https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67649
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67686
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The outer loop also has multiple exits. The testcase is incomplete (FOO is
undefined).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67682
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67683
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67689
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67456
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 67689 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #5)
> Yes, this is clearly a 5/6 regression. My test has passed C and C++ part
> with no new failures. I'll report back when test completed.
Test completed with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67143
--- Comment #5 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Sep 23 09:48:16 2015
New Revision: 228037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Aarch64][target/PR 67143][5.2] Backport correct constraints f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55815
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to felix-glibc from comment #5)
> I mean seriously, you argue performance for a security measure?
> Does Google turn off stack cookies in production? ACL checks?
> All this password checking is ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #32 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #28)
> It is sufficient for OUT(3) to be all-zeros. And I don't think the
> LAST_CHANGE_AGE mechanism does anything to prevent it. Please try it
> out. I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36098|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #34 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Created attachment 36378
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36378&action=edit
Fix for DF_LIVE local BB information
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #6)
> Test completed with no new failures on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
--- Comment #2 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Being stupid here, but why does the outer loop having multiple exits matter -
it's the inner loop that should be vectorized?
FOO was a macro used to selectively make the test i>max disappear (en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #35 from Paolo Bonzini ---
Comment on attachment 36377
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36377
Updated candidate patch
> + This problem determines which registers may be uninitialized. It first
> + assumes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #36 from Bernd Schmidt ---
This looks better. I still don't quite understand why you're treating
MUST_CLOBBER and MAY_CLOBBER defs differently in simulate. It looks like a
MUST_CLOBBER produces a bit in gen which I think is not what i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #37 from Paolo Bonzini ---
Bernd is right that you have a missing 'else'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Sep 23 10:36:48 2015
New Revision: 228039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR 67439: Allow matching of *arm32_movhf when -mrest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67662
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, r122414 fixed the PR30364 issue incompletely, leaving a special-case that
still mishandles this case. Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67693
Bug ID: 67693
Summary: Spurious warning: control reaches end of non-void
function [-Wreturn-type]
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Sep 23 11:55:45 2015
New Revision: 228046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228046&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/67391
* config/sh/sh.md (addsi3, *addsi3_com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Sep 23 11:57:27 2015
New Revision: 228047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2015-09-23 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
The core issue should be fixed. I'd like to keep this PR open though for a
while.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47785
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Another instance on x86_64-apple-darwin14 with Xcode 7
[Book15] f90/bug% gcc6 /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/pr41893-1.c
-gstabs1 -Wa,-Q -flto -fwhole-program -O
/opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> I'm testing the above simple fix and amend the comment.
Consider the example with functions f and g I gave in comment 10. Using the
patch from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
--- Comment #29 from Dominik Vogt ---
I think I understand what's going on:
Consider the patched code in match_reloads():
+ = (ins[1] < 0 && REG_P (in_rtx)
+ && (int) REGNO (in_rtx) < lra_new_regno_start
+ && find_regno_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
>
> --- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67694
Bug ID: 67694
Summary: ICE on returning undefined enum in
must_pass_in_stack_var_size_or_pad
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-inva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49655
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Sep 23 13:07:07 2015
New Revision: 228049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228049&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[c-family/49654/49655] reject invalid options in pragma diagnostic
U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49654
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Sep 23 13:07:07 2015
New Revision: 228049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228049&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[c-family/49654/49655] reject invalid options in pragma diagnostic
U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49654
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49655
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67662
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 23 14:09:48 2015
New Revision: 228051
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228051&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-23 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/67662
* fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
> >
> > --- Comment #12 from vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #9 from Jack Howarth ---
Note that the earliest upstream boehm-gc release which builds and passes make
check on 10.11 is gc-7.2.tar.gz from http://www.hboehm.info/gc/gc_source/.
