https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed May 13 05:39:14 2015
New Revision: 223113
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223113&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-13 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed May 13 02:57:27 2015
New Revision: 223108
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223108&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65873
* ipa-inline.c (can_inline_edge_p): Allow ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed May 13 02:54:50 2015
New Revision: 223107
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223107&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65873
* ipa-inline.c (can_inline_edge_p): Allow ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Patch posted https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg01167.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66047
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66111
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue May 12 21:12:55 2015
New Revision: 223099
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223099&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/66111
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66111
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54114
Eliot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dsl at dsl dot pp.ua
--- Comment #14 from Eliot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55375
Eliot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dsl at dsl dot pp.ua
--- Comment #5 from Eliot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66130
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Robert Suchanek from comment #10)
> Hi Vlad,
>
> I'm pleased with the results so far. In the larger codebase, it behaves as
> the original
> patch reverted and I haven't seen a missed case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66091
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #57 from Andrew Macleod ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Tue May 12 20:01:47 2015
New Revision: 223096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Andrew MacLeod
PR target/65697
* coret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
I think pushing TYPE_CANONICAL is a bug: we do check ODR properties of the
parameter and TYPE_CANONICAL is not guaranteed to be the same. Just remove the
TYPE_CANONICAL wrap here.
The patch seems OK with this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65897
stanley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek ---
Created attachment 35534
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35534&action=edit
gcc6-pr66066
Untested patch without a test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66130
Bug ID: 66130
Summary: "invalid use of non-static member function" message
could be clearer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66129
Bug ID: 66129
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-*c
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66127
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I suppose this particular issue might be even relevant to e.g.
-mcheck-zero-division on MIPS, i.e. everywhere where we're expect to trap on
integer division by zero.
(ubsan's -fsanitize=integer-divide-by-zer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #13)
> I expect to have a proper fix (additional folding in c_fully_fold_internal)
> today or tomorrow, depends on how many issues I hit along the way (see e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66128
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Some more examples with other error messages.
This one ...
program p
integer, parameter :: z(0) = 0
print *, count(z > 0)
end
yields :
internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_intrinsic_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66128
Bug ID: 66128
Summary: ICE for some intrinsics with zero sized array
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61940
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat dot
com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59621
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61940
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akim.demaille at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53553
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66127
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
I expect to have a proper fix (additional folding in c_fully_fold_internal)
today or tomorrow, depends on how many issues I hit along the way (see e.g.
PR66127). The tzdata issue seems to be being worked on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 12 May 2015, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > Working on this, but it isn't a simple matter of adding "pedantic".
>
> Joseph, would testing global_dc->pedantic_errors be an accep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66127
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Ideally the front-end folding of expressions-of-constants might avoid
folding-for-optimization such as this (instead just folding cases where
the evaluated operands are actually constants,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66127
Bug ID: 66127
Summary: Division by zero gets folded away
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #9 from Vidya Praveen ---
glibc's tz code (which causes this error) will get fixed eventually:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18396
However if it's justifiable, it's good to move this error under -pedantic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66126
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> The code in comment 0 does not abort at run time up to revision r222352
> (2015-04-23), but does so at r222398 (2015-04-24), likely r222361.
Yes, probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 35533
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35533&action=edit
Suggested fix
I've been testing following patch for 5.1.0 branch. I'm wondering if comparison
of just TYPE_ARG_T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66124
--- Comment #1 from wilkinson.bob at gmail dot com ---
More succinctly my failing compilation can be reduced to :
g++ -v -save-temps -Wall -Wextra -c
-I/home/bob/work/trunk/3rdparty/boost_1_49_0
3rdparty/boost_1_49_0/libs/date_time/src/gregorian/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66126
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66126
Bug ID: 66126
Summary: 2-float SSE vector with vector_size(8) is passed
incorrectly to functions on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66125
Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66125
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Testcase? The fix makes options from archive members visible to lto-wrapper,
> so you likely have a mismatch between -fPIC / -fno-PIC somehwere.
