https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
--- Comment #7 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Fri Jun 19 06:58:22 2015
New Revision: 224638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66541
PR target/52144
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_set_curr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66541
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Fri Jun 19 06:58:22 2015
New Revision: 224638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66541
PR target/52144
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_set_curr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64130
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #5)
> I think it should be in from front-end?
?
> Tried fixing it in VRP like:
You don't seem to use ranges at all. This might be the right place to implement
the suggestion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8)
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
> index fece3ab..0b96de1 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66595
Bug ID: 66595
Summary: [C++14] ICE in partial specialization template
variables
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66593
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
[...]
> That said, the above code runs inside the driver, and libgccjit doesn't yet
> run that part of the driver, so some extra work will be needed by me on top
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66594
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This should be true on all targets which have -mcpu=native (or -march=native).
Note x86 options are not always the same on x86 vs arm vs aarch64 vs ppc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66594
Bug ID: 66594
Summary: jitted code should use -mtune=native
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66593
Bug ID: 66593
Summary: driver-i386.c: -mtune=native unavailable with
non-bootstrapped build of libgccjit with gcc < 5
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66592
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I forgot to mention in comment 1 that the COMMON statement
in the Fortran is also required.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66592
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35805
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35805&action=edit
Fortran code that exhibits the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66592
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This bug appears to be regression and it requires the -O2 and
-ftree-vectorize options.
gfortran -c -O2 -ftree-vectorize z.f
z.f:1:0:
subroutine calsvp(nkr,nkz)
^
internal compiler error: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66592
Bug ID: 66592
Summary: [Regression] ICE in vect_get_def_for_operand
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66590
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to bug 20681. Most likely block_may_fallthru is returning true for the
{} block.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66591
Bug ID: 66591
Summary: [SH] ICE: in get_reload_reg, at lra-constraints.c:633
with -mlra
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64130
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
disable-multilib
--disable-werror
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150618 (experimental) (GCC)
Not sure why the new model is not working here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66464
--- Comment #6 from Leo Carreon ---
Has this fix been included in the recent gcc-5.1.1-3 update on Fedora 22?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
--- Comment #4 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
index fece3ab..0b96de1 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
@@ -7079,7 +7077,7 @@ gfc_conv_expr_descriptor (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66588
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> BTW: x86_64 is missing any form of zero-extended cmove.
... please see [1] how x86_64 implements it (*movsicc_noc_zext).
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66590
Bug ID: 66590
Summary: switch statement: incorrect warning "reaches end of
non-void function"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #6 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
c= a(:) works because there is no additional array descriptor inbetween.
The (new) allocate gets its own temporary array descriptor for the source=
expression, which in turn has incorrect bounds i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
--- Comment #13 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #12)
> However, I am probably missing something since with an updated 4.9-branch
> and without this patch, I couldn't make the compiler crash:
> $ aarch64-unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66589
Bug ID: 66589
Summary: AVX instruction set extension is not enabled by
default for bdver2
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66061
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
What I currently do not understand is why
allocate(c,source=a(:))
fails and
c = a(:)
works.
And yes, the scalarizer is pretty incomprehensible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66515
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66585
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66583
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61856
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
--- Comment #8 from Jason McG ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
...
> compiler developer. This is the first time I have seen a non-compiler
> developer care about documenting gcc heuristics. Note there is no one paper.
...
See comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
--- Comment #7 from Jason McG ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> If someone cares so much about the static branch predictor, they would be a
...
I am not a compiler developer and I do care about this in the code I work upon.
I oc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
The tree-optimized dump shows:
void foo() ()
{
vector(2) long unsigned int vect_cst_.60;
vector(2) long unsigned int vect_cst_.59;
vector(2) long unsigned int vect_cst_.58;
struct A p1;
const struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Confirmed with r224625, however.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
With the smaller test, at least, this did not reproduce for me with r223868.
Patching up to latest and will try again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
If someone cares so much about the static branch predictor, they would be a
compiler developer. This is the first time I have seen a non-compiler developer
care about documenting gcc heuristics. Note there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
Jason McG changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
--- Comment #4 from Jason McG ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> What would you like us to document exactly? How are we supposed to track
...
Perhaps I was unclear. I am asking that you point out to me in the gcc
documentation wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66001
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 65966, which changed state.
Bug 65966 Summary: [5/6 Regression] [C++14] "sorry, unimplemented: unexpected
AST of kind try_block" when initializing a 2D array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65966
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 66001, which changed state.
