https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I'd think that this started with r232330 but haven't verified.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68862
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69136
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68670
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67373
--- Comment #4 from Jonas Jelten ---
It should be noted that my issue occurs on Gentoo with gcc 5.3.0, avr-libc
1.8.1 and avr binutils 2.25.1-r1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68730
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra, wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #33 from Joshua Kinard ---
The problem may be tied to a particular CFLAG on glibc-n32 MIPS. I ran our
(Gentoo's) stage-building script, and forgot to block gcc-5.3.0 from building,
and it ended up completing. Difference between
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69194
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for the reminder. I will commit the back-port today. I wanted leave few
days in the trunk before doing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68810
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68862
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68890
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
Bug ID: 69272
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in c_builtin_function, at
c/c-decl.c:4020 with -fgnu-tm
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64*, aarch64-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Thanks for your help! I can confirm that the first patch fixes the problem
> in the test cases on powerpc64le. (I haven't done any other testing with
> it.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69257
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68404
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69117
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69271
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|6.0 |5.3.1
--- Comment #1 from nsz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69139
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68419
--- Comment #9 from Lauri Kasanen ---
Your command line from comment #5 fails similarly, on my original attachment.
./gcc/cc1 -O2 unwind-dw2.i -g -auxbase-strip unwind-dw2.o -g -O2
-fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector -fexceptions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68881
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I can confirm this PR on CentOS 5.11 which has:
GNU ld version 2.17.50.0.5-26.el5 20061020
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=950
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69148
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69238
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69273
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbergman at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69246
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |debug
Assignee|hubicka at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6905
--- Comment #1 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69166
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69274
Bug ID: 69274
Summary: [6 Regression] Performance regression after r231814
on x86 Haswell.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69251
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052
--- Comment #34 from Björn Stenberg ---
Yes, confirmed. -O3 and -O0 now both run the same speed so this bug is fixed.
Sorry for being potentially several years late confirming this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69155
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69170
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69239
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69245
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69244
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Not sure how this is a regression btw, LTO never special-cased sanitizers in
any way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
If comment 9 patch works on a bigger codebase I am definitly happy about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69166
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|5.3.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68976
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69275
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
ifunc is a glibc feature.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69276
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69266
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to tprince from comment #2)
> It is possible to bootstrap by configure --disable-libstdcxx. Then it is
> possible to configure and build (but not make check?) in libstdc++-v3. I'm
> not sure of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69276
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 37341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37341
suggested patch
+ else if (is_gimple_call (stmt) && gimple_store_p (stmt)
+ && gimple_clobber_p (stmt))
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69239
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69277
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69276
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 37341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37341
suggested patch
+ else if (is_gimple_call (stmt) && gimple_store_p (stmt)
+ && gimple_clobber_p (stmt))
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69278
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This has been the intentional behavior before when -fsanitize-recover=address
has not been supported. Now it is just a backwards compatibility thing, unless
clang went away and redefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12672
--- Comment #6 from Ivan Godard ---
Twelve years and counting? :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69048
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jan 14 22:23:09 2016
New Revision: 232393
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232393=gcc=rev
Log:
[cilkplus] Fix cilk_spawn gimplification bug (PR cilkplus/69048)
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68490
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
>__glibcxx_assert(__first == __last || !(*__first < *__last));
It wouldn't make much sense to assert that the inputs to a generic sort
algorithm are not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #9 from Jim Wilson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #7)
> > The simplified testcases fail on arm if you use -O3 -mfpu=neon.
> >
> > I can look at fixing the arm side of things if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69270
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Jan 15 02:45:44 2016
New Revision: 232399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232399=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69270
* tree-ssa-dom.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #11 from Jim Wilson ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #10)
> Both the aarch64 and arm code looks funny to me, as the last add seems to be
> using an input register that was never set, but I don't know the aarch64 and
> arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69288
Bug ID: 69288
Summary: [concepts] Subsumption failure with constrained member
functions of class template
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69277
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg00993.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Release managers' call whether or not to backport the fix. "6" regression
marker cleared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #7)
> The simplified testcases fail on arm if you use -O3 -mfpu=neon.
>
> I can look at fixing the arm side of things if we need an md patch.
Try my attached patch and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 37348
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37348=edit
Proposed patch
Matthias, please apply the attached patch and see if it clears the bug for you.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #10 from Jim Wilson ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #9)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #7)
> > > The simplified testcases fail on arm if you use -O3 -mfpu=neon.
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
Bug ID: 69289
Summary: Compiling without --profile-generate causes longer
execution time (-O3)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68847
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
vector(4) _6;
vector(4) int vect_c_1.7;
_6 = vect__5.5_1 != vect_cst__14;
vect_c_1.7_2 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_6, vect_cst__15, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }>;
What I don't understand is why vectlowering is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The vect generic issue is really gimple_buildN should be using
STRIP_USELESS_TYPE_CONVERSION rather than STRIP_NOPS. Note this code should
assuming the fold_buildN would not produce a NOP_EXPR (cast) from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
Paul le roux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xonar.leroux at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69048
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
The stmt_cand_map is *not* losing its integrity. Instead, it appears that a
phi statement changes its address at some point during the SLSR pass, even
though it hasn't been modified (SFAICT).
There are two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833
--- Comment #5 from Aurelien Jarno ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #4)
> Need to apply Aurelien's patch - looks like that's slipped through the
> cracks.
What was missing to the patch was a testcase which compiles on all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60323
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69275
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
For now, I have reverted the patch that causes the problem.
When I get back into the office on January 19th, I will look at ways to fix
this problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20407
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
--- Comment #2 from Paul le roux ---
(In reply to Paul le roux from comment #1)
> When copying the timings got switched around the --generate-profile is the
> faster one.
Ignore that. I just quickly looked at the total usage, but that includes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Basically the problem is the vect lower was not updated for the changes for
vector compares that was done.
Hmm, vec_merge is no longer correctly documented either:
@findex vec_merge
@item (vec_merge:@var{m}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 37347
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37347=edit
Patch which causes us not to lower the VEC_COND_EXPR
Expand already knows how to expand VEC_COND_EXPR (without an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #7 from Jim Wilson ---
The simplified testcases fail on arm if you use -O3 -mfpu=neon.
I can look at fixing the arm side of things if we need an md patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
101 - 200 of 284 matches
Mail list logo