https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #9 from Wilco ---
The loops get optimized away in dom2. The info this phase emits is hard to
figure out, so it's not obvious why it thinks the array assignments are
redundant (the array is used all over the place so clearly cannot be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69599
Bug ID: 69599
Summary: libgomp.c/omp-nested-2.c execution test failure with
-flto -flto-partition=max
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69596
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67552
Bug 67552 depends on bug 69596, which changed state.
Bug 69596 Summary: vzeroupper is generated in interrupt handler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69596
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69599
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69600
Bug ID: 69600
Summary: Incorrect use of copy-assignment instead of move
assignment from function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69601
Bug ID: 69601
Summary: current/ redirect is off by at least a day
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69600
--- Comment #1 from sshannin at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 37542
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37542&action=edit
Error output
Error output from compiler.
Note it also fails to indicate which line the problematic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69597
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Using -flto-partition=max, I get:
- 74 execution failures in libgomp.oacc-c
- 180 execution failures in libgomp.oacc-fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67921
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Feb 1 17:17:47 2016
New Revision: 233042
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233042&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/67921
* fold-const.c (spl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69600
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The value_type of your map is pair an you
can't move the first part of that pair, and you can't copy the second part of
that pair, so you can't move or copy it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Nick,
For this failure (among others) I proposed the series at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg01713.html
that changes the PROMOTE_MODE implementation on arm to be consistent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |other
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69600
--- Comment #3 from sshannin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> The value_type of your map is pair an you
> can't move the first part of that pair, and you can't copy the second part
> of that pair, so you can't m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67564
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> For whatever reason that I cannot uncover, the part of the original patch
> in trans-array.c is no longer necessary. The remainder (attached) is down
> to being 'obvious' and so I will commit it as s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
Bug ID: 69602
Summary: over-ambitious logical-op warning on EAGAIN vs
EWOULDBLOCK
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69592
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Since the above commit, this bug is just latent, but we should fix it anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66544
--- Comment #6 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
When running several private scripts, there was a difference between
some scripts including option -fimplicit-none, and some others that didn't.
Reducing and simplifying gave example z0.f90 from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you could, I'd appreciate it, if not, I'll find time for it this week. But
if the bug is in reg-stack, I'll be lost anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40737
Gerhard Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bernds at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69603
Bug ID: 69603
Summary: ICE: segfault with -fimplicit-none and
proc_ptr_comp_24.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69604
Bug ID: 69604
Summary: ICE in gfc_add_modify_loc, at fortran/trans.c:159
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69604
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
While playing around, one example from ./gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/
shows the same error with v6.0.0, but not with v5.3.1 :
$ gfortran-6 -c complex_intrinsic_6.f90
internal compiler error: in gfc_add_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69603
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
--- Comment #19 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Feb 1 20:20:56 2016
New Revision: 233046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233046&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Update preferred stack boundary in ix86_update_stack_boundary
__t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68741
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Feb 1 20:22:43 2016
New Revision: 233047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68741
* inclhack.def (hpux_vsscanf): New f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68741
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Feb 1 20:27:47 2016
New Revision: 233049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233049&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68741
* inclhack.def (hpux_vsscanf): New f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69605
Bug ID: 69605
Summary: printf %f on integers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69580
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So for the testcase we've got merge points with huge numbers of predecessors,
which as I mentioned before we dutifully try finding paths through each one.
I instrumented the compiler a bit to see what kind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69580
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> With the limiter, the time should come back down into the reasonable range
> and I'm going drop this to a P4 once that change goes in. However, I'm
> going to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69605
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69580
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
If you could pass it along to me privately, I can verify if it's the same issue
or not easily (that's the nice things about a PARAM, I can just crank up the
limiter and see what happens). I also happen to h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68489
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160201 (experimental) [trunk revision 233027] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-4.9 -Os small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
$ ./a.out
Floating point exception (core dumped)
$ gcc-5.3 -Os small.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69605
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69607
Bug ID: 69607
Summary: undefined reference to MAIN__._omp_fn.0 in
atomic_capture-1.f with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69607
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
I wonder when/why it started warning, since -Wlogical-op is not new in GCC 6.
