http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43751
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43751
--- Comment #22 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Apr 4 06:43:56 2014
New Revision: 209070
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209070&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-26 Dominique d'Humieres
PR target/43751
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58880
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
Draft patch:
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans.c
@@ -871,2 +871,5 @@ gfc_build_final_call (gfc_typespec ts, gfc_expr
*final_wrapper, gfc_expr *var,
+ if (final_wrapper->symtree->n.sym->modu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60495
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> > Looks similar to PR60495;
>
> Certainly; this _is_ PR60495. :-)
I meant: PR58880
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60757
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
Created attachment 32541
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32541&action=edit
epiphany cost fix that triggers combine exponential behaviour
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60757
Bug ID: 60757
Summary: combine uses exponential time in nonzero_bits1
recursion
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60756
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60756
Bug ID: 60756
Summary: var-tracking selects wrong registers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60755
--- Comment #1 from Filip Roséen ---
Reduced testcase:
-
struct A {
void f () { }
void g () const {
[this] { f (); } ();
}
};
int main () {
A {}.g ();
}
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60755
Bug ID: 60755
Summary: lambda capturing `this` doesn't honor the const
qualifier of the enclosing member function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60754
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60754
Bug ID: 60754
Summary: Missed optimization with inline asm longer than 3
lines
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60753
Bug ID: 60753
Summary: defining an explicit function template specialization
as deleted, following a non-deleted declaration, not
diagnosted
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60505
--- Comment #4 from Cong Hou ---
Author: congh
Date: Thu Apr 3 23:05:42 2014
New Revision: 209065
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209065&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-03 Cong Hou
PR tree-optimization/60505
* tree-vectorizer.h (struc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60752
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60752
Bug ID: 60752
Summary: [4.9 Regression] build/genautomata runs out of memory
and is killed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60750
--- Comment #3 from sshannin at gmail dot com ---
As a note that may help pin things down, removing either call to std::move() or
removing the concatenation with err_prefix done in call to the
std::runtime_error constructor seems to resolve this (o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See comment 3.
Every new option to GCC requires extra testing and extra maintenance. IMHO it's
not a good idea to add an option to support one use case in a single codebase,
which doesn't even use GCC the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #3 from Walter Spector ---
I didn't complain to Intel, but I can...
However the compilers that did catch it by default were NAG, lahey, and Absoft.
Walter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60750
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60750
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42143
mat...@mpia-hd.mpg.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mat...@mpia-hd.mpg.de
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60037
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
ubsan sees it too
/home/jwakely/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/random.tcc:3480:20:
runtime error: division by zero
FAIL: ext/random/hypergeometric_distribution/operators/values.cc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #20 from Lucia Huang ---
Hi Andrew:
We use gcc as preprocessor to extand header files for C code.
It is used in a script to parse and check for error in a large code base
(6000+ files). Not all headers are needed to be extanded. As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
With that patch I get no ICEs in the v3 testsuite, thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #1 from Walter Spector ---
Simple test case:
program extracomma
implicit none
write (*,*), 1, 2, 3
end program
This compiles without error.
I notice that if I compile with -std=f95, it does diagnose this as a GNU
Extension. My
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Bug ID: 60751
Summary: Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60746
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 32536
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32536&action=edit
C++ test case (test.ii); compile with g++ -O2 (works with -O1)
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60750
Bug ID: 60750
Summary: double free after std::move on string inside throw
when compiled with optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60749
Bug ID: 60749
Summary: combine is overly cautious when operating on volatile
memory references
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
For some reason builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_UBSAN_HANDLE_MISSING_RETURN)
returns NULL. I'm confused; I thought this can't happen.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #7 from Markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
tech changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from tech ---
We have alread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
Charles Baylis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charles.baylis at linaro dot
org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60748
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
--- Comment #3 from tech ---
Created attachment 32534
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32534&action=edit
Assembly of O2 WITH tree-vrp
Assembly of O2 WITH tree-vrp
.file"main.cpp"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl _Z7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
--- Comment #2 from tech ---
Created attachment 32533
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32533&action=edit
Assembly of O2 no tree-vrp
Assembly of O2 no tree-vrp
.file"main.cpp"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl _Z7hash
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=378
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn ---
I mis-remembered the bug. This is a problem with branch distance. The GNU
Assembler, GNU Linker and GOLD allow instruction relaxation that creates long
branch stubs for far branches. The AIX toolchain does not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
Bug ID: 60747
Summary: the tree-vrp compilation flag produce wrong assembly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60706
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 4/3/2014 6:25 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60706
>
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
> But I guess from your comment that it fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60740
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 3 13:43:23 2014
New Revision: 209057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/60740
* graphi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
--- Comment #6 from Tim Moloney ---
I created glibc bug #16805
(https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16805).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #17)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
> > > Another option would be to add -std=c99 for darwin.
