https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #46 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #45)
> Kaz, I wanted to backport the patch to GCC 5. It doesn't apply because on
> trunk gen_rtx_SET doesn't take a machine_mode arg. Since SET rtx is always
> VOIDmod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #45 from Oleg Endo ---
Kaz, I wanted to backport the patch to GCC 5. It doesn't apply because on
trunk gen_rtx_SET doesn't take a machine_mode arg. Since SET rtx is always
VOIDmode, it has been removed. In GCC 5 though, SImode is u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
Martin Schreiber changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
Bug ID: 66676
Summary: pragma omp simd aligned(x) results in "internal
compiler error: Segmentation fault"
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66611
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Jun 25 23:12:07 2015
New Revision: 224988
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224988&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65979
PR target/66611
* config/sh/sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #44 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Jun 25 23:12:07 2015
New Revision: 224988
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224988&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65979
PR target/66611
* config/sh/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66675
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for this optimization to be useful there needs to be a heurstic to find
out if folding CONSTRUCTOR + VECTOR_CST is going to be only one or no other
add. Or using one element of the whole vector.
AKA it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66675
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Basically VECTOR_CST + VECTOR_CST is not optimized at all. I bet almost all
> operations that act on VECTOR_CST are not optimized including and not
> limited to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66675
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Basically VECTOR_CST + VECTOR_CST is not optimized at all. I bet almost all
operations that act on VECTOR_CST are not optimized including and not limited
to PLUS, SUB, MULTIPLY, DIVIDE, SHIFT, IOR, XOR, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #43 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #42)
> Is it applied yet? Otherwise I really will have to look into building gcc-5
> from SVN myself.
It's not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66657
--- Comment #3 from Kenneth Almquist ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> What are you trying to do with the assembly after the fact?
In this particular case, I wanted to look at it for two reasons:
1) To determine which functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65912
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||47562
--- Comment #3 from Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65912
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47562
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-linux-gnueabi, arm-eabi |arm-linux-gnueabi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66674
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66675
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
The GCC vector speak variant is as below.
typedef char v8qi __attribute__ ((vector_size (8)));
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
v8qi a = {argc, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
v8qi b = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66675
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66675
Bug ID: 66675
Summary: Could improve vector bit_field_ref style
optimizations.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63277
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||47562
--- Comment #6 from Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65375
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Or indeed PR 63277...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66674
Bug ID: 66674
Summary: name lookup failure in lambda construction in a member
function of a template class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65656
--- Comment #3 from Ryan Johnson ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #2)
> Author: jason
> Date: Tue Apr 28 14:43:59 2015
> New Revision: 222531
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222531&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR c++/6565
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Version|4.4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39121
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to joe.carnuccio from comment #2)
> -Wall produces no warnings...
Oh, you're using too old GCC. Please try a newer version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
https://www.google.com/?#q=nasal%20demons&lang=en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
--- Comment #4 from joe.carnuccio at qlogic dot com ---
if I do a ^= b ^= a ^= b it always work correctly;
doing *p ^= *q ^= *p ^= *q fails (unless -Os is used);
i.e. dereferenced pointers are being treated differently
int a = 0x32, b = 0x45;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39121
--- Comment #7 from joe.carnuccio at qlogic dot com ---
Ok, the sequence points are at each of the assignment operators.
The crux of this is that doing the xor chain with dereferenced pointers fails
(incorrect execution), whereas doing it with va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
--- Comment #3 from joe.carnuccio at qlogic dot com ---
Sorry, I ment this:
root@elab305:/home/joe/test/c# make -B x CFLAGS+='-Wall'
cc -Wall -c -o x.o x.c
cc x.o -o x
root@elab305:/home/joe/test/c# ./x
0 32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
--- Comment #2 from joe.carnuccio at qlogic dot com ---
-Wall produces no warnings...
root@elab305:/home/joe/test/c# make -B x -Wall
cc-c -o x.o x.c
cc x.o -o x
root@elab305:/home/joe/test/c# ./x
0 32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66653
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Proposed patch and subsequent discussion:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg01751.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66673
Bug ID: 66673
Summary: swapping variables via chained xor fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39121
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to joe.carnuccio from comment #5)
> Since using gcc -Os causes the correct execution, then "sequence point" does
> not have anything to do with it.
