https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64041
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63905
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Nov 24 08:36:32 2014
New Revision: 218001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218001&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-24 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/63905
* cp-tree.h (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63905
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
>
> --- Comment #15 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I wonder whether the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28367
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, something along that line would be needed. The issue is that
the partial value is not "available" (as in: it doesn't have a SSA name)
and thus there is nothing to CSE the load to.
I suppose that we s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64013
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #44 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 24 09:24:26 2014
New Revision: 218004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218004&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-24 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/55334
* fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #45 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 24 09:24:50 2014
New Revision: 218005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-24 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/55334
* fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64042
Bug ID: 64042
Summary: FAIL: boehm-gc.c/gctest.c -O2 execution test
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64042
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
configure line:
...
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
/home/vries/gcc_versions/data/test-devel-oacc-11/with/src/configure
--prefix=/home/vries/gcc_versions/data/test-devel-oacc-11/wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64042
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Googling the sigsegv site GC_typed_mark_proc finds these threads, which may be
related:
- http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/gc/2010-March/003796.html
- http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64012
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Isn't that just because in C++ empty structs are forced by the FE into
> having length of one byte?
Yes, of course.
> I mean, if you:
> struct S {};
> int a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
Bug ID: 64043
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) with LTO: in
tree_check/tree.h:2758
get_binfo_at_offset/tree.c:11914
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64042
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I run into this failure once.
I meant: I run into this failure once in a while.
It's sort of reproducible. In running the testcase a thousand times, it
triggered 3 times:
...
Segfault at 0x7f088
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63968
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63968
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Nov 24 10:25:06 2014
New Revision: 218006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218006&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/63968
* bb-reorder.c (find_traces_1_round): decreate_key i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
Bug ID: 64044
Summary: Java emits bogus .class$ decls
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Simple patch to reproduce the issue:
Index: gcc/gimple-fold.c
===
--- gcc/gimple-fold.c (revision 218005)
+++ gcc/gimple-fold.c (working c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aph at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Suggested fix:
Index: gcc/java/class.c
===
--- gcc/java/class.c(revision 218005)
+++ gcc/java/class.c(working copy)
@@ -1084,8 +1084,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63938
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63938
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61021
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thus we should have this already in GCC trunk. Does it still fail to build
there?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, aph at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
>
> Andrew Haley changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63856
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64039
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64039
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64039
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 24 11:07:23 2014
New Revision: 218011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-24 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/64039
* gcc.dg/tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64038
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI, wrong-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64033
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu |hppa-unknown-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #17 from Tejas Belagod ---
> -
> /* Do a block move either if the size is so small as to make
> each individual move a sub-unit move on average, or if it
> -is so large as to make individual moves in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64031
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64015
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
By the way, this ICE manifests when building perlbmk in SPEC2006
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64026
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64025
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, aph at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
> >
> > Andrew Haley changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64017
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
That sounds like sth sensible. Note that I'd put that test into gcc/configure
as there you can perform link tests even to an in-tree compiled ISL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64026
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
--- Comment #21 from Rohit ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #20)
> The commits from comments #16 and #17 broke the compiler (and bootstrap) on
> powerpc-apple-darwin9: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63703
Sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64028
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
>
> --- Comment #17 from Tejas Belagod ---
> > -
> > /* Do a block move eithe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64045
Bug ID: 64045
Summary: fortran.dg/pr45636.f90 fails for AArch64 - memcpy and
memset are not combined
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64045
--- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Look at gcc/tree-ssa-fwprop.c:1650
/* If the new memcpy wouldn't be emitted by storing the literal
by pieces, this optimization might enlarge .rodata too much,
as commonly u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64020
--- Comment #2 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For reference, both at -O3, based on r217939:
./cc1 of
#include
int
test_of_builtin_trig (double theta)
{
return 2 * sin (theta) * cos (theta);
}
generates:
test_of_builtin_trig:
.LFB3:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #19 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #16)
> Certainly removing the alignment is not going to fly - we'd generate
> very bad code for strict-align targets for initializing packed
> stru
g the first ldr instruction to an ldar
in this case). Full AArch64 assembly listings below.
I've also written a blog post on this subject in the hope of clarifying the
issue for anyone determined enough to make sense of it:
http://preshing.com/20141124/fixing-gccs-implementation-of-memory_ord
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #21 from Dominik Vogt ---
With today's HEAD, the ICE in libgo is gone (s390x). Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #7 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to bin.cheng from comment #6)
> Em, is offset valid for [reg+offset] addressing mode? if it is, why don't we
> transform "reg+reg+offset" into "regX <- reg + reg; [regX + offset];"?
that's because for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
>
> --- Comment #19 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to rguent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63661
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin.li at arm dot com
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #8 from Jiong Wang ---
while above associate virtual_stack_var_rtx with constant offset actually cause
another hidding issue.
I assume after the association, we are generating cleaner insn sequences.
given the following testcase
vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #9 from Jiong Wang ---
To summary, given the following testcases:
case A.C
===
void bar(int i)
{
char A[10];
g(A);
f(A[i]);
}
case B.c
===
void bar(int i)
{
char A[10];
char B[10];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64046
Bug ID: 64046
Summary: Malformed .eh_frame generated with LTO, gold and LTO
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63965
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63942
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Nov 24 12:49:08 2014
New Revision: 218016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63942
* mangle.c (mangle_decl): If we aren't going to crea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64047
Bug ID: 64047
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault when compiling
gcc.dg/torture/pr52429.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64047
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61925
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to fail|4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62238
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62265
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc*-sun-solaris2.*, |sparc*-sun-solaris2.*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
--- Comment #22 from fxcoudert at gmail dot com ---
> Sorry. The "REGISTER_NAMES" macro that was updated in "rs6000.h" file gets
> redefined in "darwin.h" file. I can provide the required patch, but I don't
> have a darwin machine to test the cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64048
Bug ID: 64048
Summary: UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/peel-1.c scan-rtl-dump
loop2_unroll
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63184
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63256
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63288
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #7)
> The test was not failing on Linux x86-64 nor x86-32. I sent pre-processed
> testcase from AIX that Jason was able to reproduce on Linux. But the fix did
> not so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
Bug ID: 64049
Summary: Wrong code at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 34090
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34090&action=edit
ValueHelper1.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 34091
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34091&action=edit
ValueHelper2.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63311
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 34092
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34092&action=edit
ValueHelper.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63313
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
