https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70132
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Roberts ---
Do I need to raise another bug report to get the march=native to actually
generate native code, or has one already been raised?
My original report (Bug 70136) included full /proc/cpuinfo for the BCM2834 as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70132
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Roberts ---
Patch tested OK,
on Raspberry Pi 3, on Arch Linux using latest gcc 6 snapshot:
/usr/local/gcc-6.0.0/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/local/gcc-6.0.0/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69284
--- Comment #4 from katayama.hirofumi.mz at gmail dot com ---
Hello, Andrew Pinski.
Where is ld bug track?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70206
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||katayama.hirofumi.mz@gmail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70106
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Sat Mar 12 02:05:17 2016
New Revision: 234159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234159&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/70106 (type of parenthesized qualified-id has wrong cv-qualifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70207
--- Comment #1 from katayama.hirofumi.mz at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 37947
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37947&action=edit
hello.exe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70207
Bug ID: 70207
Summary: use of causes segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70206
Bug ID: 70206
Summary: use of causes segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160311 (experimental) [trunk revision 234134] (GCC)
$
$ g++-5.3 -c small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -c small.cpp
small.cpp: In member function ‘void D
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160311 (experimental) [trunk revision 234134] (GCC)
$
$ g++-5.3 -c small.cpp
small.cpp: In function ‘void fn1()’:
small.cpp:7:9: error: ‘y’ cannot appear in a constant-expression
fn1 < y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70181
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Leon Winter from comment #14)
> I am not sure how smart he diagnostic of GCC is supposed to be it seems that
> the source base of GCC itself has fallen victim to the false warning.
-Wmayb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70198
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70131
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Sat Mar 12 00:10:54 2016
New Revision: 234155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234155&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-03-11 Michael Meissner
PR target/70131
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70203
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160311 (experimental) [trunk revision 234134] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk -O0 -c small.cpp
$ g++-4.9 -O1 -c small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -O1 -c small.cpp
small.cpp: In function ‘void foo()’:
small.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70131
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 37945
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37945&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
Proposed patch to fix the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Mar 11 22:38:41 2016
New Revision: 234152
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234152&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70123
* lra-remat.c (operand_to_remat): Disallow
,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160311 (experimental) [trunk revision 234134] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk small.cpp
small.cpp:6:21: error: duplicate base type ‘A’ invalid
class B : public A, A
^
small.cpp: In function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70190
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70190
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Mar 11 22:32:11 2016
New Revision: 234151
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234151&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/70190
* tree-ssa-threadbackward.c (fsm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70201
Bug ID: 70201
Summary: Dump C++ template instantiations
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70191
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70191
Alexey Lapshin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70191
--- Comment #3 from Alexey Lapshin ---
Please note : that is not the case of using correct -march. That is old code
compatibility issue. Check the scenario on that page :
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/LIbrary
It is OK to compile the us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70200
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why don't you use --with-build-config==bootstrap-lto as documented on
https://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70200
--- Comment #1 from Дилян Палаузов ---
I was wrong, having libunwind, with --enable-cxx-exceptions, thus exporting
_Unwind_Resume(), does not help in any way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70200
Bug ID: 70200
Summary: builing gcc with -lfto without libunwind
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Mar 11 21:07:31 2016
New Revision: 234149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64058
* tree-ssa-coalesce.c (struct c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70198
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70199
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70199
Bug ID: 70199
Summary: Crash at -O2 when using labels.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70198
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Can you add -ffloat-store as a gcc option and try again?
If that works then it is a dup of bug 323.
>It's clear what is going on is not a precision problem
No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70198
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you add -ffloat-store as a gcc option and try again?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70198
--- Comment #1 from Scott (Kludge) Dorsey ---
Created attachment 37943
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37943&action=edit
correct output sample (run on vax)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70197
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70198
Bug ID: 70198
Summary: simple test floating point sequence gives incorrect
values-- optimizer changes them
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70197
Bug ID: 70197
Summary: dynamic_cast treated as constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70172
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70176
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Is this actually a regression? I don't think anything relevant changed in GCC 5
(there are related changes in GCC 6 though)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68187
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Mar 11 19:54:43 2016
New Revision: 234146
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234146&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Wmisleading-indentation.c: add more test cases for PR c/68187
gcc/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68187
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Mar 11 19:48:49 2016
New Revision: 234145
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234145&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Wmisleading-indentation: add reproducer for PR c/70085
PR c/70085 rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70085
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Mar 11 19:48:49 2016
New Revision: 234145
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234145&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Wmisleading-indentation: add reproducer for PR c/70085
PR c/70085 repo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70146
--- Comment #6 from Andy Lutomirski ---
The PLT case could be reduced significantly by -fno-plt, but the TLS issue is
just sad. I don't suppose it could be fixed with just toolchain changes while
retaining compatibility with existing libc versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70145
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Probably PR70139
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70139
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Viktor Ostashevskyi from comment #3)
> Could be the same problem as in PR70145.
