https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65086
Bug ID: 65086
Summary: Segfault: Invalid copy-out of temporary as argument is
in read-only memory
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65085
Bug ID: 65085
Summary: Move-assigned empty string corrupt with
-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61772
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||win32
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Richard G. ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #8)
> Patches are reviewed on gcc-patches mailinglist, not in Bugzilla
Sorry, I'm not properly set up for mailing lists at the moment...
> > * Escape "{" charac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477
--- Comment #23 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Additional tests were extracted into BZ65084. This BZ is just for tracking the
regression for testcase in c#0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65084
Bug ID: 65084
Summary: Lack of type narrowing/widening inhibits good
vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65083
Bug ID: 65083
Summary: Can not indirectly call some C11 atomic library
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48009
--- Comment #16 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #12)
> Author: dje
> Date: Mon Feb 16 15:19:20 2015
> New Revision: 220736
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220736&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48009
--- Comment #15 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
What autogen release was used to generate the newly committed fixincl.x? I
recently updated our autogen in fink to 5.18.4 because I discovered that 5.18.2
was producing broken fixincl.x file
med.uc.edu
--- Comment #14 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #13)
> Fixed.
At r220743 on x86_64-apple-darwin14 with autogen 5.18.4 installed, make check
now produces...
stdlib.h
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc-5-20150216/fixincludes/tests/b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Peslyak ---
For completeness, here are the results for 4.7.x, 4.8.x, and 4.9.0:
4.7.0o - 2142K c/s, 29692 bytes, 1267 movaps, 465 movups
4.7.0h - 2823K c/s, 29692 bytes, 1732 movaps, 0 movups
4.7.4o - 2144K c/s, 29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Peslyak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> We are putting quite heavy register-pressure on the thing by means of
> partial redundancy elimination, thus disabling PRE using -fno-tree-pre
> might help
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Peslyak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> I wonder if you could share the exact CPU type you are using?
This is on (dual) Xeon E5420 (using only one core for these benchmarks), but
there was simil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65079
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65079
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #17 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28586
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chandrakm at hotmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61637
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58643
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65058
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Mon Feb 16 23:03:33 2015
New Revision: 220744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65058
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr65058.c: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45402
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65082
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to bug 44281 and bug 42596.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65082
Bug ID: 65082
Summary: Wasted cycles when using a register based varible
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44281
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
AFAICT the issue with push_flag_into_global_reg_var is poor register
allocation, perhaps made worse by the x86 backend's constrains on the ashldi3_1
insn.
Loop 0 (parent -1, header bb2, depth 0)
bbs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44281
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
In reference to c#10 and c#14, we get from the trunk:
0: ff 65 08jmpq *0x8(%rbp)
3: 66 66 66 66 2e 0f 1fdata32 data32 data32 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
a: 84 00 00 00 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks for looking into that!
>
> Why do we think rPrimary is 16-byte aligned when it is only 8-byte aligned?
ipa-cp newly does alignment propagation. You may try to just disable it
by short cirucuiting ipc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64823
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64823
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Feb 16 20:56:55 2015
New Revision: 220743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64823
* tree-vrp.c (identify_jump_threads): Ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64596
--- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #2)
1) if the friend declaration is invalid in line 15, then g++ should tell me so,
shouldn't it? But atm it compiles it, and the surprise comes later, when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #17)
> > Created attachment 34765 [details]
> > Handle KIND=1 and KIND=2
>
> Jerry,
>
> I applied your patch on top of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
--- Comment #20 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #12)
> In addition Bernd's patch fixes/hides the ICE for pr61960.
this pr is fixed by this hunk alone:
--- gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c(revision 220662)
+++ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #12)
> I agree it is probably differnt issue, but lets see. It would help if you
> can look at the backtract and see if there is a problem between
> local/non-local calling co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64963
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 16 19:22:57 2015
New Revision: 220742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/64963
* cgraphclones.c (cgraph_node::create_virtual_clone)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Perf shows:
Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
2.45% cc1plus libc-2.21.90.so [.] _int_malloc
1.88% cc1plus cc1plus [.] bitmap_find_bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 ~ % g++ -ftime-report -Ofast -w tramp3d-v4.cpp
Execution times (seconds)
phase setup : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
1419 kB ( 0%) ggc
phase parsing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yes, any particular choice has the potential to regress in one way or another.
These are heuristics after all. We're just looking for a reasonable refinement
if we can find one.
Dominance doesn't seem to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to homgran from comment #9)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> > > > AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first
> > > > implementation
> > > > of unlimited polym
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65074
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34770|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
--- Comment #20 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #19)
>
> Can you try fix in PR 65074?
Yes, that fixes the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
I agree it is probably differnt issue, but lets see. It would help if you can
look at the backtract and see if there is a problem between local/non-local
calling conventions. I.e. function called with paramet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, I looked into this somewhat while preparing the patch. With new metric we
manage to do a lot more inlining before hitting the limits. This is kind of
positive effect - clearly inliner does things that pays
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65081
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077
--- Comment #15 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> we have similar handling for
>
> else if (truth_value_p (code))
> /* Truth value results are not pointer (parts).
