https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68110
--- Comment #3 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> So the question is does anyone use this function without "a - b" later on?
Not that I know of. The usual pattern for callers of the Gnulib macro is to use
the mac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68110
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the question is does anyone use this function without "a - b" later on? If
not then it is just a microbenchmark of this code is showing the regression and
I would say the microbenchmark is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68110
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64*-* i686-*-*
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68110
Bug ID: 68110
Summary: __builtin_sub_overflow unsigned performance issue
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68109
Bug ID: 68109
Summary: GCC fails to vectorize popcount on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68095
--- Comment #1 from David ---
On further reflection, perhaps the best solution is even simpler.
It is my understanding that the "cc" clobber is redundant. Internally, the
flags are clobbered whether you set this or not. And I can't see how thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:01:37AM +, juergen.reuter at desy dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
>
> --- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
> Done,
> https://gcc.gnu.org/b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:01:37AM +, juergen.reuter at desy dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
>
> --- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
> Done,
> https://gcc.gnu.org/b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Done,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
Bug ID: 68108
Summary: [6.0 regression] erroneous error message 'scalar
integer expression expected'
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
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=65441
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Tue Oct 27 00:41:31 2015
New Revision: 229401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libffi/65441
* testsuite/lib/libffi.exp: Load tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Tue Oct 27 00:39:32 2015
New Revision: 229400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libffi/65441
* testsuite/lib/libffi.exp: Load tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> > VLA size overflow, however, is undefined behavior at runtime, not compile
> > time, hence a matter for ubsan.
>
> VLA size overfl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68107
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
grokdeclarator seems to check the declared size of an array (when
processing an array declarator) - that is, the size counted in array
elements - and then has a separate check for the size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2015-10-27 02:27, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
>
> --- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com> ---
> On Mon, 26 Oct 201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68107
Bug ID: 68107
Summary: Non-VLA type whose size is half or more of the address
space constructed via a pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #15 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Here it it:
{{{
module lexers
implicit none
private
type :: template_t
private
character(256) :: charset1
integer :: len1
end type template_t
contains
subroutine match_quoted (tt,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> The core issue is an overflow in size computations which is not limited to
> VLA.
> You can as easily get a crash with non-VLA-arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #14 from Jürgen Reuter ---
These changes seem to break our code. Will provide an example in a minute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68106
Bug ID: 68106
Summary: c-c++-common/torture/builtin-arith-overflow-11.c FAILs
with -flra-remat @ aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
--- Comment #7 from Reid Kleckner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Because symbol size is part of the ABI, and LLVM emits different symbol size
> between -fsanitize=address and -fno-sanitize=address.
> E.g. COPY relocations use t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
--- Comment #30 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #29)
>
>
> Ho hum. Sorry, Vlad, if I'd bothered bootstrapping I'd have seen this
> myself.
> Please change != to < in the patch to re-try. (That is, allow th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63346
--- Comment #3 from Peter Seiderer ---
Created attachment 36593
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36593&action=edit
Reduces test case from xserver_xorg-server-1.17.2/fb/fbpict.c
Reduced (but not yet minimal) test case from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68105
Bug ID: 68105
Summary: optimizing repeated floating point addition to
multiplication
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2)
> This seems like a matter for -fsanitize=undefined
UBSAN is intended to help with invalid programs but this code looks like valid.
Hence diagnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68104
Bug ID: 68104
Summary: ice in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66056
lkrupp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66056
--- Comment #6 from lkrupp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: lkrupp
Date: Mon Oct 26 19:18:08 2015
New Revision: 229390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-26 Louis Krupp
PR fortran/66056
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
--- Comment #29 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #27)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #25)
> > So it would be nice to benchmark it. I'll try to do this on
> > Friday.
>
> Practically every SPEC2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67885
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Jonathan Ben-Avraham from comment #3)
> (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #2)
> > I actually believe this is a dup of PR66977, that was fixed by Marek quite
> > time ago. Could you try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1)
> The gcc developers do not use crosstool, so providing us with a config for
> it is of no help. Furthermore, un-preprocessed source means we are unlikel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham ---
(In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #2)
> I actually believe this is a dup of PR66977, that was fixed by Marek quite
> time ago. Could you try trunk compiler?
"trunk compiler"? As in SVN trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68103
Bug ID: 68103
Summary: Unnecessary copying due to order of evaluation with
operator new
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68101
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Fuka ---
Definitely similar, but the link is about failure to align to the required
alignment for that datatype.
