http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59064
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59854
Bug ID: 59854
Summary: Types with specific endianness
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59853
Bug ID: 59853
Summary: gnatmake cannot build a library
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59826
Terry Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59852
Bug ID: 59852
Summary: Support sparse-style __attribute__((bitwise)) (type
attribute)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59851
H. Peter Anvin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59851
Bug ID: 59851
Summary: Support sparse-style __attribute__((nocast)) (type
attribute)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
Bug ID: 59850
Summary: Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type
attributes)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59799
--- Comment #8 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
You'll need to send the patch to gcc-patches for approval, if you haven't
already done so.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59799
--- Comment #7 from Michael Hudson-Doyle ---
There are no additional failures with this patch (and the only additional pass
is libgo's reflect test).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58928
--- Comment #2 from Michael Barker ---
> Hope helps
What hardware platform are you testing on? I'm running on Ivy Bridge:
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @2.40GHz
Could you put the assembler that you see on the ticket:
With -mlzcnt:
00400
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59775
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59775
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Jan 17 01:04:59 2014
New Revision: 206694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206694&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/59775
* tree.c (get_binfo_at_offset): Look harder for virtu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> From the code:
>/* We don't warn about "static const" variables because the
> "rcs_id" idiom uses that construction. */
That is not a good reason not t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From the code:
/* We don't warn about "static const" variables because the
"rcs_id" idiom uses that construction. */
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59849
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59849
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59849
Bug ID: 59849
Summary: GCC doesn't warn unused global const variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: midd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59799
--- Comment #6 from Michael Hudson-Doyle ---
Created attachment 31861
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31861&action=edit
Simple fix
This very simple patch (just deleting the offending lines) makes the go test
case that was fail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59836
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I will also test your patches and review and commit for you if you need.
> Please let me know.
Could you check in particular that I did not miss something when removing the
line
- nzero--;
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59816
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59806
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59801
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is IMHO working correctly and looks like clang bug to me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59801
--- Comment #8 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Those two cases are different, the other PR was about automatic volatile
> variables, where if they are unused it is really hard to come up with a way
> how they cou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58344
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59848
Bug ID: 59848
Summary: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr59747.c execution
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> You don't have the r206659 fix in your tree, do you?
No. I thought to have tested it as said at the end of comment 12, but it seems
that I did not actually do it. Importing r206659 in my working tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57380
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57380
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57293
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56791
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56791
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jan 16 20:51:24 2014
New Revision: 206688
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
014-01-16 Bernd Schmidt
PR middle-end/56791
* reload.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 31859
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31859&action=edit
preprocessed file for gcc.c-torture/execute/pr59747.c on darwin13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 31860
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31860&action=edit
assembly file for gcc.c-torture/execute/pr59747.c on darwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55907
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59831
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Easy fix is the following:
Index: cgraph.c
===
--- cgraph.c(revision 206617)
+++ cgraph.c(working copy)
@@ -815,6 +815,7 @@ cgraph_set_call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59821
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58344
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:54:23 2014
New Revision: 206685
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206685&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58344
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Handle init == NU
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59821
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:55:12 2014
New Revision: 206686
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206686&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59821
* tree.c (bot_manip): Update the location of builtin_LI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59490
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59825
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59609
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59835
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Of course, no real performance testing has been performed, perhaps there
> should be one ? or more for the =Q, Q, 0 alternative. Without any ?, we
> don't ICE or e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59839
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59839
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:27:28 2014
New Revision: 206684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206684&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59839
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_builtin): If targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59839
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:26:08 2014
New Revision: 206683
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206683&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59839
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_builtin): If targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59839
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:24:07 2014
New Revision: 206682
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206682&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59839
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_builtin): If targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54694
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:22:08 2014
New Revision: 206681
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206681&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/54694
* gcc.target/i386/pr9771-1.c (main): Rename to...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59609
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:13:54 2014
New Revision: 206677
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-16 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/59609
* lra-cons
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54694
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:20:50 2014
New Revision: 206680
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206680&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/54694
* gcc.target/i386/pr9771-1.c (main): Rename to...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59845
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>(constant folding problem within loop?)