20150216 (experimental) as of 220738
and this test snippet:
---
struct intro {
int a;
char pad_[1];
};
struct intro b;
struct intro * alloc()
{
struct intro * i = &b;
return i + 1;
}
int main(void)
{
struct intro * i = alloc() - 1;
i->a = 1;
}
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 16 18:15:19 2015
New Revision: 220741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220741&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-16 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65077
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.9/5 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077
anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34774|0 |1
is obsol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077
--- Comment #11 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Created attachment 34781 [details]
> untested patch
Apllied patch to Fedora SRPM, rebuilt, installed, rerun my testcase:
Works! :-)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64052
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Eugene from comment #4)
> I am not arguing for the sample code to be compilable and functional.
> My expectation is a consistent compilation result regardless of the
> optimisation settings. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65080
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65080
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Feb 16 17:48:08 2015
New Revision: 220739
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220739&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-16 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/65080
* g++.dg/cpp0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64548
--- Comment #5 from yuta tomino ---
Hello, Simon.
I'm glad to look at this report.
I have a similar experience like this.
The trigger of mine was not "private with" but a nested package in the spec of
Ada.Exceptions.
I should think it's useless
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #10)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> > The same bug affects 252.eon in SPEC CPU 2000 on x32:
>
> ...
>
> >
> > The fix isn't sufficient since adding -fno-ipa-cp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> The same bug affects 252.eon in SPEC CPU 2000 on x32:
...
>
> The fix isn't sufficient since adding -fno-ipa-cp fixes eon on x32.
I really doubt that it is "the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #18)
> The following error started with r220674 on powerpc64-linux when trying to
> build 447.dealII from CPU2006 with -m64.
>
> /usr/bin/ld: exceptions.o: In function `Except
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #4 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
Created attachment 34783
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34783&action=edit
Sources and Makefile (run make to reproduce)
This bug affects GCC 4.9.2 too! (I'm on i686):
blake2s.cpp:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65006
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> r220521 miscompiled 252.eon in SPEC CPU 2000 with LTO for both x86-32:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-02/msg01063.html
>
> and x32:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65080
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #3 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
This bug affects GCC 4.5.4 as well. I guess the bug is no longer relevant since
both these GCC releases are deprecated and unsupported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that r220318 does not fix c++1998/all_attributes.cc for
x86_64-apple-darwin10 (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-02/msg01455.html) nor for
powerpc-apple-darwin9 (see
https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65080
Bug ID: 65080
Summary: constexpr-ness lost by using alias in definition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #27 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #26)
> (In reply to howarth from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
> >
> > Are we going with this fix? If so. please post it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65058
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Reduced test
program test
implicit none
type t
integer :: ii
end type t
type, extends(t) :: u
real :: rr
end type u
type, extends(t) :: v
real, allocatable :: rr(:)
end type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Mon Feb 16 15:33:09 2015
New Revision: 220737
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220737&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-16 Michael Haubenwallner
David Edelsohn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65058
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Mon Feb 16 15:33:09 2015
New Revision: 220737
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220737&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-16 Michael Haubenwallner
David Edelsohn
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48009
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Mon Feb 16 15:19:20 2015
New Revision: 220736
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220736&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Daniel Richard G.
PR bootstrap/48009
PR bootstrap/53348
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48009
--- Comment #12 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Mon Feb 16 15:19:20 2015
New Revision: 220736
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220736&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Daniel Richard G.
PR bootstrap/48009
PR bootstrap/53348
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #9 from homgran ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> > > AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first implementation
> > > of unlimited polymorphism.
> >
> > In that case, should we remove the '[4.9/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #26 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #25)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
>
> Are we going with this fix? If so. please post it to gcc-patches with a
> ChangeLog.
was posted 3rd Feb
https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65006
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #25 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
Are we going with this fix? If so. please post it to gcc-patches with a
ChangeLog.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65059
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64145
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first implementation
> > of unlimited polymorphism.
>
> In that case, should we remove the '[4.9/5 Regression]' tag from the summary
> title?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65079
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 16 14:53:23 2015
New Revision: 220735
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220735&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-16 Richard Biener
PR lto/65015
* varasm.c (default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
Finally fixed for 5.0 with reasonably backportable patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63593
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 16 14:52:14 2015
New Revision: 220734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220734&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-16 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63593
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63593
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Known to fail|5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65079
Bug ID: 65079
Summary: -Werror= does not work on implicit-procedure warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64812
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i?86-*-*|
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems this has started with r216247, and indeed, compiling the testcase with
-std=gnu89 even with latest trunk results in those 25 %esp references, while
using -std=gnu11 even with r19 results in 69 %esp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Similar to PR21182 ?
>
> As suggested in the above PR, does "-fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure" make
> any difference?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Similar to PR21182 ?
As suggested in the above PR, does "-fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure" make any
difference?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 34782
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34782&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Options -m32 -msse2 -O3 must be used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
Bug ID: 65078
Summary: [5.0 Regression] 4.9 and 5.0 generate more spill-fill
in comparison with 4.8.2
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34781
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34781&action=edit
untested patch
Patch which fixes the testcase and doesn't regress the vectorization testcase
from PR37021.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64812
--- Comment #6 from Michael Stahl ---
Created attachment 34780
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34780&action=edit
manually minimized reproducer
to reproduce, build with:
g++ -m32 -std=gnu++11 -Os -c /tmp/fmgridif.ii -o /tmp/
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
