https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67430
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67295
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Still no luck on a x86_64-linux-gnu build machine, running ../configure
--target=arm-none-eabi --disable-shared --disable-nls --disable-threads
--disable-tls --enable-checking=yes --enable-languages=c,c++,f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67431
Bug ID: 67431
Summary: ALLOCATE with SOURCE ignores overloaded assignment
operator and uses intrinsic when copying values
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67340
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67430
Bug ID: 67430
Summary: reallocate lhs with overloaded assignment operators
causes memory error and wrong size
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67312
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42497
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #7)
> The patch for PR65045 is the simplest manifestation that I have found. I am
> very grateful to Dominique for posting this PR because the problem has been
> d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67174
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Even with the original patch applied to r227391, I cannot reproduce the error
that you get. On x86_64-linux-gnu, I get:
Starting program: /home/manuel/test1/226953M/build/gcc/f951
~/test1/src/gcc/tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48039
yuta tomino changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.5.2 |6.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48002
yuta tomino changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Sep 1 23:25:48 2015
New Revision: 227389
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227389&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Weak functions may not be file local
A weak symbol defined in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48013
yuta tomino changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.5.2 |6.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Sep 1 23:04:58 2015
New Revision: 227387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Weak functions may not be file local
A weak symbol defined in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Sep 1 23:03:19 2015
New Revision: 227386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Weak functions may not be file local
A weak symbol defined in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66624
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> >
> > Please read comment 0.
> >
>
> I read comment #0.
>
> THERE IS NO CODE THERE.
>
> THERE IS NO CODE ATTACHED TO THIS PR.
>
> One needs to go to PR65045 to g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
>
> Please read comment 0.
>
I read comment #0.
THERE IS NO CODE THERE.
THERE IS NO CODE ATTACHED TO THIS PR.
One needs to go to PR65045 to get the code
that is causing the error message. Ergo,
this is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> It's the same piece of code causing the problem. One
> needs to go to PR65045 to get the code, so this PR
> is superfluous. When the ICE is fixed, then
> error message should be addressed.
The pie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 08:05:33PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > So, why isn't this a duplic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So, why isn't this a duplicate of PR65045?
Because PR65045 is about an ICE and this PR is about missing text in the error
messages.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429
Bug ID: 67429
Summary: [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
--- Comment #22 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Sep 1 19:37:52 2015
New Revision: 227382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-01 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/61578
* l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 36282
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36282&action=edit
output of avr-gcc-6 (SVN trunk 227033)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 36281
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36281&action=edit
output of gcc-5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 36280
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36280&action=edit
i.c (C-source 3/3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 36279
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36279&action=edit
e.c (C-source 2/3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 36278
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36278&action=edit
Bug.c (C-source 1/3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428
Bug ID: 67428
Summary: lto1: fatal error: test.elf.ltrans0.o: section is
missing with -flto -fipa-pta
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67258
Avi Kivity changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@cloudius-systems.com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48244
--- Comment #11 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt ---
> Does this mean that this PR can be closed? If yes, with which resolution?
It is still unresolved. The commited patch requires pr64271 and pr67424 to
be resolved first. I no longer run NetBSD and quite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67427
Bug ID: 67427
Summary: [concepts] Subsumption dependence on template
parameter ordering
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67426
Bug ID: 67426
Summary: Ambiguous overload between different function
templates, where one has non-deduced arg
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67324
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Casey at Carter dot net
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67425
Bug ID: 67425
Summary: -frandom-seed documentation doesn't match code,
incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67424
Bug ID: 67424
Summary: libcilkcrts fails to build on NetBSD
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67423
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |MOVED
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67423
sl at dataconnection dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #4)
> Sorry, I should have linked my patch:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00028.html
AH yes, that would work too, and doesn't require the comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #4)
> I think the your second version doesn't work in case the types are equal, it
> looks similar to my first attempt to fix this which didn't work on Linux.
Ple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber ---
Sorry, I should have linked my patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00028.html
I think the your second version doesn't work in case the types are equal, it
looks similar to my first attemp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67423
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to sl from comment #0)
> If I have a test file consisting of
>
> #include
>
> and I do "gcc -c -O1 ", the compile fails with
>
> /usr/include/printf.h:116:68: error: expected initializer befo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67423
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67423
Bug ID: 67423
Summary: printf.h does not compile with O1 or above
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 36277
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36277&action=edit
Handle recursive mutexes with different types.
