https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67649
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #10)
> A gave your patch a quick spin on gcc112 (compile farm machine).
> It fixes the issue.
I also tried out the fix and a plain non-bootstrap build
of trun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680
--- Comment #4 from Brian Plummer ---
I had these comments in my message, but they got lost when I added my
attachment.
floatformat.preprocessed.c was created with this command :
Brian@MBPWin7-64 ~/gnu/gcc/gcc-5.2.0/libiberty
$ gcc -E -c -DHAVE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680
--- Comment #3 from Brian Plummer ---
As requested.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680
Brian Plummer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bplummer at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67692
Bug ID: 67692
Summary: [concepts] ICE when using requires in non-concept
contexts
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55815
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67691
Bug ID: 67691
Summary: [SH] Omit zero extension of shift amounds for dynamic
shifts
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67649
--- Comment #12 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #10)
> A gave your patch a quick spin on gcc112 (compile farm machine).
> It fixes the issue.
Thanks, Markus. I committed the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67649
--- Comment #11 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
Author: miyuki
Date: Wed Sep 23 02:31:14 2015
New Revision: 228033
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228033&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix use of valgrind API
gcc/
PR middle-end/67649
* me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> I've just checked, the code is also present in GCC 5. Because of the funny
> side effects even with LRA disabled (this PR) I'd like to backport this to
> the GCC 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67690
--- Comment #1 from Erik Volk ---
Created attachment 36375
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36375&action=edit
full output from gcc -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67690
Bug ID: 67690
Summary: wrong code with -O2 on x86_64/Linux
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55815
--- Comment #5 from felix-glibc at fefe dot de ---
How about you add SipHash and make it selectable at runtime.
Then I can file security bugs against all relevant programs not
selecting it for being vulnerable and glibc has their ass covered
regar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3)
>
> Ugh, those checks look just wrong and I can't remind why I've
> added them. 33707 didn't do that and checked overlapping at
> the split condition only. Perhaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8)
> > Does GCC work at all if input_location is saved and restored in
> > c_parser_peek_token? I guess not
-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150922 (experimental) [trunk revision 228013] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-5.2 -O1 small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c
$ ./a.out
Aborted
$
--
int a, b, c = 1, d, e;
void
fn1 ()
{
e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
> Kaz, do you have any memory of the extra checks? Isn't it enough to just
> accept the addsi3 pattern as "rC = rA + {rB|imm}" and insert the reg-reg
> copy after re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67688
Bug ID: 67688
Summary: [MinGW/Cygwin] Attributes selectany and section cannot
be used together
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36373&action=edit
Proposed patch
Tested on sh-elf, LRA enabled, with make -k check
RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67687
Bug ID: 67687
Summary: [c++0x][constexpr] initialize constexpr member with
constexpr constructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: cri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66755
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67321
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67686
Bug ID: 67686
Summary: [concepts] segfault in finish_call_expr function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66454
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55815
Geoff Pike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gpike at google dot com
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67685
Bug ID: 67685
Summary: ICE on invalid requires expression
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67604
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #33 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to baoshan from comment #32)
> And I think it is not wrong, it's just inaccurate, and it is not making any
> wrong result in running time.
>
> Can you point me how to proceed?
To be honest,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #32 from baoshan ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #30)
> (In reply to baoshan from comment #29)
> > > However, it is clear that _14 = baz[_9] is executed only 5 times (not 5
> > > times + 1). Why is this estimate wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67684
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67684
Bug ID: 67684
Summary: [concepts] friend access not working with constrained
function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65405
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
--- Comment #28 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 36371
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36371&action=edit
Outpout of the reload pass (BAD)
The full output of the reload pass on S/390, showing the behaviour described i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67683
Bug ID: 67683
Summary: Missed vectorization: shifts of an induction variable
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67682
Bug ID: 67682
Summary: Missed vectorization: (another) straight-line
memcpy/memset not vectorized when equivalent loop is
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67667
--- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA ---
Thank you for your quick and clear reply .
Note:
I think that using the same symbol operato as GNU extension for doing two
different things
can be a potential source of blind errors .