This is just a more complex case of PR61534.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Since EAGAIN and EWOULDBLOCK probably expand from a macro to a constant (or are
they enums? do we track the original form of the enum or only the underlying
value?), this is as hard as:
extern int xxx;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69146
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69608
Bug ID: 69608
Summary: strsteambuf copy ctor and assignment inaccessible
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69609
Bug ID: 69609
Summary: block reordering consumes an inordinate amount of time
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
t-linux-gnueabi-as
--with-sysroot=/usr/armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-233030-checking-yes-rtl-df-nographite-armv7a-hardfloat
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160201 (experimental) (GCC)
$ armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi-gcc -marc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611
Bug ID: 69611
Summary: Bootstrap broken on PowerPC FreeBSD, IEEE 128-bit
floating point support.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69604
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Feb 1 22:03:57 2016
New Revision: 233053
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233053&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/68580
* params.def (FSM_MAXIMUM_PHI_AR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69580
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
IMO, we should revert r215450, and fix a couple of cases using narrowing
conversions with gen_lowpart that were introduced after r215450.
Something like:
--cut here--
Index: i386.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69610
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 37547
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37547&action=edit
another testcase, fails at -O2
$ armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi-gcc -O2 -march=armv3 -fno-forward-propagate
test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65940
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Feb 1 22:20:47 2016
New Revision: 233056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
* g++.dg/other/anon5.C (dg-opetions): Use -gdwarf-2 instead of -g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65940
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69610
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 1 22:36:07 2016
New Revision: 233058
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233058&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69543
PR c/69558
* c-pragma.c (han
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69612
Bug ID: 69612
Summary: Optimizer does not consider overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 1 22:36:07 2016
New Revision: 233058
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233058&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69543
PR c/69558
* c-pragma.c (ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69592
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 1 22:39:31 2016
New Revision: 233059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69592
* rtlanal.c (nonzero_bits_binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69592
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |7.0
Summary|[6 Regression] gl
ing-yes-rtl-df-nographite-aarch64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160201 (experimental) (GCC)
$ aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -O testcase.c
$ ./a.out
8006
qemu: uncaught target signal 6 (Aborted) - core dumped
Aborted
Tested revisions:
r233030 - FAIL
5-branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49604
Felix Abecassis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||felix.abecassis at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I have patches fixing the two issues but when I started to test the patches I
found that LRA actually has >800 additional failures on power8 in comparison
with reload. So I am going to look at this and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
If __NO_FPRS__ is undefined, that means you are compiling for classic hard
float. Which means that the soft-fp code is not needed - if you need to
keep it in libgcc_s.so for binary compati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
--- Comment #13 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Feb 2 00:01:16 2016
New Revision: 233061
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233061&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] ABI_V4 init of toc section
Since 4c4a180d lto has turned off flag
/armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi-as
--with-sysroot=/usr/armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-233030-checking-yes-rtl-df-nographite-armv7a-hardfloat
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |---
Summary|[6 Regression] wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69606
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69548
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Feb 2 01:29:17 2016
New Revision: 233065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233065&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] lqarx and stqcx. registers
lqarx RT and stqcx. RS are valid only w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69548
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Feb 2 01:29:58 2016
New Revision: 233067
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] lqarx and stqcx. registers
lqarx RT and stqcx. RS are valid only w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69548
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Feb 2 01:29:41 2016
New Revision: 233066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233066&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] lqarx and stqcx. registers
lqarx RT and stqcx. RS are valid only w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69548
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67548
Bug 67548 depends on bug 68662, which changed state.
Bug 68662 Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/20090210
c_lto_20090210_0.o-c_lto_20090210_1.o link, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none
-fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects
https://gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49604
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid |
Last reconfirmed|2014-10-16 00:00:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69615
Bug ID: 69615
Summary: 0 to limit signed range checks don't always use
unsigned compare
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2016-02/msg00030.html :
Author: law
Date: Mon Feb 1 22:05:58 2016
New Revision: 233054
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233054&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR # i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69102
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Created attachment 37550
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37550&action=edit
proposed patch
The problem here is readonly dependence contexts in selective scheduler. We're
trying to c
101 - 191 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
