https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63615
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat Oct 25 06:45:52 2014
New Revision: 216689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216689&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/63615
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_plus_minus): Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #16)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #9)
> > > I committed a workaround
> > > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #16 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #9)
> > I committed a workaround
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00362.html) by increasing the
> > int<->fp move cost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #15 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Evandro from comment #12)
> (In reply to Evandro from comment #11)
> > Do you have an idea of the performance impact of this patch?
>
> At least in Dhrystone, it improved by over 2% on A57.
It was ~2%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #14 from Evandro ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
> Note currently it is not possible to use FP registers for spilling using the
> hooks - basically you still end up with int<->fp moves for every definition
> and use (even whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #9)
> I committed a workaround
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00362.html) by increasing the
> int<->fp move cost. Can you try this and check the issue has ind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #12 from Evandro ---
(In reply to Evandro from comment #11)
> Do you have an idea of the performance impact of this patch?
At least in Dhrystone, it improved by over 2% on A57.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #11 from Evandro ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #9)
> The performance cost is a much bigger issue than codesize. The problem is
> that when register pressure is high, the register allocator decides to
> allocate integer liverange
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63641
--- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Monday is fine. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63641
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63641
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63638
--- Comment #5 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Fri Oct 24 20:15:37 2014
New Revision: 216677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-25 Yury Gribov
PR sanitizer/63638
* asa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63641
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 33805
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33805&action=edit
sample patch
This patch seems to fix the problem, and the new tests still pass. But I
haven't done full tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63641
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63641
Bug ID: 63641
Summary: Invalid shift leads to incorrect code on 32-bit system
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63640
Bug ID: 63640
Summary: move_alloc memory leak
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63598
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I had a successful build by setting 'flag_ipa_icf_functions = 0' in
pa_option_override.
Dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #47 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> I'm now testing the rev before Evgeny's patch to check if that
> bootstraps on 10.10. If not, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63639
Bug ID: 63639
Summary: m32c cond.md cond_to_int uses -1 for lt and gt
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63185
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Another example:
#include
void f(){
const int n=1<<14;
double a[n];
double b[n];
double c[n];
__builtin_memset(a,0,n);
__builtin_memset(b,0,n);
__builtin_memset(c,0,n);
for(int i=0;i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #46 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Glad I'm not the only one struggling to track everything that's breaking on
Darwin!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56980
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #43)
[...]
> there were at one point this week 4 concurrent bootstrap breaks on dariwn.
>
> this PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56980
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 24 16:29:56 2014
New Revision: 216674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/56980
* c-pretty-print.c (c_pretty_printer::simple_type_sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #43)
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #42)
> > > --- Comment #41 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
> > > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #43 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #42)
> > --- Comment #41 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
> > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #40)
> [...]
> > That should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #21)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> > This is exactly what G++'s stdbool.h is doing with -std=gnu++98 and
> > -std=c++98.
>
> is a "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63638
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #3)
> Created attachment 33804 [details]
> Update patch
>
> Done. Should I send to gcc-patches now or wait until full bootstrap succeds
> (this will have to wait until
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #42 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #41 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #40)
[...]
> That should be not "EBX enablig" issue as pointed in comments 17 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63595
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
>
> There's patch I've been testing:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf.c b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
> index d1238a4..7456fec 100644
> --- a/gcc/ipa-icf.c
> +++ b/gcc/ipa-icf.c
> @@ -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #41 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #40)
> > --- Comment #39 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
> > (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #38)
> [...]
> > You should apply patch from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63638
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33803|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #39 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #38)
[...]
> You should apply patch from comment 15 as well.
> It is still under review:
> https://
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63638
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looks good, but please include the testcase for the testsuite (you can use
__builtin_memcpy or declare
extern
#ifdef __cplusplus
"C"
#endif
void *memcpy (void *, const void *, __SIZE_TYPE__);
), the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63638
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> This is exactly what G++'s stdbool.h is doing with -std=gnu++98 and
> -std=c++98.
is a "header" which is C++ standardese for a standard library
heade
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #39 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #38)
> What's currently required to get Darwin/x86 to bootstrap again? I'm totally
> lost
> in this maze of PRs and patches.