After re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Mul doesn't produce useful overflow bits when the flags are set. We could do
negv3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 12 13:28:33 2015
New Revision: 223065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223065&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66101
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66096
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|32 bit |x86_64-w64-mingw32
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
That's what I meant. Still can't find any info on them in md.texi, though!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
The last time I looked at the kernel build with -Os, all cases
were simply caused by:
ipa-inline.c:
820 /* If call is cold, do not inline when function body would grow. */
821 else if (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66125
Bug ID: 66125
Summary: lto1: code model kernel does not support PIC mode
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115
carloscastro10 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66124
Bug ID: 66124
Summary: greg_month.cpp from boost date_time shows internal
compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65740
Denis Vlasenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vda.linux at googlemail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66081
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
--- Comment #3 from Denis Vlasenko ---
Created attachment 35530
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35530&action=edit
Preprocessed example exhibiting a bug on gcc -4.9.2
This is a preprocessed kernel/pid.c file from kernel sourc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not those, but addv4 and subv4 instead (perhaps {,u}mulv4 if
the ISA detects multiplication overflows, also there is negv3).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66102
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66000
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm*-*gnueabi |arm
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
--- Comment #2 from Denis Vlasenko ---
Tested with gcc-4.9.2. The attached testcase doesn't exhibit the bug, but
compiling the same kernel tree, with the same .config, and then running
nm --size-sort vmlinux | grep -iF ' t ' | uniq -c | grep -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Or rather
Index: tree-ssa-dom.c
===
--- tree-ssa-dom.c (revision 223044)
+++ tree-ssa-dom.c (working copy)
@@ -2918,6 +2918,8 @@ pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Index: tree-ssa-dom.c
===
--- tree-ssa-dom.c (revision 223044)
+++ tree-ssa-dom.c (working copy)
@@ -2914,7 +2914,7 @@ propagate_rhs_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
$ ./cc1 -quiet x.c -O
x.c: In function ‘test’:
x.c:2:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
test (int foo)
^
0xd7129c crash_signal
/home/marek/src/gcc/gcc/toplev.c:380
0xecc3e3 propagate_rhs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
Bug ID: 66123
Summary: Array of labels as values + ternary operator + pointer
arithmetic = internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66091
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Sutton ---
Confirmed. Fixed in r223061.
When a function declaration started with a non-function declarator, the
requires-clause wasn't being attached to the right declarator object so it
wasn't being added to the decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
--- Comment #1 from Denis Vlasenko ---
Created attachment 35528
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35528&action=edit
Preprocessed example exhibiting a bug
This is a preprocessed kernel/locking/mutex.c file from kernel source.
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
Bug ID: 66122
Summary: Bad uninlining decisions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #18 from Geoff Nixon ---
Ok thanks, for other idiots like myself who can't seem to figure out how to get
viewvc to generate a diff for a specific rev, a -p1 patch is:
svn diff -c 223032 svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5-branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 12 11:55:40 2015
New Revision: 223059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/37021
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66084
--- Comment #4 from vfdff ---
ok, it is ok based on gcc 4.9.2, thanks.
$GCC492/gcc ticket_1634.c -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #17 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Geoff Nixon from comment #16)
> what I should use to patch against the release?
> Or is there a different set of changes
> specific to the 5.1 branch backport?
For 5.1 you'd better use the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66121
Bug ID: 66121
Summary: internal compiler error: in strip_typedefs, at
cp/tree.c:1369
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
Geoff Nixon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||geoff at geoff dot codes
--- Comment #16 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59224
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to li xin from comment #8)
> It will lead to the lsb test caes
> /libstdcxx-t2c/tests/LanguageSupport/LanguageSupport FAIL.
> So I want to know the right return value of std::uncaught_exception()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #15 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Thierry Reding from comment #14)
> Thanks Yury.
Np, you are welcome.
@Harald: could you close the bug if it works for you?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #7 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> DEFPARAM (PARAM_SRA_MAX_SCALARIZATION_SIZE_SPEED,
> "sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed",
> "Maximum size, in storage units,
>
> storage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #14 from Thierry Reding ---
Thanks Yury.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394
--- Comment #31 from Steffen Hau ---
Just a short update.
With LTO enabled, configure thinks I have a buggy GCC:
checking if gcc has a visibility bug with class-level attributes (GCC bug
26905)... yes
configure: WARNING: Your gcc is not -fvisibi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed by
Index: toplev.c
===
--- toplev.c(revision 223044)
+++ toplev.c(working copy)
@@ -1311,6 +1311,9 @@ process_options (void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
DEFPARAM (PARAM_SRA_MAX_SCALARIZATION_SIZE_SPEED,
"sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed",
"Maximum size, in storage units,
storage units! But the value seems to be in bits? It gets used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 35524 [details]
> gcc6-pr66112-2.patch
>
> And i386 mulvhi4 and umulvhi4 support. For umulvhi4, I haven't found
> corresponding i386.md instruc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #8 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can we consider moving this to -pedantic as suggested by Richard in comment #4?
Full compiler builds are broken because of this.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
And we indeed rely on SRA to copy propagate aggregates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, it's parameter b assigned to local decl b.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed. We expand from
:
a$data_13 = MEM[(struct Vec2 *)&a];
a$32$data_14 = MEM[(struct Vec2 *)&a + 32B];
b = b;
v2_15 = MEM[(struct Vec2 *)&b];
v2$32_16 = MEM[(struct Vec2 *)&b + 32B];
_7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy ---
Comment on attachment 35522
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35522
gcc5-pr66112.patch
Done, PR66120
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
Bug ID: 66120
Summary: __builtin_add/sub_overflow for int32_t emit poor code
on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikestump at comcast dot net
Target M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64691
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 35526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35526&action=edit
tset-case to reproduce and assembly file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119
Bug ID: 66119
Summary: Regression in optimization of avx-code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64691
Yuri Rumyantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
