https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71224
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
And thinking more about it, I don't think it even explains why this triggers
the warning:
---
if (nlength < pthis->length)
{
Array aggr = {pthis->length - nlength, pthis->ptr + nlength};
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
Bug ID: 71231
Summary: [7 Regression]: 300% runtime increase for rnflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 May 2016, andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
>
> --- Comment #17 from Andre Vieira ---
> Ah yes my bad, its not sccp do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #93 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 May 2016, mike at vermeulen dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
>
> Mike Vermeulen changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71229
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71231
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71226
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71226
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
ICE started with r217663, before that it has been rejected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71228
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71226
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Bet it is the same issue as PR71229 - in both cases there is an array,
initially initialized to all zeros, and somehow cxx_eval_constant_expression on
the ARRAY_REF returns NULL which the callers don't expect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71232
Bug ID: 71232
Summary: [7 Regression] FAIL gnat.dg/vect[36].adb
scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 15
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71232
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71159
Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71232
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71232
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Not sure if the testcases are really having too low loop trip count or the
> change is causing a real-life regression (likely).
The testcases are quite artificial so the former is not to be excluded, but
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71229
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is that cxx_eval_store_expression first calls
HOST_WIDE_INT i
= find_array_ctor_elt (*valp, index, /*insert*/true);
which allocates a constructor_elt with filled index, but N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69793
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rippey.e at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71213
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I have a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55408
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #2 from Paol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
Bug ID: 71233
Summary: [ARM] missing AdvSIMD poly64 intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 May 2016, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70434
>
> Marek Polacek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53401
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
In 5.x, 6.x and trunk this fails gracefully. I'm adding a testcase and closing
the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53401
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 23 09:23:42 2016
New Revision: 236581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/53401
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53401
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71225
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68530
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 68530, which changed state.
Bug 68530 Summary: [C++14] sorry, unimplemented: unexpected AST of kind
loop_expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68530
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71220
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 May 2016, rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
>
> --- Comment #13 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
> Created attachment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #95 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 May 2016, izamyatin at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
>
> Igor Zamyatin changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58135
--- Comment #3 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vekumar
Date: Mon May 23 09:48:54 2016
New Revision: 236582
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236582&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR58135.
2016-05-23 Venkataramanan Kumar
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71234
Bug ID: 71234
Summary: Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised
value in ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1
(ipa-cp.c:2029)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71070
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58135
vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71234
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70945
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38484|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69003
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 10:41:35 2016
New Revision: 236583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69239
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 10:41:35 2016
New Revision: 236583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.0, 6.1.0
Summary|[4.9/5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.0, 6.1.0
Summary|[4.9/5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 10:41:35 2016
New Revision: 236583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 10:41:35 2016
New Revision: 236583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69239
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #8)
> I'll take your comment as approval and install on gcc-5 as well.
Ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
You are right, sorry for not double-checking the list provided by James:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01014.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71235
Bug ID: 71235
Summary: march=silvermont turns on aes by default
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71236
Bug ID: 71236
Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70884
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon May 23 11:27:14 2016
New Revision: 236584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 70884] Constant pool SRA fix
2016-05-23 Martin Jambor
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70884
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70919
Bug 70919 depends on bug 70884, which changed state.
Bug 70884 Summary: [6 regression] 2nd SRA pass confused by load from constant
pool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70884
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71190
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71236
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70972
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68142
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 12:51:29 2016
New Revision: 236588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70347
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 12:51:29 2016
New Revision: 236588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 12:51:29 2016
New Revision: 236588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 12:51:29 2016
New Revision: 236588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57284
Benedict changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||holysword at inbox dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71237
Bug ID: 71237
Summary: scev tests failing after pass reorganization
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #19 from Andre Vieira ---
> First of all please open a new bug for the FAILs. Second, the fix will
> be mostly adjusting the testcase expectations (eventually disabling LIM
> for example if we want to test SCCP abilities).
Opened a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57284
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is there any progress concerning this bug? I'm trying GCC-5.3.
Usual answer: what did you do to fix it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 23 14:09:35 2016
New Revision: 236591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71230
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70676
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
You can follow the bug reporting instructions an provide the preprocessed code
and the compiler output as described in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
Just add -v -save-temps to the compiler's command line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70677
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
You can follow the bug reporting instructions an provide the preprocessed code
and the compiler output as described in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
Just add -v -save-temps to the compiler's command line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71238
Bug ID: 71238
Summary: Undeclared function message imprecisely points to
error column
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71239
Bug ID: 71239
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in operand_equal_p
(fold-const.c:2769)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71239
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 38544
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38544&action=edit
Candidate patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65567
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon May 23 15:03:08 2016
New Revision: 236596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libffi/65567] libffi: Fix, and simply libffi_feature_test
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65567
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon May 23 15:00:41 2016
New Revision: 236595
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libffi/65567] libffi: Fix, and simply libffi_feature_test
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65567
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon May 23 14:54:04 2016
New Revision: 236594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236594&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libffi/65567] libffi: Fix, and simply libffi_feature_test
ault-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160523 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71240
--- Comment #1 from Roger Orr ---
(The example code compiles with gcc revision 236175, dated 20160512)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49859
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49859
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon May 23 15:37:09 2016
New Revision: 236597
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236597&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/49859
* common.opt (Wswitch-unreachable): New opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71241
Bug ID: 71241
Summary: [x86] Missing built-in functions for float128 NaNs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71242
Bug ID: 71242
Summary: [ia64] Missing built-in functions for float128 NaNs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71243
Bug ID: 71243
Summary: Implicitly defined assignment operator is not
constexpr even though it should be
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71243
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The code is not valid in C++11, only C++14, and it seems that GCC 5 doesn't
implement the C++14 rules fully.
Since it's already fixed in GCC 6 I think this can be closed as FIXED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71234
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon May 23 16:31:14 2016
New Revision: 236598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 71234] Avoid valgrind warning in ipa-cp
2016-05-23 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71240
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #22)
> This patch, by itself, fixes the whole issue.
>
Yes, it's OK to commit for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71244
Bug ID: 71244
Summary: ice in zero_one_operation, at tree-ssa-reassoc.c:1230
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71240
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Cleaned up testcase:
struct L { unsigned int l[2]; };
union U { double a; struct L l; } u;
void
foo (double a, struct L *p)
{
u.a = a;
struct L l = u.l, m;
m.l[0] = 0;
m.l[1] = (((l.l[0] & 0xff00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71245
Bug ID: 71245
Summary: std::atomic load/store bounces the data to the
stack using fild/fistp
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71240
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For non-INTEGRAL_TYPE_P guess we need to first VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR it to
corresponding integral type. Though, even that looks wrong.
src_stmt in this case is
_4 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
and bswap_type and load_type a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70735
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo