if that also includes the required vect_int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66721
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66728
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66730
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66733
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66509
--- Comment #22 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes. It cleanly applies to the 5 branch and the 4.9 branch. Let me know how a
build and test cycle goes on both, and I propose to drop it into both.
98 matches
Mail list logo
