https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71286
--- Comment #2 from felix ---
mingw seems to do fine without it: on that target
TARGET_ASM_ASSEMBLE_VISIBILITY (i.e. i386_pe_assemble_visibility) never emits
any assembly code, and it only emits a warning if the visibility attribute was
specified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71245
--- Comment #3 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Recently x86 linux changed the barrier to what you propose. If it is worth,
> we can change it without any problems.
I guess it costs a code byte for a disp8 in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71322
Bug ID: 71322
Summary: std::filesystem::permissions always follows symlinks
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71321
Bug ID: 71321
Summary: [6 regression] x86: worse code for uint8_t % 10 and /
10
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
--- Comment #11 from Michael Meissner ---
Thanks for the update.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71320
Bug ID: 71320
Summary: filesystem::permissions does not respect
add_perms/remove_perms
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71275
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat May 28 00:22:56 2016
New Revision: 236843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ira.c bb_loop_depth again
Follow the same practice as other places in ira.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71319
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71319
Bug ID: 71319
Summary: unnecessary call to __strcat_chk emitted after buffer
reset
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've been working on this for about 2 weeks and still I don't see the problem
will be solved soon. Therefore I've decided to write some update.
First of all after analyzing hot functions, I found that L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70988
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71318
Bug ID: 71318
Summary: Can't disable ISAs via function attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71317
Bug ID: 71317
Summary: Compiling gnat for rtems fails at s-taprop.adb
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71316
Bug ID: 71316
Summary: [7 regression] test case
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-4.c fails starting with
r236831
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60385
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 60385, which changed state.
Bug 60385 Summary: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60385
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60385
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri May 27 19:19:23 2016
New Revision: 236835
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236835&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-05-27 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/60385
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71245
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #0)
> We don't need to allocate any stack space. We could implement the StoreLoad
> barrier with lock or $0, -4(%esp) instead of reserving extra stack to avoid
> doing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71245
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71245
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69507
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02216.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71315
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I pasted the wrong test case in comment #0. The correct test case is as
follows:
void f (unsigned);
void g (void)
{
char s[] = "1234";
f (__builtin_strlen (s + 1));
f (__builtin_strlen (s + 1))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71315
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71315
Bug ID: 71315
Summary: missing strlen optimization on a POINTER_PLUS
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71306
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02208.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71314
Bug ID: 71314
Summary: test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-thread-14.c fails
starting with its introduction in r235653
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Anatol from comment #5)
> It is a severe compiler issue that stop avr-gcc 6 from using.
> Consider changing "Importance" status to blocker.
It's definite not a "blocker". "blocker" would mea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60385
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||regehr at cs dot utah.edu
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68723
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71313
Bug ID: 71313
Summary: [Filesystem TS] remove_all fails to remove directory
contents recursively
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69855
--- Comment #5 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Fri May 27 14:59:01 2016
New Revision: 236826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
PR c++/69855
* name-lookup.c (pushdecl_maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60933
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71312
Bug ID: 71312
Summary: mutexes for shared_ptr atomics should be padded to
cacheline size
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66338
--- Comment #9 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Fri May 27 14:08:37 2016
New Revision: 236822
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236822&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-24 Ville Voutilainen
PR libstdc++/66338
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71309
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63596
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63596
--- Comment #5 from Jiong Wang ---
Author: jiwang
Date: Fri May 27 13:05:34 2016
New Revision: 236819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/63596, honor tree-stdarg analysis result to improve VAAR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71311
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71311
Bug ID: 71311
Summary: [7 Regression] spec2006 test case 416.gamess fails
since r235817
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71309
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
Bug ID: 71310
Summary: Bitfields cause load hit store with smaller store and
larger load
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71308
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 27 12:08:03 2016
New Revision: 236815
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236815&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/71308
* gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_call):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71308
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71309
Bug ID: 71309
Summary: Copying fields within a struct followed by use results
in load hit store
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
--- Comment #9 from robertgjenssen at gmail dot com ---
The following apply to the log file attached in comment 8 (they got lost when I
added the attachment):
I triggered a similar problem by trying to build current octave sources with
LTO and ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
robertgjenssen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||robertgjenssen at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 27 May 2016, fw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
>
> --- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> On Fri, 27 May 2016, fw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > I think the real question is whether it matters anywhere if a pointer to an
> > incomplete struct has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 27 May 2016, fw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
>
> --- Comment #16 from Florian Weimer ---
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #15)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #16 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #15)
> Yeah, only the C++ side was changed. I think it's wrong that we reject the
> testcase in Comment 14 in C (I have a fix for that).
Good.
> But even with that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71308
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71308
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, that must be mine :(.
Fix:
--- a/gcc/gimple-fold.c
+++ b/gcc/gimple-fold.c
@@ -3053,7 +3053,8 @@ gimple_fold_call (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, bool
inplace)
== void_type_node))
gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71308
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71308
Bug ID: 71308
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE (segfault) in in gimple_fold_call
gimple-fold.c:3060
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71279
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71279
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri May 27 10:43:34 2016
New Revision: 236811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236811&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r236810.
2016-05-27 Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71279
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri May 27 10:39:40 2016
New Revision: 236810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/71279
* fold-const.c (fold_ternary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71237
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 26 May 2016, andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71237
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andre Vieira ---
> So yes disabling LIM will make t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60385
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
c++/68723 is related
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68929
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Seems related to c++/55722
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71307
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
If the BIT_FIELD_REF covers the whole object then it should be simplified to
a VIEW_CONVERT. There is "related" simplification in match.pd:
(simplify
(BIT_FIELD_REF @0 @1 @2)
(switch
(if (TREE_CODE (TR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71307
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.1.0
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71307
Bug ID: 71307
Summary: [7 Regression] Code quality regression with lane
extraction arm_neon.h intrinsics on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60385
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71279
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71281
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71270
--- Comment #5 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The expand dump after SLP split
---snip--
;; MEM[(logical(kind=1) *)&A.8] = { 1, 0, 1, 0 };
(insn 71 70 72 (set (reg:SI 308)
(const_int 16777472 [0x1000100])) intrinsic_pack_1.f90:49 -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71285
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71286
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71261
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 38581
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38581&action=edit
incomplete patch
Attached my work-in progress to remove bool fixup in favor of improving bool
pattern recogni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71261
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71288
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71290
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71293
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71294
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71299
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71303
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
IMHO we should make sure that the braced-init becomes a STRING_CST very early.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #4 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
--- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
For the record, the test gfortran.dg/pr71252.f90 still fails at revision
r236796 on x86_64-apple-darwin15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71251
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |6.1.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70936
--- Comment #6 from lh_mouse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Please provide the missing information that https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ asks
> for, so we know how you configured GCC.
The following command shows how gcc has been co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71291
--- Comment #7 from Georg Koppen ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> (In reply to Georg Koppen from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 38573 [details]
> > ASan stack trace
> >
> > This is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-w64-mingw32
--- Comment #5 from J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71292
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch fixes that ICE in the testcase for me.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71291
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70936
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This problem does not exiast for a native compiler on GNU/Linux.
Installation in $PREFIX=$HOME/gcc/6.1.0:
ignoring nonexistent directory
"/home/jwakely/gcc/6.1.0/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.1.0/.
97 matches
Mail list logo