https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70214
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00788.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70214
--- Comment #6 from Stas Sergeev ---
Thanks Andrew!
I'll fight with glibc a bit before giving up
on this. At least they should have documented it
in a more humble way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70233
Bug ID: 70233
Summary: Missing diagnostic in array constructor, different
size strings
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70199
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-01-19 00:00:00 |2016-3-14
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55992
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-01-15 00:00:00 |2016-3-14
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #15 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yep, maybe this would be a compromise:
Index: cp-ubsan.c
===
--- cp-ubsan.c (revision 234184)
+++ cp-ubsan.c (working copy)
@@ -285,6 +285,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69941
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Mar 15 03:14:38 2016
New Revision: 234210
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234210&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport PR69941 patch from mainline.
PR rtl-optimization/69941
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69941
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Mar 15 03:10:31 2016
New Revision: 234209
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234209&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport PR69941 patch from mainline.
PR rtl-optimization/69941
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 53792, which changed state.
Bug 53792 Summary: [C++11] improving compiler-time constexpr evaluation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53792
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53792
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53792
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Mar 15 03:05:17 2016
New Revision: 234208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/53792 - [C++11] improving compiler-time constexpr evaluation
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53792
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #15 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #13)
> > > Compiler should be free to use rbp in anyway it sees fit. Spec shouldn't
> > > say anything other than rbp is special
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70188
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |target
--- Comment #8 from John Davi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70231
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wink Saville from comment #13)
> > Compiler should be free to use rbp in anyway it sees fit. Spec shouldn't
> > say anything other than rbp is special to compiler.
>
> If the compiler does decide to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I have only tested on 32-bit ARM,
Looks only to be an 32bit ARM issue. AARCH64 both LP64 and ILP32 does not have
a stack size issue.
For both of those we get:
stp x29, x30, [sp, -128]!
So o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
Bug ID: 70232
Summary: excessive stack usage with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I've got the obvious patch bootstrap testing on sparc linux via qemu in
progress. It'll be interesting to see how long this takes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Yes. The relevant bits in the mangling ABI are
::= [gs]
::= sr
::= srN + E
::= [gs] sr + E
::=
::= on
::= on
::= dn
::=
::= [ ]
::=
srT_ must be sr , w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #13 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #11)
> > > > The rsp is always saved/restored by the hardware, and your struct frame
> > > > pointer provides access to it so no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hi Jakub,
I played a bit with your proposed patch.
consider this test case:
cat test2.cc
struct A { ~A() {} A () {} A (int x) : a (x) {} virtual void f () {} virtual
int i () { return 0; } int a; };
stru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wink Saville from comment #11)
> > > The rsp is always saved/restored by the hardware, and your struct frame
> > > pointer provides access to it so no problem there. It is special because
> > > when t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70219
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70219
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 14 22:19:32 2016
New Revision: 234201
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234201&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/70219
* lra-constraints.c (delete_move_and_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See my mail to gcc-patches. According to Jonathan, calling i() is invalid,
which your patch would not catch. And, the virtual vptrs should be at least
initialized in the in-chrg ctor even if we'd want to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66382
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016, dan.parrot at mail dot com wrote:
> However, I am still unable to get gcc to compile a very simple program
> when passed the -msoft-float option. Here is the program (t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> but it will end up with libcalls for isinf, isfinite and isnormal for
> IBM extended double. I'm told glibc does the right thing fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53181
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70231
Bug ID: 70231
Summary: Runtime error: Different CHARACTER lengths in array
constructor with allocatable array and -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #11 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #9)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #7)
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68714
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60760
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00796.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70228
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00796.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70172
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00796.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70170
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67376
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch for the outstanding issues noted in comment #10 has been posted for
review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00796.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
Note that I don't think we ever got a proper bug report for GMP. Verified
instructions on how to reproduce the issue with just the latest version of GMP
(without having to download the sources of mpfr, mpc, is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66382
--- Comment #3 from dan.parrot at mail dot com ---
I am trying to configure gcc so that instead of generating instructions
that use the hardware floating point unit, it will generate instructions
that utilize integer operations to emulate floati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70230
Bug ID: 70230
Summary: 11 test regressions when building GCC 6 with
--enable-default-ssp
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68714
--- Comment #8 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Mon Mar 14 20:48:15 2016
New Revision: 234196
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234196&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-opt/68714
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (ovce_extract_ops, optimize_ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
--- Comment #13 from Brett Neumeier ---
OK, then it would make sense to have a documentation fix for GCC that specifies
those exact versions for GMP, MPC, and MPFR as the versions that must be used,
rather than claiming -- inaccurately! -- "x.y.z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66382
--- Comment #2 from Steven Munroe ---
What is the issue? You want to configure __float128 without also configuring
altivec/VMX/VSX?
The PowerPC 64-bit ABI is defined to pass __float128 values in 128-bit vector
registers and return _float128 valu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70229
--- Comment #1 from baoshan ---
The error is triggered by the typedef clause, but it is valid according
standard C++11
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3376.pdf:
...
— either its function-body shall be = default, or the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #7)
> For the record, I've fixed these cases in
> github.com/ianlancetaylor/demangle. Looking at the patch there should show
> how to fix it elsewhere.
