https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70408
Bug ID: 70408
Summary: reusing the same call-preserved register would give
smaller code in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #19 from vincenzo Innocente ---
patch applied to
gcc version 6.0.0 20160324 (experimental) [trunk revision 234461] (GCC)
I confirm the improvement in timing for c++ and lto
timing difference between gcc and c++ seems to be inside "e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409
Bug ID: 70409
Summary: Silent truncation of character parameters with
len=huge()
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #2)
> There's a subtle wrong-code problem:
This wrong-code issue is discussed in pr70409.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|c
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 25, 2016 8:42:50 AM GMT+01:00, "vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
>
>--- Comment #19 from vincenzo Innocente ch> ---
>patch ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69603
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #2)
> Possible fix (for the crash), untested:
>
> Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
> ===
> --- gcc/fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69603
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf ---
Proposed patch posted at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-03/msg00059.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Mar 25 09:10:03 2016
New Revision: 234479
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234479&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] PR70052, ICE compiling _Decimal128 test case
gcc/
PR targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70406
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70410
Bug ID: 70410
Summary: no uninitialized variable warning if 'offsetof' is
used in expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70408
--- Comment #2 from Peter Cordes ---
Should I open a separate bug for the reusing call-preserved regs thing, and
retitle this one to the call-reordering issue we ended up talking about here?
I always have a hard time limiting an optimization bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70411
Bug ID: 70411
Summary: Stack overflow with std::regex_match
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70411
--- Comment #1 from Joel Yliluoma ---
Minimal regex that causes the same crash: "^0+ .*"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70405
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
There is difference in _.optimized dump:
--- pr70405.c.211t.optimized2016-03-25 13:54:01.942116037 +0100
+++ pr70405.c.gk.211t.optimized 2016-03-25 13:54:01.968115746 +0100
@@ -107,8 +107,10 @@
_70 = (u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70405
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70412
Bug ID: 70412
Summary: -Wswitch and functions that can only return a small
set of values
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #21 from Patrick Palka ---
To be clear, given the loop
for (int i = 0; i < M; i++) { ... }
The fold_build3 in question was transforming
if (i < M)
fallthrough;
else
goto exit;
to
if (i >= M)
goto exit;
else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #22 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #21)
> The tree dumps do not seem to diverge significantly with and without the
> above patch. The only difference throughout is the inversion of the
> branches.
Was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 38092
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38092&action=edit
Updated patch "hiding" the problem reported in 16
With the attached patch I get
-8pf18.2 y=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70397
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68475
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70403
--- Comment #6 from Hadula, Tomasz ---
Created attachment 38093
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38093&action=edit
Output from gcc -v -save-temps
Generated by g++ -v -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70403
--- Comment #7 from Hadula, Tomasz ---
Created attachment 38094
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38094&action=edit
Preprocessed source generated by gcc -v -save-temps
Unfortunately I had to compress it with gzip as the file s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70406
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Created attachment 38095
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38095&action=edit
Bootstrapped/regtested patch
Will submit to gcc-patches shortly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
--- Comment #23 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hi,
I tried this combination in-tree:
gmp -> gmp-6.1.0
mpfr -> mpfr-3.1.3
mpc -> mpc-1.0.3
isl -> isl-1.15
While I can now reproduce the original problem,
I noticed another anomaly:
make check-mpc fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #37 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Mar 25 16:15:39 2016
New Revision: 234481
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234481&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/69650
* directives.c (do_linemarker): Test for file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70387
--- Comment #3 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
Possibly interesting observation; the exception can be caught when using a
pointer as divisor:
int i = 0;
int* volatile p = &i;
try
{
std::cout << 1 / *p << std::endl;
}
catch (std::exceptio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69415
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62184
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70387
--- Comment #4 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 38096
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38096&action=edit
Test case 2
Generic test case, which doesn't require djgpp or a DOS machine. (Assuming
throwing fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 38097
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38097&action=edit
Patch with correct rounding
With the attached patch I get the expected rounding
...
-6pf18.2 y=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62212
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Is there any reason why the test g++.dg/template/mangle2.C is "dg-do assemble"
and not "dg-do compile"?
This causes
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/template/mangle2.C -std=c++11 scan-assembler
_Z1fIvEvRAsr1XIT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 38098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38098&action=edit
patch
A simple fix is to tell varasm that it's OK to share artificial variables. I'm
not sure what other effec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62212
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> Is there any reason why the test g++.dg/template/mangle2.C is "dg-do
> assemble" and not "dg-do compile"?
>
> This causes
>
> UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/templat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62212
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Fri Mar 25 18:21:44 2016
New Revision: 234482
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234482&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Adjust dg-do directive in mangle2.C
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70413
Bug ID: 70413
Summary: Class template names in anonymous namespaces are not
globally unique
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70414
Bug ID: 70414
Summary: Function declaration in other scope: type safety
violation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70414
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #1 from Andr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70275
Kevin Tucker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kevin-tucker at cox dot net
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 25 21:29:26 2016
New Revision: 234484
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234484&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64266
PR c++/70353
Core issue 1962
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 25 21:29:26 2016
New Revision: 234484
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234484&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64266
PR c++/70353
Core issue 1962
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 70353, which changed state.
Bug 70353 Summary: [5/6 regression] ICE on __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ in a constexpr
function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 38100
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38100&action=edit
Another patch with correct rounding
> While I think the handling of nafter < 0 is correct, it is probab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70415
Bug ID: 70415
Summary: -Wa options should be passed to LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70120
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Mar 25 23:37:13 2016
New Revision: 234486
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234486&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-25 Richard Henderson
PR target/70120
* config/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70120
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #19)
> Created attachment 38100 [details]
> Another patch with correct rounding
>
> > While I think the handling of nafter < 0 is correct, it is probably
> > a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64372
hs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hs at xmission dot com
--- Comment #8 from hs ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki dot fi
--- Comment #18 from Ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70411
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70031
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70389
--- Comment #2 from Bob Meyers ---
Does the most recent C spec actually say that short unsigned ints should be
promoted to signed ints prior to a left shift? (But somehow "x++" just
increments the short unsigned int x with no such implicit conver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
62 matches
Mail list logo