I confirm that t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67668
--- Comment #4 from BENAÏSSA ---
Thank you for your quick and clear reply .
Note:
I think that using the same symbol operator for doing two different things
can be a potential source of blind errors.
I confirm that this is only a per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
Bug ID: 67681
Summary: Missed vectorization: induction variable used after
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680
Bug ID: 67680
Summary: Seg Fault in gcc 4.9.3 compiling
libiberty/floatformat.c when building gcc 5.2.1 on
Cygwin 64 on Windows
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67679
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67627
--- Comment #1 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
adding
all-multi: $(libatomic_la_LIBADD)
to libatomic/Makefile.in solves the problem for me,
but i'm not sure what's the automake way of doing
this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 36370
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36370&action=edit
patch for GCC 5
And a patch to add a -Wabi warning to GCC 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 36369
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36369&action=edit
patch
But here's the fix if the committee reaffirms the DR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67679
Bug ID: 67679
Summary: -Wunitialized reports on compiler generated variables
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67671
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67671
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Sep 22 14:14:56 2015
New Revision: 228015
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228015&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle restrict pointer references as restrict in AA
2015-09-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171
>
> --- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64906
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I'm testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65965
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65965
>
> --- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64906
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
int
testf (int f, int s)
{
int ret = 0;
if (f)
ret = s / (f ? (unsigned long) 8 : 0);
return ret;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67671
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65965
--- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Fixed for GCC 6.
Indeed. I note that the same testcase does _not_ SLP/vectorize if I use
consecutive indices:
void
test (int*__restrict a, int*__r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171
> >
> > --- Comment #8 from vries a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67480
Alexander Fomin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67141
--- Comment #7 from Chung-Lin Tang ---
Author: cltang
Date: Tue Sep 22 11:18:23 2015
New Revision: 228011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-22 Chung-Lin Tang
Backport from mainline:
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67480
--- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Tue Sep 22 11:14:25 2015
New Revision: 228010
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228010&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67480
gcc/
* config/i386/sse.md (define_mode_iterator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65782
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171
>
> --- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz ---
This bug got partially fixed for x86 (32-bit) by PR/44282. For x64 we have the
issue that there is made no difference between different calling-conventions,
as all variants are treated as standard fastcall-conv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67678
Bug ID: 67678
Summary: Nested class can be re-declared after definition
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67544
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #31 from Paolo Bonzini ---
Ah, I see now. I think you're right that the DF_REF_MUST_CLOBBER case should
also clear GEN in df_live_bb_local_compute.
However, regarding the "BTW" I am fairly sure now that df_live_bb_local_compute
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou ---
> GEN and KILL are not the same for LR and MIR.
>
> 1) Sets and clobbers are handled differently. A set or clobber of r1
> _kills_ liveness, while for MIR sets _generate_ "initialized-ness" and only
> clob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> I was thinking about sth like
>
> struct X { int i; int * __restrict__ q; };
>
> int foo (X& __restrict__ x, X *p)
> {
> *x.q = 1;
> p->i = 0;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #29 from Paolo Bonzini ---
> While getting familiar with DF problems, I noticed that LIVE's ignores
> the order of GENs and KILLs in basic blocks. In other words, the
> transfer function for: GEN(r1); KILL(r1) is currently the same as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67666
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Sep 22 08:15:32 2015
New Revision: 227996
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227996&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle single restrict pointer in struct in create_variable_info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67666
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67671
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think the patch is reasonable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 67676 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67676
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I was thinking about sth like
struct X { int i; int * __restrict__ q; };
int foo (X& __restrict__ x, X *p)
{
*x.q = 1;
p->i = 0;
return *x.q;
}
int main()
{
X x;
x.q = &x.i;
return foo (x, &x)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66952
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 22 07:47:21 2015
New Revision: 227995
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227995&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-22 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67672
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67622
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Pinged: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg01623.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67677
Bug ID: 67677
Summary: [6 Regression] r226005 causes "Conditional jump or
move depends on uninitialised value(s)"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67666
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from vrie
85 matches
Mail list logo