And you are wrong about that. -Os causes what yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39121
--- Comment #5 from joe.carnuccio at qlogic dot com ---
Since using gcc -Os causes the correct execution, then "sequence point" does
not have anything to do with it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39121
joe.carnuccio at qlogic dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joe.carnuccio at qlogic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66672
Bug ID: 66672
Summary: std::is_same wrong result for captured reference value
inside a lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66671
Bug ID: 66671
Summary: Failure to create a new family of templates for
template alias
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|Linux sama5d4ek |arm*-*-*
|3.18.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, P at draigBrady dot com wrote:
> I'm not understanding completely TBH. Are flexible array members not special?
> Should the optimizations be restricted on access throug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #42 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #41)
> Maybe. Trying it with Oleg's patch is a good idea.
Is it applied yet? Otherwise I really will have to look into building gcc-5
from SVN myself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66670
Bug ID: 66670
Summary: "template argument deduction/substitution failed" with
function pointers and multiple parameter packs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66633
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Bug ID: 9
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/loop-8.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
Bug ID: 8
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/stacked-qualified-types-3.c
scan-assembler-times DIE \\([^\n]*\\)
DW_TAG_(?:const|volatile|atomic|restrict)_type 8
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #41 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #40)
> So, chances are gcc-5 would build now?
Maybe. Trying it with Oleg's patch is a good idea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7
Bug ID: 7
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/diagnostic/inhibit-warn-2.C
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66644
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66617
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66658
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Bug ID: 6
Summary: ARM compiled code segmentation fault on multiple
inheritance
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
Bug ID: 5
Summary: Increment instruction is not propagated into address
operand
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66652
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35853
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35853&action=edit
demonstrator patch
This patch fixes the correctness issue, but it fails to do
transform_to_exit_first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4
Bug ID: 4
Summary: gcc misses optimization emits subtraction where
relocation arithmetic would suffice
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
--- Comment #1 from Robert Clausecker ---
Sorry. I meant to say: The branch will always be taken, not never.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #40 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #39)
> Done. No new failures for the top level "make -k check".
So, chances are gcc-5 would build now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
Bug ID: 3
Summary: gcc misses optimization emits useless test of (a & 31)
with 32
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66637
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64783
--- Comment #3 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've just noticed this has been assigned to me. Support for -march=armv8.1-a
has been added to the Aarch64 backend, the ARM backend is still to be done.
Author: mwahab
Date: Tue Jun 16 13:38:37 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #9 from Pádraig Brady ---
I'm not understanding completely TBH. Are flexible array members not special?
Should the optimizations be restricted on access through the flexible array,
because I presume most/all existing allocation code i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66647
--- Comment #8 from Benny ---
Wow, that went really quick! Many thanks! Very impressive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55922
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
bool called = false;
struct Base {
Base() { if (called) throw 1; called = true; }
};
struct B1 : virtual Base {
B1() { }
};
struct C : B1, virtual Base {
C() :
#ifdef FIX
B1()
#else
B1{}
#e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #36 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Thu Jun 25 10:15:18 2015
New Revision: 224935
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224935&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66563
* [SH] Add a new operand to GOTaddr2picreg so to avoi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #39 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #38)
> I'm testing the patch now. I'll report back when it's done.
Done. No new failures for the top level "make -k check".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65528
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 65528, which changed state.
Bug 65528 Summary: [mpx] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_addr_expr_1,
at expr.c:7761
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65528
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55922
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66656
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66633
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> As I said in comment #4, GCC 4.3.1 had this warning and the warning option
> was enabled for the testcase but the warning did not trigger. When did
> it start triggering?
I don't see the warning wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66638
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48956
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
> > (It would be interesting to know at which GCC version or revision
> > the warning started appearing).
>
> The warning for unused parameters appe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63408
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Jun 25 08:36:03 2015
New Revision: 224933
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224933&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/63408
Backport fix for PR target/63408 from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29693
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29693
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Jun 25 08:18:19 2015
New Revision: 224932
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224932&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/29693
2015-06-25 Ramana Radhakrishnan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |5.1.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> (It would be interesting to know at which GCC version or revision
> the warning started appearing).
The warning for unused parameters appeared at r126486 (pr31129) and
-Wunused-parameter at r126486
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65924
Yvan Roux changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
87 matches
Mail list logo
