https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84270
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
--- Comment #14 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Feb 8 15:16:29 2018
New Revision: 257491
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257491&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use nonzero bits to refine range in split_constant_offs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84265
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Feb 8 15:17:20 2018
New Revision: 257492
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257492&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Another fix for single-element permutes (PR 84265)
PR83
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm the regression on a Haswell CPU.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84232
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84213
--- Comment #13 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> This means you should be able to arrange for this
> to be emitted by tree_add_const_value_attribute_for_decl as well, no?
I don’t know… I have to d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84286
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Are all the object files recompiled with GCC 8 (-fabi-version=12)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84286
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Also I think -Wabi=11 could help with reducing this beast.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84288
Bug ID: 84288
Summary: Support jit on Solaris
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
Assignee: dmal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84227
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80684
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84226
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Emrich ---
Created attachment 43374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43374&action=edit
acats testsuite log for 8.0.0 with -fno-reorder-blocks-and-partition
Testsuite log for 8.0.0 with -fno-reorder-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Emrich ---
Created attachment 43375
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43375&action=edit
acats testsuite log for 7.3.1
Testsuite log for 7.3.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84289
Bug ID: 84289
Summary: warning : variabile unitialized, emit right check only
with O(1,2,3) optimisation level (in try/catch)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84238
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Feb 8 16:18:04 2018
New Revision: 257497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257497&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84238
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (maybe_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84238
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
January trunk revision 257023 improved a little but still loses 3.25% on gcc 6
(on Zen).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84226
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84290
Bug ID: 84290
Summary: Internal compiler error: in tree_to_uhwi, at
tree.h:4044
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84291
Bug ID: 84291
Summary: Internal compiler error: in tree_to_uhwi, at
tree.h:4128
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84291
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84290
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 84291 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon at pushface dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84108
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #3)
> Two other variations of this warning that I ran into are slightly different:
> fs/ubifs/ubifs-media.h and include/scsi/libsas.h define a structure with
> __attribu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84284
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81050
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helge.hafting at ntnu dot no
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84292
Bug ID: 84292
Summary: __sync_add_and_fetch returns the old value instead of
the new value
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84226
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Many other ports use bswap on vectors though?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84226
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I mean, the documentation is out-of-date no matter what...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84292
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84037
--- Comment #25 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tend to believe this is an register pressure based strength-reduction + lim
problem than ivopts.
So given class of memory references like:
reg = ...
Loop:
MEM[iv_base + reg * 0];
MEM[iv_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84154
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
Yes both patches need to be backported to GCC 7.
The first patch also needs to be backported to GCC 6. The second one does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81419
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84037
--- Comment #26 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #25)
> I tend to believe this is an register pressure based strength-reduction +
> lim problem than ivopts.
>
> So given class of memory references like:
>
> reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84226
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The documentation terminology is weird, fixed-point there doesn't mean fixed
point floats, but integral types, and I think by fixed-point here it actually
means INTEGRAL_MODE_P modes. Vector bswap is at leas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84293
Bug ID: 84293
Summary: system-header macro expansion location gives
unexpected warning
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84293
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 43380
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43380&action=edit
header file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84266
--- Comment #4 from Steven Munroe ---
Yup this looks like a pasteo from the pi16 implementation which was not caught
as P9 was rare at the time.
The #if _ARCH_PWR9 clause is an optimization based on better timing for P9 (vs
P8) for GPR <-> VSR t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83969
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Duh, input_operand does _not_ allow any MEM: it allows any memory_operand.
Which apparently we do not have here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84266
Steven Munroe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xvl5190 at psu dot edu
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84290
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84272
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43381
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43381&action=edit
gcc8-pr84272.patch
Untested patch to defer delete of root nodes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #38 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Thu Feb 8 18:39:43 2018
New Revision: 257500
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257500&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Mark previous change with:
PR target/84113
Modified:
trunk/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 84066, which changed state.
