http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60507
Bug ID: 60507
Summary: Passing real expression into procedure argument not
caught
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
basic_block bbb = gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (oea->op));
in the patch contains a pasto, which I guess can explain most if not all the
-fcompare-debug failures. That said, thinking more about it, there st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
>
> --- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu ---
> This patch avoids removing preheader when optimi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32338
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32338&action=edit
gcc49-pr60418.patch
New version of the patch, going to bootstrap/regtest it momentarily. H.J.,
could you please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60482
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 12 09:15:08 2014
New Revision: 208506
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208506&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/60482
* tree-vrp.c (register_edge_assert_for_1): Don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60502
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 12 09:21:59 2014
New Revision: 208507
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208507&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/60502
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (eliminate_not_pairs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60501
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #0)
...
> no lra:
> 4982a6: eb e6 00 01 00 df sllk%r14,%r6,1
...
> lra:
> 49823e: eb 9e 00 01 00 df sllk%r9,%r14,1 <-- cc set
...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60501
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Do you have a testcase?
I've tried for a while to reduce one but failed. Only under rare circumstances
GCC seems to be able to reuse the cc from the first comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60454
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 12 10:15:29 2014
New Revision: 208509
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208509&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/60454
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (find_bswap_1): Fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60482
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
--- Comment #7 from bin.cheng ---
The problem has nothing to do with VRP, and might be a missed opportunity of
jump threading.
The dump after VRP but before jump threading at the end of VRP is like:
...
:
goto ;
...
:
# kill_elt_3 = P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58424
--- Comment #2 from bin.cheng ---
Yes, It works for below combination of options:
-mthumb -mcpu=cortex-m4
-mthumb/-marm -march=armv7-a/-mcpu=cortex-a7
But still happens for:
-mthumb -mcpu=cortex-m3
-mthumb/-marm
-mcpu=cortex-a7/-mcpu=corte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60482
--- Comment #7 from Yvan Roux ---
Thanks for the quick fix Jakub.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60508
Bug ID: 60508
Summary: internal compiler error: in lra_set_insn_recog_data,
at lra.c:1082
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60264
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:31:19 2014
New Revision: 208511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-12 Christian Bruel
PR target/60264
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60264
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60509
Bug ID: 60509
Summary: Passing an array of derived type gives wrong
boundaries when using 'class'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60508
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60501
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60501
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60508
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The #c29 patch now passed bootstrap/regtest on x86_64-linux and i686-linux.
So, if it also fixes 435.gromacs on -mx32, I'll submit it to gcc-patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60501
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #2)
> > Bootstrap with -mzarch -m31 -march=zEC12 as defaults passed. 108 testsuite
> > fails got fixed.
>
> So are you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60508
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58880
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60507
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59779
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59308
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60510
Bug ID: 60510
Summary: SLP blocks loop vectorization (with reduction)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60196
--- Comment #1 from Роман Донченко ---
Here's another reproducer for what looks like the same problem:
#include
static const short a[8] = {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1};
static const unsigned char b[8] = {0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0};
static int foo()
{
int sum =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57189
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60510
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Summary|[4.9 Regression] sl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> Created attachment 32338 [details]
> gcc49-pr60418.patch
>
> New version of the patch, going to bootstrap/regtest it momentarily. H.J.,
> could you please check if t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60196
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60507
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438
--- Comment #33 from Richard Henderson ---
It sounds like inhibiting this stack combining would affect more
32-bit code than I'd like.
I don't like the idea of REG_ARGS_SIZE_DELTA. The reason I went
with absolute values in the first place for RE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #33)
> It sounds like inhibiting this stack combining would affect more
> 32-bit code than I'd like.
>
> I don't like the idea of REG_ARGS_SIZE_DELTA. The reason
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60511
Bug ID: 60511
Summary: [C++1y][N3652] Missing extended constexpr function
support
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #31 from David Kredba ---
Calligra-2.8.0 is now affected too with revision
/var/tmp/portage/app-office/calligra-2.8.0/temp/ccAMiINB.ltrans1.ltrans.o: In
function `operator<':
/var/tmp/portage/app-office/calligra-2.8.0/work/calligra-2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #32 from David Kredba ---
208516
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
Bug ID: 60512
Summary: would be useful if gcc implemented __has_feature
similary to clang
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
http://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test-recommendations
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>So while GCC doesn't support C++11 attributes yet
Wrong, it does support them, in fact for a while now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #3 from Evan Teran ---
@Andrew,
I hadn't seen that they were supported, I stand corrected. However that
particular feature was for example purposes. Any unsupported feature would do.
@Marc,
A quick read of that page shows a pretty g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Evan Teran from comment #3)
> Any unsupported feature would do.
All the core features are at least partially supported, only some ABI-breaking
library changes have been postponed.
> A quick read o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59392
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 32341
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32341&action=edit
A patch
This patch sets ix86_tls_descriptor_calls_expanded_in_cfun after
reload is complete and checks it for stack bou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60270
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Another problem:
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ cat /tmp/c.i
static __thread char ccc;
void* __cxa_get_globals()
{
return &ccc;
}
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -S -O2 -fPIC /tmp/c.i
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ cat /tmp/c.i
static __thr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59392
--- Comment #4 from roland at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: roland
Date: Wed Mar 12 22:42:13 2014
New Revision: 208519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208519&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59392: Fix ARM EABI uncaught throw from unexpected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59392
--- Comment #5 from roland at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: roland
Date: Wed Mar 12 22:44:09 2014
New Revision: 208520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208520&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59392: Fix ARM EABI uncaught throw from unexpected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59392
roland at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48316
davidxl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59779
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 12-Mar-14, at 9:55 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can't reproduce this with a cross-compiler to hppa-unknown-linux on
> current
> trunk:
Could this be a HOST_WIDE_INT issue? I see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60513
Bug ID: 60513
Summary: False positive "division by zero" warning in
unreachable code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xzfcpw+gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60513
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57425
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58622
Kugan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kuganv at linaro dot org
--- Comment #2 from Kuga
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #42 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Mar 13 05:06:57 2014
New Revision: 208528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-12 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/38199
* io/read.c (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59727
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60454
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59727
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The patch committed as shown in comment #42 of pr38199 appears to fix this one
incidentally. Regarding comment 5, I am still not sure the code is valid, but I
do agree there is no reason to give an error eithe
74 matches
Mail list logo