No it is doing the following:
if (n>=1)
{
i = 1;
while (true)
{
if (n%i == 0)
{
printf("\n%d", i);
i++;
if (n/2 <
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54694
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:15:46 2014
New Revision: 206679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206679&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/54694
* gcc.target/i386/pr9771-1.c (main): Rename to...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59387
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:14:49 2014
New Revision: 206678
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/59387
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr59387.c: New t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59845
--- Comment #1 from ArshaGCC ---
I found that only when I use very high vales for input the problem persists.
for example when using 123456 as input for profiling it generates incorrect
code but when using 12345 as input the correct code will be g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59835
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Jan 16 19:04:08 2014
New Revision: 206676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-16 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/59835
* ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59847
Bug ID: 59847
Summary: cast to long makes compiler crash if using option
pdp-11/10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59821
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59831
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59821
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> While I agree with that, for _builtin_{LINE,FILE,FUNCTION} (), those were
> added specifically for the use in default arguments and were I think from
> the start m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59846
Bug ID: 59846
Summary: Imprecise column number for -Wtype-limits
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59845
Bug ID: 59845
Summary: loop optimization problem when profiling
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59842
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thorsten Glaser from comment #5)
> Hm, unsure. These versioning scripts are pretty much recent GNU stuff.
Recent as in the last 10 years maybe. But not in the last 5 years. Also they
are suppo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46507
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
I agree we want to do as much as possible in FE.
ODR decisions are basically done in frontend now - we basically use mangling of
virtual tables given to us by C++ FE. Eventually we will want to get ODR
inform
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59821
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3)
> I think gimplify_arg clobbering a valid EXPR_LOCATION is wrong; both cases
> should give the location of the default argument definition.
>
> Aldy, what was the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59842
--- Comment #5 from Thorsten Glaser ---
Hm, unsure. These versioning scripts are pretty much recent GNU stuff. But if
you have input…
cvs -d _anon...@anoncvs.mirbsd.org:/cvs co -PA -d xchat-randex
contrib/hosted/tg/code/xchat-randex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59780
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59844
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Jan 16 17:35:41 2014
New Revision: 206670
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206670&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-16 Michael Meissner
Back port from mainline
2014-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59780
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Jan 16 17:35:50 2014
New Revision: 206671
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59780
* aarch64.c (aarch64_split_128bit_move): Don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59843
Yufeng Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-linux |aarch64-linux aarch64-elf
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58602
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59835
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested patch for kunpckhi:
2014-01-16 Jakub Jelinek
* config/i386/i386.md (kunpckhi): Add GPR alternative.
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj2014-01-09 21:07:23.0 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59821
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
While I agree with that, for _builtin_{LINE,FILE,FUNCTION} (), those were added
specifically for the use in default arguments and were I think from the start
meant to give you the location of the call, not of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59844
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59844
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Jan 16 17:08:52 2014
New Revision: 206668
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206668&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-16 Michael Meissner
PR target/59844
* config/rs600
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59821
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #40 from Richard Biener ---
On the full testcase tree LIM uses too much memory (I didn't merge some of
the patches that only benefit this kind of testcase ... bah). Without LIM
we use around 1GB of memory at -O2 and
df reaching defs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54694
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59842
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|http://bugs.debian.org/cgi- |
|bin/bugreport.cgi?bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59820
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson ---
I think you're right. I'm preparing a patch for glibc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54694
--- Comment #20 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 16 16:33:30 2014
New Revision: 206667
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206667&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/54694
Diagnose frame_pointer_required vs fixed hfp
Added:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59843
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58996
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
If there's an interest, I could probably create a kickstart for a RHL8 VM
suitable for building GCC 4.9. But it's a 10+ year old platform of marginal
value at best.
I'd be much more concerned about using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54694
--- Comment #19 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 16 16:23:54 2014
New Revision: 20
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=20&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/54694
Diagnose frame_pointer_required vs fixed hfp
Added:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59844
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 31858
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31858&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
Patch tested by Bill Schmitd, and passes the regression testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59835
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, with -O2 -mavx512f -march=k8 it actually hangs. So the short testcase is
enough to reproduce it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59844
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-linux
Status|U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59844
Bug ID: 59844
Summary: Powerpc64le cannot bootstrap with -O3/-mcpu=power8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58996
--- Comment #16 from Balaji V. Iyer ---
Hi Jakub,
Honestly, I don't know why the changes were done in aclocal.m4. I added the
change to configure.ac and then did the following commands:
autoreconf --force --verbose
automake --add-missing --ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #12 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Jan 16 14:57:00 2014
New Revision: 206664
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-01-15 Uros Bizjak
* config/i3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59827
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jan 16 14:59:46 2014
New Revision: 206665
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206665&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/59827
* gimple-low.c (gimple_check_call_args): Don'
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
