https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66992
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
If you're confident it's a dup, go ahead and close it as such. I usually look
to see which has the best state and keep that one open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68819
Bug 68819 depends on bug 69177, which changed state.
Bug 69177 Summary: [6 Regression] Bit-packing optimization makes it too easy to
have location_t >= LINE_MAP_MAX_LOCATION_WITH_COLS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68976
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37344
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37344=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
--- Comment #26 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Certainly adding TARGET_MACHO is Ok by me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323
--- Comment #11 from Michael Collison ---
Andrew,
It may be the case that is not a win on all microarchitectures however I think
we should allow the vectorizer to (optionally) generate the vld3 and deal with
the differences via the cost models.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson ---
For x86, we have one pattern, and it has things in the correct order.
For aarch64, the only correct pattern is add3_carryin_alt2.
The nesting and canonicalization of all the others are bogus.
But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
Target Milestone|6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
Bug ID: 69282
Summary: aarch64/armhf ICE on SPEC2006 464.h264ref at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:10:17 2016
New Revision: 232379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232379=gcc=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69177 and PR c++/68819: libcpp fallbacks and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68819
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:10:17 2016
New Revision: 232379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232379=gcc=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69177 and PR c++/68819: libcpp fallbacks and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69275
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |meissner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68819
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #1 from Jim Wilson ---
With an aarch64-linux-gnu cross compiler:
palantir:2654$ ./xgcc -B./ -O3 -S tmp.c
tmp.c: In function 'fn1':
tmp.c:3:5: error: incorrect type of vector CONSTRUCTOR elements
int fn1(void) {
^~~
{_38,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61441
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
It can be made to work (for example) by increasing the value of x to 32 but I
don't yet understand what the powerpc64le back end does differently from, say
the x86_64 back end, that it doesn't work as is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69291
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67565
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot
com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69291
Bug ID: 69291
Summary: [6 Regression] wrong code at -O1 for
ruby-2.3.0/regcomp.c:985:compile_length_quantifier_nod
e()
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160114 (experimental) [trunk revision 232363] (GCC)
$ g++-trunk -c -m64 abc.cc
abc.cc:1:20: error: flexible array member 'str::x' in an otherwise empty
'struct str'
struct str { int x[];};
^
abc.cc:1:8: note: in the definition of 'struct str'
struct str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> Confirmed with today's top of trunk.
>
> But the test doesn't seem valid. It only initializes the first element of
> the VLA (using A::A(int)). The rest are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I see. Although the PHI itself is not directly modified, a new PHI is
introduced in the same block. During this process we may alter the incoming
control flow to the block (introducing a new block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 14 23:12:53 2016
New Revision: 232395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232395=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-opt/69014
* loop-doloop.c (record_reg_sets): New.
(doloop_optimize):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #7 from Roman Zhuykov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> insufficient SMS testsuite coverage.
Not sure it's helpful, but 3 weeks ago I succesfully reg-strapped some bunch of
my SMS patches including this fix on x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68773
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69244
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:57:34 2016
New Revision: 232382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232382=gcc=rev
Log:
PR debug/69244
* lra-eliminations.c (move_plus_up): Don't change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67509
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69284
Bug ID: 69284
Summary: [5.3] SIGSEGV when running 32-bit result on MinGW when
linked dynamically
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12255
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69285
Bug ID: 69285
Summary: libstdc++-v3/include/parallel/partition.h: 2 * array
index check after use ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68964
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 14 21:36:12 2016
New Revision: 232390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232390=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/69272
PR tree-opt/68964
* trans-mem.c (tm_log_emit_stmt): Fix unit size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 14 21:36:12 2016
New Revision: 232390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232390=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/69272
PR tree-opt/68964
* trans-mem.c (tm_log_emit_stmt): Fix unit size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69286
Bug ID: 69286
Summary: trunk/libgcc/config/s390/tpf-unwind.h: 28 redundant
condition ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68964
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287
Bug ID: 69287
Summary: libstdc++-v3/include/debug/functions.h:297: bad
comparison ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66680
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Thu Jan 14 20:57:35 2016
New Revision: 232388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232388=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-01-14 Dominique d'Humieres
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I would expect them to if they ran it in 64-bit mode since the test in 5.3
looks for the "inm" pattern which matches the rlwinm instruction in gcc's
output. But in 5.3 and before the test was constrained to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67509
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:58:17 2016
New Revision: 232383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232383=gcc=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/67509
* gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_7.f90: For out of bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69244
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68773
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Jan 14 20:01:39 2016
New Revision: 232384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232384=gcc=rev
Log:
Mark symbols in offload tables with force_output in read_offload_tables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69283
Bug ID: 69283
Summary: Auto deduction fails when ADL is required
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this will require moving out the common_handle_option handling of
-fsanitize{,-recover}= arguments (parsing them into a bitmask) into a separate
function, because lto-wrapper seems to look at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
Sure, I was already planning to do some of it today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
It appears that the stmt_cand_map, which is a hash_map from gimple*s to
candidates, must be getting overwritten. At the time things go south, we have
done a lookup on the var _1338 using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66779
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66627
Bug 66627 depends on bug 66779, which changed state.
Bug 66779 Summary: jit segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66779
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68419
--- Comment #12 from Lauri Kasanen ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
"To build all languages in a cross-compiler or other configuration where
3-stage bootstrap is not performed, you need to start with an existing GCC
binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:24:28 2016
New Revision: 232380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232380=gcc=rev
Log:
powerpc: Add some XFAILs to 20050603-3.c (PR68803)
In r230167 I made this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto, wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61441
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #12)
> I encountered the same issue (undefined reference to `issignaling') on
> arm-none-eabi which is due to newlib's math.h not providing the issignaling
> macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67289
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69166
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I'm not sure why this check_reduction business exists - but certainly
unconditionally doing
if (code == COND_EXPR)
*v_reduc_type = COND_REDUCTION;
ICEs in the cond-reduction testcases (huh).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=950
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66856
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 14 14:51:35 2016
New Revision: 232364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232364=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-01-14 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69261
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 69263 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69263
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68269
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 14 15:10:41 2016
New Revision: 232366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232366=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/68269
* combine.c (expand_field_assignment): Punt if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68060
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 14 15:13:19 2016
New Revision: 232367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232367=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-01-14 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69269
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
A small test case reduced from ibm-ldouble.c:
$ cat t.c && /build/gcc-trunk/./gcc/xgcc -B/build/gcc-trunk/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Dominique, can you please test the #c9 patch with the #c22 improvement and if
it works, submit to gcc-patches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69276
Bug ID: 69276
Summary: Address sanitizer does not handle heap overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69266
--- Comment #2 from tprince at computer dot org ---
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 the consequences of this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69277
Bug ID: 69277
Summary: ICE (Segmentation fault) used but never defined
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69265
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Do you consider for options that take a Joined argument those corresponding
> enum values?
> I mean say provide hint for
> -ftls-model=global-dinamic
> to use
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57193
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69278
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69257
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69278
Bug ID: 69278
Summary: Confusion option handling for -sanitize-recovery=alll
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69277
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69246
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37342=edit
gcc6-pr69246.patch
Untested fix that cures the testcase.
201 - 284 of 284 matches
Mail list logo