https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236
--- Comment #16 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36012
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36012&action=edit
addsicc pattern
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
> The following function compiled with -O2
>
> unsigned i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo ---
The following shows missed subc cases when there are constants involved. Addc
cases can be constructed in the same way.
int fun (int x)
{
return x - 1 - (x > 100);
}
-O2 -m4:
mov #100,r1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66921
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66886
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
What does the upstream version of boehm-gc have? You might want to report this
upstream if this code is there still.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66885
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> > The second condition is *not* always false.
>
> After some further thought, agreed.
>
> Would this be more cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66903
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
You are most likely overflowing the stack. That is the stack is growing and
hitting the stack size. The default stack size for Linux is 8MB, try using
"ulimit -s unlimited" before running gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66932
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Works for me in GCC 4.7.2 and GCC 5.1.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #0)
> As previously discussed in private mail, I am now filing a bug report for
> the regression in gcc-5 that was introduced somewhere between r222550 and
> r2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66935
Bug ID: 66935
Summary: Compiler rejects well-formed program with local extern
variable declaration and using-declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66934
Bug ID: 66934
Summary: Compiler accepting ill-formed program with extern
variable declarations and using-declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66888
--- Comment #2 from Anders Granlund ---
This bug seems to be more general than struct definitions. It also exists for
variable declarations like this:
namespace X { extern int i; }
namespace N { using X::i; }
int N::i = 1;
int main()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66933
Bug ID: 66933
Summary: [AVR] Shifted multiplication produces suboptimal asm
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #4 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Pierre-Marie de Rodat from comment #0)
> Given the "somelabel" code path, I would rather expect DF_REF_CHAIN to hold
> a NULL reference to materialize the lack of initialization in one pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66918
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66932
Bug ID: 66932
Summary: Preprocessor includes wrong header file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preproces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66920
--- Comment #1 from Jan Smets ---
Likely related/identical to 66931
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66931
Bug ID: 66931
Summary: ICE in convert_move, at expr.c:316
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50676
--- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen ---
The patch doesn't seem to be checked in yet. Is there a reason for that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52966
Yury V. Zaytsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yury at shurup dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66925
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Some processors moving between the GPR via vmovd is slower than moving via
> memory. So that is the reason why using -march=sandybridge or
> -march=ivybridge makes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66918
--- Comment #2 from Eugene Zelenko ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Could you explain why you don't want to have this warning really. This
> warning is telling you that the inline function is not defined just like
> static func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #6 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This fixes the issue:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
index 6409f7f..181cbce 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
@@ -5189,7 +5189,9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #55 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #54)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #52)
> > There is another PR that seems related, PR 64986.
>
> Is it? I see no ICE there.
> Oh, you mean related to this o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
Bug ID: 66930
Summary: [5 Regression]: gengtype.c is miscompiled during
stage2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #54 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #50)
> Should I file a new PR?
I opened https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #52)
> There is another PR that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49857
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.3 |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
... and the patch I posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831#c53
Index: trans-array.c
===
--- trans-array.c (révision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
Bug ID: 66929
Summary: [6 regression] ICE with iso_varying_string
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #53 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #50)
> Compiling the original test of pr40440 after revision r225926 gives an ICE:
>
You can try:
Index: trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66922
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jul 18 11:36:32 2015
New Revision: 225982
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225982&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66922
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66922
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66922
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jul 18 11:17:49 2015
New Revision: 225981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225981&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66922
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66928
Bug ID: 66928
Summary: Typos in translatable strings
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48002
--- Comment #5 from yuta tomino ---
This bug seems already being fixed as François-Xavier wrote. (it could be
compiled with gcc-5.1)
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Actually, we are using now
allocate (obj(1:size (func ()))
obj = func ()
as you are saying
allocate (obj, source = func ())
had problems in gfortran 4.7.X.
So the issue is not a problem for our code(s).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #3 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
F2008, C633 says:
(R631) If allocate-object is an array either allocate-shape-spec-list shall
appear or source-expr shall appear and have the same rank as allocate-object.
If allocate-object is sca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66922
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jul 18 09:50:37 2015
New Revision: 225980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66922
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Forgot: my gcc svn revision is r224763.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
Bug ID: 66927
Summary: [6.0 regression] ICE in gfc_conf_procedure_call
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-*-* |aarch64-*-* x86_64-*-*
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66918
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Could you explain why you don't want to have this warning really. This warning
is telling you that the inline function is not defined just like static
functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926
Bug ID: 66926
Summary: [6 regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/graphite/vect-pr40979.f90 -O (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66865
--- Comment #17 from marcus at jet dot franken.de ---
can also confirm this. wine64 built with trunk gcc so far has no crashes and
the wine testsuite so far had no failures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66865
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
51 matches
Mail list logo