Bug 66001 Summary: [5/6 regression] ICE when NSDMI in a literal class uses a
destructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66001
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66001
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65966
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66001
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jun 18 14:55:45 2015
New Revision: 224621
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224621&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66001
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66001
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jun 18 14:55:23 2015
New Revision: 224620
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224620&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66001
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56917
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 18 14:47:18 2015
New Revision: 224617
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224617&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-18 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #4 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Further analysis showed that while the offset of source's temporary descriptor
parm.3 is not as expected:
// allocate(c, source=a(:))
// lb, ub,, offset, data
parm.3 = {1, ub(a)+1, 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66565
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66588
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
BTW: x86_64 is missing any form of zero-extended cmove.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 18 14:06:04 2015
New Revision: 224611
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224611&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/66233
* fold-const.c (fold_unary_loc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66587
--- Comment #2 from Pierre Ossman ---
Note that darwin12.h also exists on trunk that needs to be modified as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66587
--- Comment #1 from Pierre Ossman ---
Created attachment 35802
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35802&action=edit
possible patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 18 14:04:05 2015
New Revision: 224610
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224610&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-18 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 18 14:03:50 2015
New Revision: 224609
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224609&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/66233
* fold-const.c (fold_unary_loc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66588
Bug ID: 66588
Summary: combine should try transforming if_then_else of
zero_extends into zero_extend of if_then_else
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66587
Bug ID: 66587
Summary: -no_compact_unwind is dropped for
-nodefaultlibs/-nostdlib
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Thu Jun 18 13:31:17 2015
New Revision: 224605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66253
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_store)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56917
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
This also fixed a rejects-valid
int lValue;
int main()
{
switch (lValue)
{
case -(int)((2U << (8 * sizeof(int) - 2)) - 1) - 1:;
}
}
> g++-4.8 cMinLongValue.ii
cMinLongValue.ii: In function ‘
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66586
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66586
Bug ID: 66586
Summary: Template backtrace is truncated/absent after 'template
argument deduction/substitution failed:'
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
--- Comment #11 from Matthias Klose ---
the proposed patch fixes the test case from PR66554 on aarch64-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65686
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
>
> Where does this obfuscated 'return *(e->pu)' come from?
If I remove aggregate then there are no warning.
i.e. this code produce no warning
mytype f(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||13962
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66512
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #2)
> In that case I'd like to contribute a documentation patch to make that clear
> in the pure/const attribute information, but I need more explanation. I see
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66585
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
--- Comment #1 from Jason McG ---
(In reply to Jason McG from comment #0)
I got my static bp summaries wrong, corrected:
> void foo(int i) {
> switch(i) {
> case 1:
bar1(); // gcc: less likely (same as default) | icc: most likely
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66585
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, I'll look at the 4.9/4.8 fix then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.2.0, 6.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66554
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Indeed:
> ./cc1plus -quiet t.ii -O3 -I include
t.ii: In function ‘void fn1()’:
t.ii:3:6: error: invalid types in conversion to integer
void fn1() {
^
vector(4) signed int
vector(4) unsigned int
vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66585
Bug ID: 66585
Summary: Internal compiler error when initialize field with
lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66569
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jun 18 10:18:48 2015
New Revision: 224602
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224602&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/66569
* function.c (assign_bounds): Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
Bug ID: 66584
Summary: gcc differs in static, branch-prediction cost from icc
in switch.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66568
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jun 18 10:14:38 2015
New Revision: 224601
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224601&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/66568
* cfgexpand.c (expand_return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66554
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #6)
> -fno-tree-forwprop works.
>
> forwprop propagates:
> vect__11.22_96 = (vector(4) float) vect_c.21_94;
> vect__13.24_98 = (vector(4) signed int) vect__11.22_96;
>
> int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66583
Bug ID: 66583
Summary: incorrect implicitly-defined move constructor for
class with anonymous union and NSDMI
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66567
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jun 18 10:09:22 2015
New Revision: 224600
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224600&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/66567
* ipa-chkp.c (chkp_maybe_cre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66571
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 18 09:54:17 2015
New Revision: 224599
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66571
* pt.c (tsubst_omp_clause_decl): New function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #3 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Strictly speaking has this not much to do with the renewed allocate(). The
pseudo code shows that with and without the block construct the offset of the
source array's temporary descriptor is comput
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66582
Bug ID: 66582
Summary: -Wstrict-overflow issues invalid warning.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66510
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 18 09:39:13 2015
New Revision: 224598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66510
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66533
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
ICE started with r208426.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66533
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
--- Comment #2 from Jason McG ---
If I try with this code:
#define likely(x) __builtin_expect((x),1)
#define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect((x),0)
extern void bar1();
extern void bar2();
void foo(bool i) {
// if (i)
if (likely(i))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
--- Comment #1 from Jason McG ---
Note that clang++ for all tested versions (3.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4.1, 3.5, 3.5.1,
3.6 (rc2), 3.7 (experimental)) produce the same assembler output for -O1, -O2 &
-O3:
foo(bool):# @foo(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66543
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