> >
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
> > Another option would be to add -std=c99 for darwin.
>
> I would suggest that this is the Right Thing to do.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> There is quite some usage of __restrict in gcc.target/i386/ directory.
> Why doesn't this problem trigger with e.g. avx2-gather-4.c, which also uses
> __restrict?
AFAICT there is no scan in avx2-ga
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
--- Comment #5 from Charles Baylis ---
I have proposed a fix for this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00122.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #16 from Yukhin Kirill ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #15)
> 19:02:01.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-gather-5.c 2014-04-03
> 15:17:05.0 +0200
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> /* { dg-do com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I would suggest that this is the Right Thing to do.
I agree. Patch tested
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-gather-5.c2014-01-29
19:02:01.0 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60746
Bug ID: 60746
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE segfault in
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60746
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Summary|[4.9 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
Bug ID: 60745
Summary: Many ICEs running libstdc++ testsuite with ubsan,
maybe due to PCH
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #57 from David Kredba ---
I got it again with trunk revision 209048:
/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ -fPIC -flto=4 -fuse-linker-plugin -O2 -ggdb
-pipe -march=core2 -mtune=core2 -mno-3dnow -mno-sse4.2 -mno-avx -mno-xop
-mno-fma4 -mno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Lucia Huang from comment #17)
> Hi,
> Is there an option to revert this change? To generate an error or warning
> for a missing header? Thanks.
Hi Lucia, no there is no such option. I d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
> Another option would be to add -std=c99 for darwin.
I would suggest that this is the Right Thing to do.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60744
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60744
Bug ID: 60744
Summary: poor location and error recovery
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Another option would be to add -std=c99 for darwin.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Maybe simply do:
> #ifdef __restrict
> #undef __restrict
>
> In some common header (say, avx512f-check.h)?
It works (added in avx512f-check.h, with a #endif!-). It would probably require
a comment r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
hmm,
the memref from insn 40 is from alias set 3: "[3 MEM[(struct"
and the memref from insn 44 is from alias set 8: "[8 MEM[(struct"
and thus mems_in_disjoint_alias_sets_p tells us they can't po
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #11 from Yukhin Kirill ---
Maybe simply do:
#ifdef __restrict
#undef __restrict
In some common header (say, avx512f-check.h)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have found the origin of the problem. It is due to
#include
which after some steps include
sys/cdefs.h
which contains the following lines
/*
* We use `__restrict' as a way to define the `restr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60706
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
But I guess from your comment that it fixed the testcase on
hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60706
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Bah. Then we need to use the preprocessor to avoid the warning:
Index: gcc/tree-pretty-print.c
===
--- gcc/tree-pretty-print.c (revision 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60741
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
If I compile the following test with -S -O3 -mavx512f -save-temps
// #include "avx512f-check.h"
#define N 1024
int a[N], b[N], c[N], d[N];
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
foo (float *__restri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60717
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> > Could there be a connection
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58085 ?
>
> May be, but pr58085 is not fixed by the patch in comment 2 (submit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
>
> linux preprocessed file has a couple of *__restrict modifiers in:
Indeed, there is no vgather in the resulting assembly when darwin version of
the preprocessed fil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> Created attachment 32530 [details]
> Preprocessed file for avx512f-gather-5.c on x86_64-apple-darwin13
>
> (In reply to UroÅ Bizjak from comment #4)
> > I ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 32531
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32531&action=edit
Preprocessed file for avx512f-gather-5.c on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Preprocessed file from Comment #4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 32530
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32530&action=edit
Preprocessed file for avx512f-gather-5.c on x86_64-apple-darwin13
(In reply to UroÅ Bizjak from comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60717
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Could there be a connection http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58085
> ?
May be, but pr58085 is not fixed by the patch in comment 2 (submitted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-04/msg00
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Lucia Huang from comment #17)
> Hi,
> Is there an option to revert this change? To generate an error or warning
> for a missing header? Thanks.
What is the use case for having this as a non f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #3)
> Kyrill,
>
> sorry, to bother you with this,
> but do you see any possibility to
> return to the previous memory footprint?
I'll have a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60717
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Fuka ---
Could there be a connection http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58085 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
Lucia Huang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eving.tw at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
started with r208910 of gcc/config/arm/cortex-a53.md
as it looks like, this single check-in did almost double the memory usage!
91 matches
Mail list logo