This feature request is about higher than required alignment for performance
reasons (SIMD vectorizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68088
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2015-10-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE|[5/6 Regression] ICE for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36192
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Oct 26 17:39:07 2015
New Revision: 229387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-26 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/36192
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63469
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
This is now fixed on trunk and 5 branch by the patch for PR67177 and 67977. I
will see later on if they apply cleanly to 4.9 branch. If so, I will commit.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67977
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67177
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67977
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 26 17:25:03 2015
New Revision: 229386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-26 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/67177
PR fortran/67977
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67177
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 26 17:25:03 2015
New Revision: 229386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-26 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/67177
PR fortran/67977
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68102
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68102
Bug ID: 68102
Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE: RTL check: expected code 'reg',
have 'subreg' in rhs_regno, at rtl.h:1782 with
float64x1_t @ aarch64
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Reid Kleckner from comment #5)
> (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #4)
> > This happens because in LLVM case ASan changes symbols size ('f' in our
> > case) and just breaks ABI for the li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Above are the before-and-after vectorization dumps. I haven't looked at them
in any detail myself yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 36590
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36590&action=edit
Vectorization dump for r229172
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 36589
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36589&action=edit
Vectorization dump for r229171
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65437
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66518
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65437
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon Oct 26 16:24:17 2015
New Revision: 229378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/65437, libgomp/66518] Initialize runtime in acc_update_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66518
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon Oct 26 16:24:17 2015
New Revision: 229378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/65437, libgomp/66518] Initialize runtime in acc_update_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66518
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon Oct 26 16:24:28 2015
New Revision: 229379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[libgomp/66518] Resolve XFAIL in libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/lib-3.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68101
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
Reid Kleckner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rnk at google dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68072
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
@comment 2
I can't see anything special that the file does:
-- secp256.go --
package secp256k1
/*
#cgo CFLAGS: -I./secp256k1
...
#include "./secp256k1/src/secp256k1.c"
*/
import "C"
-- END --
Then in
-- s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68101
Bug ID: 68101
Summary: Provide a way to allocate arrays aligned to 32 bytes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68072
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 36588
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36588&action=edit
Experimental fix
The attached patch fixes the problem for us by skipping DW_TAG_variable DWARF
info that only co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68072
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
This is not a known bug. I wonder what is special about this package that it
causes it to happen? I don't see anything new in GCC related to
DW_AT_specification.
I think the place to fix in the Go sourc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68072
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
It seems that the DWARF library is unable to handle DW_AT_specification:
-- snip --
<1><7b4>: Abbrev Number: 27 (DW_TAG_variable)
<7b5> DW_AT_specification: <0x8b>
<7b9> DW_AT_decl_file : 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68055
--- Comment #5 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Sorry for answering late, but most of the time I am "offline"
from several streams.
Up to now I'm using mostly precompiled/configured packages from
SUSE, currently gcc version 5.2.1 (+r228597). For s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68013
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68013
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Oct 26 15:36:04 2015
New Revision: 229375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] [PR tree-optimization/68013] Make sure first block in FSM path
is i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68100
Bug ID: 68100
Summary: runtime segfault ARM boost::regex_replace
-fsanitize=undefined member access within misaligned
address
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68013
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67443
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 26 15:24:45 2015
New Revision: 229372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-26 Richard Biener
Dominik Vogt
PR middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Oct 26 14:36:43 2015
New Revision: 229367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Also remap SSA_NAMEs of PARM_DECLs in IPA-SRA
2015-10-26 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
For the record, the patch got into trunk as revision r228654, I made a
mistake in the ChangeLog tag and so it did not appear here. I am
about to backport it to gcc 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67528
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> AFAICT this PR is fixed after revision r229303.
Well, this is not true with -O and above. If i compile the code with '-O0
-fsanitize=address,undefined' I get at run time
pr67528.f90:17: runtime err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
Bug ID: 68099
Summary: arm-*-linux-gnueabihf -fsanitize=undefined warning:
'' is used uninitialized in this function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #13 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Oct 26 13:03:22 2015
New Revision: 229353
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229353&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2015-10-26 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65251
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #3)
> Adrian, any updates on this issue?
One of the buildds is currently building a fresh gcc-5 snapshot. We'll just
have to wait another 2 days, then I'll rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo ---
Adrian, any updates on this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65251
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
Adrian, any updates on this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68067
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so we transform a - (b - c) to (c - b) + a, that's invalid of course. This
also started with GCC 4.3.0.
negate_expr_p has
case MINUS_EXPR:
/* We can't turn -(A-B) into B-A when we honor sign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968
--- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt ---
We cannot reproduce the crash on x86_64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #6)
> This commit (r229172) caused a vectorization failure for POWER:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-62.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times
> vect "vectorized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68067
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13423
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
See also PR 68091
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68090
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68091
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68094
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Please attach preprocessed source for the testcase and the output of appending
-v to the compiler-command.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68096
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68091
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Oct 26 11:30:11 2015
New Revision: 229336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[config/sh/sh.c] Fix PR68091: Return false for non shmedia targets in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
--- Comment #4 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Actualy, LLVM is not better here (perhaps even worse). Consider the following
testcase (it's the same Jakub provided in PR63888):
max@max:/tmp$ cat libfoo.c
long f = 4;
long foo (long *p) {
return *p;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947
--- Comment #7 from Alan Hayward ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #6)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-1.c (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-1.c (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /opt/gcc/gcc-20151024/gcc/test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
If we are generalizing VRP, how about vectors? A single interval per vector
would be enough for most of the benefit.
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
