https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79291
--- Comment #5 from Doug Gilmore ---
> Bin: I suspect this is also now broken on ARM, can
> you check?
Oops, sorry I forgot that this problem is not exposed
on the original ARM/Neon for DP. Sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79291
--- Comment #4 from Doug Gilmore ---
> It also looks like mips lacks implementation of any of the
> vectorizer cost hooks and thus defaults to
> default_builtin_vectorization_cost which means that unaligned
> loads/stores have double cost.
I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78176
--- Comment #20 from Doug Gilmore ---
I'll collect more tracing data on the costing problem.
Hopefully I post an update in the next few days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|mistakenly rejects valid|mistakenly rejects valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79312
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=79329
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66144
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78604
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|pthaugen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79286
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
Summary|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79327
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79158
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:17:26PM +, pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Mike, Does this reasoning sound correct to you? If so I'll submit a patch.
That looks fine. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79281
--- Comment #14 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Could you maybe also backport the fix for PR/79037? [1]
Done.
> Btw, even with the fixes from this PR/79281 and PR/79037, the "go" command is
> still crashing on m68k with gcc-6. It might be possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79037
--- Comment #14 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Feb 1 23:35:59 2017
New Revision: 245110
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245110&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/79037
Backport from mainline:
compiler, run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79281
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #11)
> GCC 7 will require a different fix, as the code has moved from C to Go. I'm
> not sure what the best approach is.
Btw, even with the fixes from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79281
--- Comment #12 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #11)
> Thanks. I committed the patch to the GCC 6 branch.
>
> GCC 7 will require a different fix, as the code has moved from C to Go. I'm
> not sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79197
--- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski ---
With gcc-7.0.1-0.4.fc26, we no longer get ICEs, but hdf5, openblas fail their
tests on ppc64le, and python2/numpy appears to segfault in tests. So something
does not appear to be right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79281
--- Comment #11 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks. I committed the patch to the GCC 6 branch.
GCC 7 will require a different fix, as the code has moved from C to Go. I'm
not sure what the best approach is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79281
--- Comment #10 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Feb 1 22:58:43 2017
New Revision: 245109
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245109&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/79281
Force Lock and Note to be aligned to a 4 byte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79331
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79325
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79332
Bug ID: 79332
Summary: Several bugs related to translation in gcc
7.1-b20170101
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70012
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79294
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70012
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Feb 1 22:11:57 2017
New Revision: 245108
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245108&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-01 Bill Schmidt
PR target/70012
* gcc.dg/vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79193
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 40649
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40649&action=edit
patch to use "hello, world" to test linking
The attached patch is sufficient to cause a link failure
,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.1 20170201 (experimental) [trunk revision 245083] (GCC)
$
$ icc -c -std=c++14 small.cpp
$ clang++ -c -std=c++14 small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -c -std=c++14 small.cpp
small.cpp: In lambda function:
small.cpp:9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79312
--- Comment #2 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz ---
Another manifestation of this bug:
program emptyarray6
implicit none
logical,allocatable:: OK(:)
OK = [logical::]==[real::]
print *,OK
end program emptyarray6
compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79309
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Feb 1 21:36:09 2017
New Revision: 245107
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245107&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/79309
* adaint.c (__gnat_killprocesstree): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79308
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #4 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79330
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79309
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79315
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79315
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Fixed and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu so closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79309
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Feb 1 20:36:23 2017
New Revision: 245103
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245103&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/79309
* adaint.c (__gnat_killprocesstree): Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79296
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 40648
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40648&action=edit
reduced testcase
trying to mangle a lambda but asserting that it has linkage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79330
Bug ID: 79330
Summary: gfortran 5.4.0/6.3.0/7.0.0 misinterpret type of
character literal bind(C,name=...)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79295
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79308
--- Comment #3 from bjhend ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Confirmed, all releases I have ICE (4.5.0+).
Hi Martin,
thanks for confirmation. You also added the keyword ice-on-INvalid-code, but I
think the code is valid.
The C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69959
Roger Pack changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rogerpack2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79287
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79312
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79295
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Yes, bcdadd requires all of its arguments to be altivec registers.
However, the pattern below is wrong:
(define_insn "bcd"
[(set (match_operand:V1TI 0 "register_operand" "")
(unspec:V1TI [(matc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79329
Bug ID: 79329
Summary: bogus operator delete access check during
instantiation of new-expression
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79327
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79113
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79296
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79077
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-01-11 00:00:00 |2017-2-1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79327
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79327
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79328
Bug ID: 79328
Summary: Wshadow and lambda captures
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #38 from Dominik Vogt ---
Finally, the total between after the last and before the first patch. Overall,
some tests gain some performance and others lose some. The total number of
instructions has grown somewhat (especially tonto, c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78663
--- Comment #7 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 40646
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40646&action=edit
Fix 2
Iain, could you test the following patch? This one is likely to be applied
upstream.