>
> I've just tried r216667 plus the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63633
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 33801
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33801&action=edit
C test case that also generates wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63638
Bug ID: 63638
Summary: [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in
asan_expand_check_ifn (with -fsanitize=address)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #38 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #18)
> I assume that testcase is meant to be C++ (because it isn't valid C) but
> it's not valid C++ either:
>
> 17.6.4.3.1 [macro.names]
> "A translation uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #18)
> > 17.6.4.3.1 [macro.names]
> > "A translation unit that includes a header shall not contain any mac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I assume that testcase is meant to be C++ (because it isn't valid C) but it's
not valid C++ either:
17.6.4.3.1 [macro.names]
"A translation unit that includes a header shall not contain any macros that
de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #16)
> A testcase:
==> sys.h <==
#pragma GCC system_header
#if defined false
#undef false
#endif
#define false false
==> nonsys.h <==
#if defined false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> Yes, that's what the patch I'm testing does.
>
> IMHO we should only define it for -std=gnu++98 and not any other -std mode,
> but I'll be conservative
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, that's what the patch I'm testing does.
IMHO we should only define it for -std=gnu++98 and not any other -std mode, but
I'll be conservative and leave it defined for -std=c++98 as well.
Hi,
Looks like one of the -O3 optimising steps are broken:
cat << EOF > powfcrash.cpp
#include
#include
class test
{
public:
unsigned char y;
void testfn(unsigned char);
};
void
test :: testfn(unsigned char x)
{
y = x;
float fr = expf(powf(y / 127.0f, 0.5f) *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, as stdbool.h documents, using it in C++ (apparently meant C++98) is a GNU
extension, and for that I bet having those macros is desirable.
And then there is C++11 [support.runtime]/8 that requires it is n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #9)
> however, we do not do it in the case of 'false' (because we do not think it
> should be a macro, but it actually is). Perhaps we should do it, is there a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63637
Bug ID: 63637
Summary: CSE() on x86 asm()-s no longer working due to PR/60663
fix
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini ---
Ah I see, then Dodji finally has the testcase he was looking for ;) Well, an
equivalent one not using stdbool, which Jon is going to patch. Over the next
week I will be mostly offline, unfortunately, please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
--- Comment #8 from fyang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fyang
Date: Fri Oct 24 10:53:08 2014
New Revision: 216630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/63173
* config/aarch64/arm_neon.h (__L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #9)
> (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5)
> > Well, of course the user can always explicitly include, eg, , thus
> > it seems that the real underly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5)
> Well, of course the user can always explicitly include, eg, , thus
> it seems that the real underlying issue is that the system-headers machinery
> should n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, mliska at suse dot cz wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
>
> --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
> On 10/24/2014 10:44 AM, rguenther at suse dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
On 10/24/2014 10:44 AM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
>
> --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, marxin at gcc dot gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63636
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
More precise back-trace:
../../../../libgo/go/path/filepath/path.go:158:1: internal compiler error: in
expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7665
func ToSlash(path string) string {
^
0x10501373 expand_expr_addr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61535
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61535
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00375.html
Gerald objected to the patch saying the dumb macros should be defined for C++98
mode or it will break code. Not sure I agree, but I'll adjust th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! If testing goes well, I mean to commit the
below, which in any case shouldn't hurt:
Index: include/bits/atomic_base.h
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63582
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5)
> #define false false
No idea what's going on, but I think I have a patch somewhere to disable that
macro for C++, it's very explicitly non-conforming:
[support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61535
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
This also affects the new gcc.dg/pr63594-1.c and gcc.dg/pr63594-2.c
testcases.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61529
--- Comment #8 from Renlin Li ---
I believe we observed the same behavior, and the first commit to cause the ICE
is r215739.
The newly introduced recompute_probabilities will set the probability back to
REG_BR_PROB_BASE. I will further dig into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
>
> --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> I added assert to cgraphunit.c (expand_thun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, ysrumyan at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
>
> --- Comment #12 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
> Richard,
>
> Did you have a chance to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
--- Comment #12 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Richard,
Did you have a chance to look at this and prepare more general fix?
Thanks.
Yuri.
2014-09-08 15:13 GMT+04:00 rguenther at suse dot de :
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63632
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> Fixed.
Thanks! Commits were r216613 (trunk) and r216614 (4.9).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63636
Bug ID: 63636
Summary: [5 Regression] gcc gets miscompiled during LTO/PGO
bootstrap on ppc64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63632
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 f
80 matches
Mail list logo