Or this, which is probably easier on the compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 36276
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36276&action=edit
Handle recursive mutexes with different types.
Does this work for your target?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I didn't think that code was usable on non-POSIX systems, and for POSIX they
are the same type. I'll see what I can do about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67415
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55115
RGomes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Robert.Gomes at igt dot com
--- Comment #16 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67403
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67405
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Tue Sep 1 14:38:42 2015
New Revision: 227373
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227373&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/67405
* tree-chkp.c (chkp_find_bound_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Sorry, you are right, the compiler should emit an error message
instead it wrongly
accepts the code. I was confused, this time the right behaviour is to
emit an error message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
--- Comment #21 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Great, thanks!
Just a note as you are looking into this,
neither GCC 4.8.x nor GCC 5.2.x produces the optimal code I think for this
case,
isn't it better to load result register r0, instead of go ov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67295
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #1)
> I get exactly the same code with r226900, before the copyrename patch:
>
> cmp r1, #0
> rev16ne r0, r0
> uxthne r0, r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67422
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
--- Comment #20 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #19)
> I'm not sure why bug 59535 was closed, same problem might still exist, quote:
>
> > Zhenqiang Chen 2014-09-03 06:17:44 UTC
> >
> > Here is a small c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert
>> ---
>> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #5)
>> If I drop the __builtin_ and include and instead, I
>> get the expect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
>>> int main (void)
>>> {
>>> long double x;
>>> x = 789.1356;
>>> _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67420
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #5)
> If I drop the __builtin_ and include and instead, I
> get the expected
Then the math.h header is playing tricks and GCC is not aware.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #6 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
>> int main (void)
>> {
>> long double x;
>> x = 789.1356;
>> __builtin_printf ("%.30Lg\n", x);
>> __builtin_printf ("%.30Lg\n", _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
Yes, exactly. When a COMDAT group in another file is chosen, the rs6000
predicate current_file_function_operand gets the wrong answer. COMDAT group
functions use weak symbols, and weak symbols more generally h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert
>> ---
>> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
>>> The result is identical for both the mainline libgfortran.so.3 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
>> The result is identical for both the mainline libgfortran.so.3 and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67422
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> memcpy is not guaranteed to work if the memory locations for a and b overlap,
> which could be the case here.
In Fortran code, they cannot be the same location and if they are then it is
undefined code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> The result is identical for both the mainline libgfortran.so.3 and the
> bundled gcc 4.8 libgfortran.so.3, so this might well be a libm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> Can you run the following test and paste the output here?
[...]
Sure:
16
789.1356201171875
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67422
Bug ID: 67422
Summary: memcpy incorrectly used to copy (potentially)
overlapping assumed-size arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421
Bug ID: 67421
Summary: gcc.dg/wide-shift-64.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67312
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> It seems the old buggy Solaris /bin/sh is the culprit. According to the
>> OpenSolaris s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Sep 1 11:50:19 2015
New Revision: 227367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
XFAIL gfortran.dg/execute_command_line_2.f90 (PR libfortran/67412)
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67031
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67373
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
>> I know, but only on Solaris 12. Also, there's
>> gfortran.dg/large_rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67420
Bug ID: 67420
Summary: gfortran.dg/norm2_3.f90 FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67420
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
Bug ID: 67419
Summary: gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I found it fixed in 5.2.0 and maybe already in 4.8.2
Are you sure of that? I am expecting an error for the test in comment 0, but I
get none with trunk (6.0), 5.2, and 4.8:
[Book15] f90/bug% gfc pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50539
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Fixed by revisions r223321 for trunk (6.0) and r223405 for the 5-branch as
expected for a duplicate of pr66044.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67305
--- Comment #7 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> The predicate here is "neon_permissive_struct_operand", and indeed
> it is _very_ permissive ;-)
>
> This goes through neon_vector_mem_operand(op, 2, false) wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67418
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Thomé ---
ok thanks. Indeed it's more an enhancement request then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67418
Bug ID: 67418
Summary: resolution to constant fails between pointer on stack
and pointer within argument structure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351
--- Comment #8 from hs.naveen2u at gmail dot com ---
Patch that implements the optimization referred by Richard and Andrew.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00014.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
