https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69576
Bug ID: 69576
Summary: tailcall could use a conditional branch on x86, but
doesn't
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 tmp % cat array.ii
template struct A {
typedef _Tp _Type[_Nm];
static _Tp &_S_ref(const _Type &p1, int p2) {
return const_cast<_Tp &>(p1[p2]);
}
};
template struct B {
typedef A<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67564
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 37530
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37530&action=edit
Patch to be committed
For whatever reason that I cannot uncover, the part of the original patch in
trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
> > I think you need to add a line
> >
> > ! { dg-options "-pedantic" }
> >
> > to element
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61420
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] type |[4.9/5/6 Regression] [OOP]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67564
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jan 31 10:22:05 2016
New Revision: 233016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-31 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/67564
* trans-expr.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69268
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Anything left to do here? Is there a particular reason the status is "WAITING"?
What are we waiting for?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69064
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67564
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 37531
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37531&action=edit
Fix for 5-branch
5-branch requires a slightly different fix. For some reason, the argument to
copy is not being g
c-trunk//configure --enable-languages=c,c++
--enable-checking=yes,rtl,df --disable-bootstrap --without-cloog --without-ppl
--without-isl --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-233015-checking-yes-rtl-df-nobootstrap-nographite
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160131 (exper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69009
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sun Jan 31 11:53:04 2016
New Revision: 233019
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233019&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69009
* pt.c (partial_specialization_p, impartial_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69268
--- Comment #6 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am waiting for one week to pass without complaints before closing the pr as
resolved fixed to prevent resolved -> reopened cycles. Will mark as resolved ->
fixed on Feb. 3,. Sorry for not communic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
--- Comment #21 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sun Jan 31 14:53:26 2016
New Revision: 233020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68763
* tree.c (strip_typedefs) [FUNCTION_TYPE]:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69575
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67552
Bug 67552 depends on bug 69575, which changed state.
Bug 69575 Summary: [interrupt] The direction flag DF in the FLAGS register may
be wrong in interrupt handler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69575
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66960
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
The current specification:
The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
hardware pushes information onto stack and calls the handler. The
requirements are
1. Both interrupt and excepti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69567
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69578
Bug ID: 69578
Summary: -Wuninitialized not issuing warning.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160131 (experimental) [trunk revision 233019] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk abc.c -O3
abc.c: In function '
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69579
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69572
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Another invalid case that's accepted:
$ cat x.cpp && /build/gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc -B /build/gcc-trunk/gcc -O2 -S -Wall
-Wextra -Wpedantic -std=c++11 x.cpp
struct alignas (1) B;
struct alignas (2) B;
struct align
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69580
Bug ID: 69580
Summary: From 26 seconds to 10 minutes moving from gcc 5.3.1 to
gcc 6.0.0
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69580
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69580
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69579
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
Summary|gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69581
Bug ID: 69581
Summary: r232586 broke arm-cross-compiler bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69582
Bug ID: 69582
Summary: [meta-bug] Cilk+
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69581
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69581
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69581
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 37534
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37534&action=edit
preprocessed source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69581
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I am surprised you are not using a sysroot.
Hmm, I kind of stole the include/lib files from the target,
and install them to the prefix tree at the right place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69583
Bug ID: 69583
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-17.c scan-tree-dump-times
esra "Removing load: a = \\*\\.?LC\\.?\\.?0;" 1
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69535
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> But are the SCALAR_INT_MODE_P checks necessary?
I don't know. I wondered if we'd ever see something like
(and:DI (subreg:DI (reg:SF X) 0) (const_int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #27 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69583
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from John D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68228
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60586
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #15 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61962
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62008
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
--- Comment #2 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I guess ifcvt only triggers some latent bug, either RA or more likely in
> reg-stack. That said, all the comments about the r229822 changes say its
> purpose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62048
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69581
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
this fixes it for me:
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/c_compatibility/math.h
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/c_compatibility/math.h (revision 233023)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63235
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66326
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69584
Bug ID: 69584
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/pr67964.c (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66859
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65960
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t at sharklasers dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65960
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68001
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62047
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69028
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69582
Bug 69582 depends on bug 62047, which changed state.
Bug 62047 Summary: --coverage segfault in libcilkrts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62047
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69582
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think I got all the Cilk+ bugs on the tracker. Along the way I marked some
duplicates and closed some that were fixed.
There are some on the list above which may actually be fixed. I'll do another
run t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69580
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
With checking turned on aarch64-linux-gnu:
tree VRP: 804.96 (61%) usr 0.28 ( 9%) sys 805.19 (61%) wall
35850 kB (14%) ggc
dominator optimization : 286.56 (22%) usr 0.19 ( 6%) sys 286.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69098
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Balaji fixed the ICE a while back. Based on c#26, I don't think we should
> hide the functions from being used/called from user code. So the only issue
> left is the doc fix, right?
That's my understand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69580
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69535
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah I don't know either. Some things here do check, others don't,
it looks like there are either too many or too few checks. Just keep
them if you're not confident about removing them, stage 4 etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68244
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Feb 1 00:38:17 2016
New Revision: 233028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/68244
* g++.dg/parse/parens3.C: Use registe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69585
Bug ID: 69585
Summary: [C++ 11] parser errors mixing alignas, C++ 11 and GNU
attributes on class declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69585
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68741
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Feb 1 00:54:22 2016
New Revision: 233029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68741
* inclhack.def (hpux_vsscanf): New f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55402
Hasnain Lakhani changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.hasnain.lakhani at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55402
--- Comment #14 from Hasnain Lakhani ---
Created attachment 37535
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37535&action=edit
The slow code file with a huge initializer list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55402
--- Comment #15 from Hasnain Lakhani ---
Created attachment 37536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37536&action=edit
Faster version assigning each pair directly to the map
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69584
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Feb 1 01:12:23 2016
New Revision: 233030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/69584
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-17.c: Fix r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68741
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69584
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69586
Bug ID: 69586
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-21.c for target defaulting to
short enum
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69098
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I looks like it was introduced in r186681. The last good commit before that is
r186667, and none of those in between touch the C++ front end. Though the
changes in r186681 look very mechanical and not relate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 37538
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37538&action=edit
another testcase
Output:
$ gcc -O -fno-forward-propagate -mavx testcase.c
$ sde64 -- ./a.out
000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305
--- Comment #15 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Mon Feb 1 07:06:53 2016
New Revision: 233031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69305
* config/aarch64/aarch64-modes.def (CC_Cmode): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69548
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #18 from Janne Blomqvist ---
(In reply to janus from comment #16)
> Any opinions on this?
+1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69535
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Mon Feb 1 07:32:01 2016
New Revision: 233032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-opt/69535
* combine.c (make_compound_operation): When looking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46686
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69535
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69587
Bug ID: 69587
Summary: -mhle documentation missing
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
As
84 matches
Mail list logo