Bug 84066 Summary: Wrong shadow stack register size is saved for x32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84066
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84066
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84072
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84272
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43382
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43382&action=edit
gcc8-pr84272-2.patch
Or defer deletion of all the fma_nodes until the end, whether they are root or
not. I'd f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |9.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #39 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Thu Feb 8 18:48:37 2018
New Revision: 257501
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257501&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-08 Iain Sandoe
PR target/84113
* confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83806
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Feb 8 18:54:39 2018
New Revision: 257502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257502&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-02-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/83806
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84285
--- Comment #4 from Marc-André Lureau ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 43371 [details]
> gcc8-pr84285.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Thanks
patch texted successfully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84293
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83806
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] Spurious |[6/7 Regression] Spurious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 06:53:00PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I have a patch.
>
The patch is incomplete. If the actual and dummy arguments
type and type parameter match then, everything works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84281
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84155
--- Comment #19 from Paul Thomas ---
fferent types but who knows.
>
> I suggest to remove the caching from gfc_get_dtype.
Indeed, it is the caching that is the source of the problem. I reverted the fix
and removed the caching from gfc_get_dtype
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84266
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Steven Munroe from comment #4)
> BTW is there a P9 in the GCC compile farm yet?
Sadly, not yet. We can do testing on your behalf until we can get a system out
there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84273
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84227
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Checking DECL_CONTEXT of current_function_decl if non-NULL doesn't seem to work
either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84279
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-2-8
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
Ugh. Statement functions should be removed from the Standard.
The simply fix, of course, does not work if someone is clever
and uses keywords in a reference that involves a statement
function.
subroutin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84292
Andreas Tobler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |andreast at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #13 from Adam Conrad ---
(In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #12)
>
> Multiarch interpreter names are officially supported in Debian.
No. No they're not. I don't think "officially" means what you think it means.
I've as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84294
Bug ID: 84294
Summary: missing warning for ignored attribute on a function
template declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84278
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84295
Bug ID: 84295
Summary: [7 Regression] glibc failed to build
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #13 from Patrik Huber ---
>> Did you try with FDO? (-fprofile-generate, run, -fprofile-use)
I just tried this with g++-7. It didn't help, the final executable has the same
slower run time as in the attached log without the FDO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81143
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #14 from Patrik Huber ---
It even seems a few percent slower after the FDO stuff. But the `
-fprofile-use` is a bit weird. If there is no .gcda file, it doesn't complain.
If you give it a file that doesn't exist (e.g. -fprofile-use=fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84296
Bug ID: 84296
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in finish_member_declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81143
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Feb 8 20:40:32 2018
New Revision: 257504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81143
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr79799-2.c: Use __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80865
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81143
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81143
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #14 from Javier Serrano Polo
---
(In reply to Adam Conrad from comment #13)
> Please stop speaking as if you speak for the Debian toolchain maintainers,
> or Debian as a whole. You don't.
I do not represent Debian, but I state fact
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78303
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
GCC, I get something like the following.
In file included from :1:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20180208/include/c++/8.0.1/type_traits: In
instantiation of 'struct std::is_trivially_constructible':
:5:48: required from here
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20180208/include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84265
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84298
Bug ID: 84298
Summary: Shared TYPE_SIZE_UNIT ends up with freed SSA names
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84298
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83871
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84299
Bug ID: 84299
Summary: warning: '' may be used uninitialized in
this function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83723
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Matthias, can you reproduce this with current trunk and if so, do you have
unreduced preprocessed testcase + options?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #19 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84178
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch/RFC:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00468.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #37 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Feb 8 22:31:15 2018
New Revision: 257505
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257505&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83008
* config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81824
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #0)
> Note: this warning is only for attributes relating to the function itself,
> not to those relating to a particular name for the function. For example,
> weak, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81824
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
In the case most likely to appear in glibc, foo would be declared with the
nothrow attribute and __foo would be missing it. I see no reason not to
diagnose the other case as well, I just t
101 - 200 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