As a side note, LL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #37 from Dominik Vogt ---
r244260 vs. r244256 (comment 25)
---
run-old.resultrun-new.result
f410.bwaves 1.27s1.27s ( 0.00%, 0.00% )
f41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #36 from Dominik Vogt ---
r244207 vs. r244206 (comment 24)
---
run-old.resultrun-new.result
f410.bwaves 1.27s1.27s ( 0.00%, 0.00% )
f41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #35 from Dominik Vogt ---
r244167 vs. r244166 (comment 21)
---
run-old.resultrun-new.result
f410.bwaves 1.27s1.27s ( 0.00%, 0.00% )
f41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #34 from Dominik Vogt ---
Some Spec2006 results on s390x (zEC12) for the files:
r243995 vs. r243994 (comment 14)
---
run-old.resultrun-new.result
f410.bwaves
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79327
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
-fdump-tree-printf-return-value2-alias shows
# RANGE [11, 19] NONZERO 31
range for 'e' which is wrong, it should be [5, 19].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We get reports like this every few months, and nobody ever uses -ftime-report
before filing a bug. I think something in the -v output would be useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79327
Bug ID: 79327
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -ftree-printf-return
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have, and it doesn't make much difference:
175800 gcc48.so
608280 gcc49.so
1159624 gcc5-cow.so
1176296 gcc6-cow-gc.so
1176296 gcc6-cow.so
1180400 gcc6-g
/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.1 20170201 (experimental) [trunk revision 245083] (GCC)
$
$ clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79325
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on valid C++ code on|ICE on valid GNU C++ code
gcc version 7.0.1 20170201 (experimental) [trunk revision 245079] (GCC)
$
$ g++-4.7 -c small.cpp
$ clang++ -c small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -c small.cpp
small.cpp:3:27: internal compiler error: in arg_assoc_type, at
cp/name-lookup.c:5823
__typeof__ (f (foo < int >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Have you tried linking with -Wl,--gc-sections ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79317
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79318
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems to be http://wg21.link/cwg1726
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79324
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 1 15:47:52 2017
New Revision: 245097
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245097&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/79324
* gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/align-1.c: Add -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79313
--- Comment #5 from Michael Levy ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #3)
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:37:52AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> A 3rd alternative is change your declaration in the subroutine to
>
> integer, exter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
We already output one if you use -ftime-report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79321
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I ran with =31 on aarch64 and ref was working. Maybe it is only test input
> is a problem.
I can confirm that, ref.pl is fine. It doesn't call fork (breakpoint at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
--- Comment #6 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Would it be sensible to put an extra line to the output of 'gcc/g++ -v' if the
slow checks are enabled, which just states this fact / warns about (possibly
mentioning the use of --enable-checking=re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78176
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
I agree with the comments that this (if at all) needs to be fixed at RTL
expansion time where we already do quite some "hacks" for sizetype
in POINTER_PLUS_EXPR context:
case POINTER_PLUS_EXPR:
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79321
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I ran with =31 on aarch64 and ref was working. Maybe it is only test input is a
problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79321
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78958
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 40620 [details]
> Preliminary patch
> The attached patch fixes the issue at least on x86_64-linux and the sanitizer
> does not report any further issues. Please test.
Confirmed o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79324
Bug ID: 79324
Summary: The tests introduced at revision r245052 fail on
darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49974
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
We currently warn on all the examples involving X, with -O2. We don't for Y, we
might if there was a caller and the dangling reference was used there...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79307
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, yes thank you!
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 49974 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49974
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven.spark at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79321
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79321
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79321
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79321
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79300
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79307
--- Comment #4 from Szikra ---
> This is bug 44974.
>
> > Possible duplicate of bug #44859 or bug #51270.
>
> Looks more like bug 49974 to me.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 44974 ***
Hi you are right, my first example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69866
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Is affected just the arm-none-eabi target, or are any others?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79281
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glaubitz at physik dot
fu-be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79281
--- Comment #8 from James Clarke ---
Created attachment 40645
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40645&action=edit
Proposed fix
I believe this patch is what Adrian did; Adrian, can you please confirm?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79272
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79272
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Feb 1 14:04:38 2017
New Revision: 245095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add dg-require-alias to a ICF test (PR testsuite/79272).
2017-02-01 Mart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79321
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
And running with OMP_NUM_LIMIT=1 works fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79321
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79320
--- Comment #2 from Daniel WEIL ---
OK. I log the issue on mingw bugs : https://sourceforge.net/p/mingw/bugs/2337/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79281
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
It sounds like you have a patch for GCC 6. If you send it in I can apply it.
The error you show must be from `make -j`, as compiling a file in libgfortran
would not invoke go1. What is the actual failur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79317
--- Comment #1 from ggoeckel at presby dot edu ---
My error. Sorry. Double precision entered with this assignment.
lntwo=6.9314718055994530941723212145817446e-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Comment #63 from Richard Biener ---
Sth that could pay off with other testcases (nested CONSTRUCTORs) is to
truncate the size of the CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS vec<> to the exact final size after
parsing it
as it will never grow again and we over-alloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Comment #62 from Richard Biener ---
Main issue is still for GCC:
Kind Nodes Bytes
constants1630852 39140573
integer_cst 1630844
c/c-typeck.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71142
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 71142, which changed state.
Bug 71142 Summary: [6/7 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault in ssa_default_def
(graphite)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71142
What|Removed |Ad
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