>
> h
es not have empty body
}
|
^
$ ./xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160314 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70228
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70228
Bug ID: 70228
Summary: insufficient detail in diagnostics for a constexpr out
of bounds array subscript
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70179
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64* |powerpc64*-linux
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70131
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I think it is normal, that A's vptr is initialized first to
an A which means that f points to A::f and i points to A::i.
these overloads are usable while A's constructor runs.
The vptr is later changed to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wink Saville from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #7)
> > >
> > > In my opinion, even if rbp is special, it still needs to be available i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
It is on purpose that the in-tree gmp is configured to use no assembly,
but the in-tree configuration does not really work with gmp-6.1.0,
and apparently disables the assembly only half-way. It is not poss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
This patch fixes the missing warning:
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
@@ -4520,14 +4520,16 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location,
else
result_type = type0;
- if (TREE_CODE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68722
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
I wonder if in such cases, where we run out of tokens and we issue:
error_at (token->location, "file ends in default argument");
from cp_parser_cache_defarg we should instead use something like a fatal_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69423
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 69423, which changed state.
Bug 69423 Summary: [6 Regression] Invalid optimization with deferred-length
character
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69423
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Schmidt ---
I'll take your comment as approval and install on gcc-5 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70168
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Mar 14 18:18:45 2016
New Revision: 234188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-03-14 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70131
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Mar 14 18:18:45 2016
New Revision: 234188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-03-14 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45076
--- Comment #12 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Mar 14 18:18:45 2016
New Revision: 234188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-03-14 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62281
--- Comment #18 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Mar 14 18:18:45 2016
New Revision: 234188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-03-14 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70131
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Mar 14 18:06:45 2016
New Revision: 234186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-03-11 Michael Meissner
PR target/70131
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
rtx_jump_insn *delay_jump_insn =
dyn_cast (delay_insn);
if (! delay_jump_insn || !(condjump_p (delay_jump_insn)
|| condjump_in_parallel_p (delay_jump_insn)))
con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Roberts ---
On Native ARM platform the bootstrap does work with the old in tree GMP 4.3.2,
regardless of wether you use none-linux-gnu or armv7l-linux-gnu when
configuring GMP.
Bulding by patching toplevel Makefile to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Ah, nevermind, I see where we filter out non-jump insns.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Also note that delay_insn may be an INSN or CALL_INSN AFAICT here. So just
setting it blindly on DELAY_INSN may not be correct either. I'm still looking
at those possibilities.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70192
--- Comment #5 from psturm at computervoice dot com ---
Created attachment 37962
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37962&action=edit
gcc6 --enable-default-pie
I built GCC6 snapshot 03132016 after applying the PIC patch.
The te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
--- Comment #10 from Brett Neumeier ---
Bernd, I don't think there is any argument that those specific versions of the
library dependencies work.
My sense is that it is a bug to assert "GNU Multiple Precision Library (GMP)
version 4.3.2 (or late
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70227
Bug ID: 70227
Summary: pr69589 does not check for -rdynamic availability
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #9 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #7)
> >
> > In my opinion, even if rbp is special, it still needs to be available in the
> > struct full_stack_frame.
>
> The who
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70178
--- Comment #5 from Zack Weinberg ---
It seems to me that a pair of extended integer types (signed and unsigned),
that are the same size as `char` but don't get the special TBAA treatment for
"character types", would be easier to implement and va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Or rather fold_non_dependent_expr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems like we just need to add maybe_constant_value calls.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wink Saville from comment #7)
>
> In my opinion, even if rbp is special, it still needs to be available in the
> struct full_stack_frame.
The whole idea of extending interrupter attribute is to avoid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #7 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #2)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> > > (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #0)
> > > > I have identified one possi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38239
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 37961
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37961&action=edit
proposed patch for 4.9 branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wink Saville from comment #5)
> >
> > Compiler doesn't use segment registers, except for TLS, which should
> > be used in ISR. ISR needs to save and restore any registers, which
> > aren't used by co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70161
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 37960
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37960&action=edit
suitable .gcda file to use with 20041218-1.c to expose bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 37959
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37959&action=edit
proposed patch
I don't think that it is necessary to initialize virtual base class vptrs
here, because it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #5 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #0)
> > I'm using the new C interrupt attribute for x86 and its working well. But
> > when I expanded its use to include handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70226
Bug ID: 70226
Summary: ICE in compute_affine_dependence at
tree-data-ref.c:4313
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70083
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Mon Mar 14 15:08:54 2016
New Revision: 234184
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234184&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
LRA: identify biggest access mode for hard_regs and use it in split_reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
So, "simplest" patch:
Index: gcc/builtins.c
===
--- gcc/builtins.c (revision 234180)
+++ gcc/builtins.c (working copy)
@@ -7529,6 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70225
Bug ID: 70225
Summary: ICE at tree.c:10783
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 14 14:50:40 2016
New Revision: 234183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/56365
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70219
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 37953 [details]
> gcc6-pr70219.patch
>
> Untested fix. The code had assertion dregno > 0, but I don't see anything
> special on register 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 24801, which changed state.
Bug 24801 Summary: -d option changes debug information
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24801
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24801
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Mar 14 14:18:44 2016
New Revision: 234181
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234181&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Handle "d" output in the bd*z patterns (PR70098)
In the rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69799
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-03-14 9:19 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> Could you please test the following patch
Actually, I already have but "hppa-*-*" should be
"libatomic_available". There are one
or two
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