Diffing the current boehm-gc sources in gcc trunk sugges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67695
Bug ID: 67695
Summary: Please improve POSIX shell compatibility of
libgo/mksysinfo.sh
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64888
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started looking into this. Seems that we should handle specially those
artificial ubsan decls such as *.Lubsan_data in omp_default_clause, i.e. treat
them as shared? But I hardly know what I'm talking about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67590
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67690
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67690
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43651
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67661
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
You'll need to give a full testcase (complete compilable file and options
used to compile it). What you gave isn't a compilable testcase; it gives
"error: variably modified 'y' at file sco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43651
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
> Recently I came across such problem in the code base, which I work with. In
> that case it was clearly a mistake, because the author meant 'const char
> *const data', so it would be nice if GCC could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66590
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||larsch at belunktum dot dk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67693
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609
--- Comment #9 from Rich Felker ---
Indeed, the fdpic patch I forward-ported introduced new duplicates of some of
the fragments that were changed in sh.md by the above patch. Once I fixed
those, the problem went away. Sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67693
--- Comment #2 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
Though... maybe it's not an exact duplicate, but the problem looks seems very
similar. We generate (003t.original):
struct foo x;
try
{
switch (n)
{
case 0:;
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67696
Bug ID: 67696
Summary: libbacktrace prints C++ demangled name for Fortran
symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67697
Bug ID: 67697
Summary: [concepts] ICE when using non-constexpr in requires
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #13 from Roland Schulz ---
But this problem is limited to GCC. ICC, Clang and MSVC don't have the problem
with compiling 64bit AVX code. Thus they must have some kind of work-around for
ABI and GCC should be able to use a work-around
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67695
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Sep 23 20:43:46 2015
New Revision: 228064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/67695
mksysinfo.sh: Use = with test rather than =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67695
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||67597, 67490
--- Comment #54 from Alex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64888
--- Comment #3 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
I think you should treat these artifical variables as private, not shared. If
you treated them as shared, threads would race with each other when accessing
them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67698
Bug ID: 67698
Summary: internal compiler error: in maybe_record_trace_start,
at dwarf2cfi.c:2297
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67699
Bug ID: 67699
Summary: Segfault compiling a constexpr array with
-fmerge-all-constants -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67700
Bug ID: 67700
Summary: [graphite] miscompile due to wrong codegen
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67700
--- Comment #1 from AK ---
The problem seems to be in
static void canonicalize_loop_closed_ssa (loop_p loop)
which generates phi node at a wrong place in this case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67699
--- Comment #1 from Norgg ---
Created attachment 36381
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36381&action=edit
Reduced testcase with const instead of constexpr
Futher testing by slowriot found that you can change the constexpr to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67699
--- Comment #2 from Norgg ---
It seems the -fmerge-all-constants isn't necessary to cause the segfault either
any more, although it was in an earlier larger test case.
Minimal command line to reproduce is now:
$ g++ const_crash.cpp -flto
const_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67699
--- Comment #3 from Norgg ---
Created attachment 36382
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36382&action=edit
Preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67614
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67701
Bug ID: 67701
Summary: Unnecessary/bad instructions for u32-casted access to
external symbol (assumes misaligned, superfluous load)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67702
Bug ID: 67702
Summary: Internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67701
Julius Werner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||armv7a
--- Comment #1 from Julius Werner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67702
--- Comment #1 from david.ok8 at gmail dot com ---
I would like to add that I did not have this problem with gcc version 4.8.4 and
4.9.1 which are shipped in ubuntu 14.04 and 14.10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67698
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #11 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #10)
> The core issue should be fixed. I'd like to keep this PR open though for a
> while.
I've got
/exp/ldroot/dodes/INTEST/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/matmul_6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67661
--- Comment #2 from leechung ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #1)
> You'll need to give a full testcase (complete compilable file and options
> used to compile it). What you gave isn't a compilable testcase; it gives
> "er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
I already thought that something like this might happen. I will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67701
--- Comment #3 from Julius Werner ---
> I suspect this is an armv7 issue only where there is missing support for
> misaligned load/stores.
Did a quick test on aarch64 and you're right, neither of the two issues appears
there.
> Also testvalue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67703
Bug ID: 67703
Summary: assert after placement new
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67703
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> A* b = new(&a) B;
I think that is wrong. it should have been "new(a) B;" Otherwise you are
allocating the new object with the space for the variable a instead of what a
points to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67703
Piotr Padlewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67704
Bug ID: 67704
Summary: [concepts] requirements not being applied to aliases
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67702
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67699
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Hmm, I couldn't reproduce this on Linux.
85 matches
Mail list logo