Almost certainly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #23 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #22)
> Ok Vlad, I'll sign off for tonight and let you have a look.
Ok, Bernd. Have a good weekend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #22 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Ok Vlad, I'll sign off for tonight and let you have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #20 from Bernd Schmidt ---
So this:
@@ -5890,11 +5897,24 @@ remove_inheritance_pseudos (bitmap remov
continue;
done_p = false;
sregno = dregno = -1;
- if (change_p && NONDEBUG_INSN_P (curr_insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69879
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Gabriel Ibarra from comment #5)
> 1) When you say "it can't be applied until after GCC 6", you mean that my
> changes won't be commited until then? If you commit this now, how would you
> hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70196
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70196
Bug ID: 70196
Summary: inconsistent constness of inequality of weak symbol
addresses
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #19 from Bernd Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> insn 146 is the pre-reload first xor, insn 701 is storing of the result into
> the [sp, #16] memory slot, but the insn 659 inserted during LRA is just
> weird.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70195
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70170
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> > A small problem is that the second argument to POINTER_PLUS_EXPR is not
> > signed, but unsigned (sizetype). Whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #18 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #16)
> I ran this modified patch through a few benchmarks and there are no
> regressions. The codesize of SPEC2006 reduces significant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70170
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> A small problem is that the second argument to POINTER_PLUS_EXPR is not
> signed, but unsigned (sizetype). Which is why I wrote "negative", negative
> would mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70195
Bug ID: 70195
Summary: GCC silently drops erroneous assignments in flexible
arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70173
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #17)
> I'm not getting similar-looking code. Please post the cc1 commandline.
Have you commented out pass_dce before late uninit pass (patch in #c16)?
Other than that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Below is a more comprehensive test case derived from one for another bug where
I noticed this problem. It might be useful as a starting point for a test case
for this one. Besides the regression it reveals a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Schmidt ---
I'm not getting similar-looking code. Please post the cc1 commandline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
Bug ID: 70194
Summary: [6 regression] missing -Waddress on constexpr pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70193
vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70193
Bug ID: 70193
Summary: missed loop splitting support based on iteration space
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70170
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, true... well there's wi::sign_mask so maybe that. But given Comment 5 I'll
hold off for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70170
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
A small problem is that the second argument to POINTER_PLUS_EXPR is not signed,
but unsigned (sizetype). Which is why I wrote "negative", negative would mean
having the most significant bit set or so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70170
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks seems to change nothing. But the case you
mention is something I wanted to think about more before posting a real patch.
I suppose I could add a check that the offset part
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
Yes, this looks like a bug. I expect that we're saying "non-deduced" because
of the typename, but the typename is gone due to partial instantiation when we
get around to deducing U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70170
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
It turns out that my patch for bug 67376 (still being tested) fixes this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70191
Alexey Lapshin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Lapshi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38444
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70191
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, so I analyzed more precisely what happens. The problem is that we want to
zero vtbp_ptr.ios_base (struct ios_base),
but as we are at the very beginning of a basic_istream::basic_istream,
following value is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #42 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #41)
> But it wasn't part of the working draft until now. Not everything that gets
> approved by an EWG poll makes it into a standard.
In case you really don't kno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70170
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Shouldn't -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks disable that? Or maybe only if the
constant is "negative", because with -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks in theory
some object could live at address NULL and you coul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70192
Bug ID: 70192
Summary: -fno-pic doesn't work with --enable-default-pie
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: dri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #41 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #39)
> So? People have been asking for it for at least *13+ years* (this report was
> opened in August 2002). Compared to clang which has had this feature for
> som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70170
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I think that to fix this, we need to add a new pattern to match.pd that deals
with "(ptr +p off) !=/== 0B". Thus something like:
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -2263,6 +2263,11 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70191
Bug ID: 70191
Summary: libatomic library does not have lock-free
implementation for 16-bytes data object on Solaris
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70190
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
--disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160311 (experimental) [trunk revision 234134] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os -c small.c
$ gcc-5.3 -O2 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:2:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
fn1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70132
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Proposed patch at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00700.html
Can you give it a shot?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70002
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70002
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Mar 11 15:27:24 2016
New Revision: 234141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/70002: Make aarch64_set_current_functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69245
--- Comment #17 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Mar 11 15:27:24 2016
New Revision: 234141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/70002: Make aarch64_set_current_funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70119
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37941
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37941&action=edit
Example patch
In the interests of getting a concrete proposal out and hammering out a course
of ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70045
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
--- Comment #27 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 37940
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37940&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Need to be compiled with -Ofast -mavx2 -fopenmp options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
--- Comment #26 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
If we convert copy structures to copy structure fields test will be vectorized
and all mentions of GOMP_SIMD_LANE will be deleted. But if we slightly modify
test by introducing new function vdot and insert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #89 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say it can be closed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo