https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78772
--- Comment #7 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #5)
Hi Markus,
> These optimizations are not dangerous if you use standard conforming code.
I think these optimizations are dangerous because t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
Markus Eisenmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meisenmann.lba@fh-salzburg.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77905
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 13 08:48:45 2016
New Revision: 243596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/77905
* ipa-pure-const.c (cdtor_p): Return true for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
--- Comment #7 from Markus Eisenmann ---
Hi!
My motivation to use/implement this patch (comment #6) is to prevent using
malloc to allocate the needed emergency-buffer region, if the needed overall
size is bellow a (configurable) limit; e.g., emb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |7.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78731
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78731
>
> Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78742
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 13 09:17:42 2016
New Revision: 243598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-13 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/78742
* tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78699
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 13 09:19:19 2016
New Revision: 243599
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78699
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78742
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78699
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78788
Bug ID: 78788
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE (segfault) on s390x-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48361
Luca Ingianni changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luca at ingianni dot eu
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|6.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77933
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Dec 13 09:39:02 2016
New Revision: 243600
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243600&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR77933: stack corruption on ARM when using high registers and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78789
Bug ID: 78789
Summary: Error: no such instruction: `aesenc %xmm0,%xmm2' when
compiling libgo/runtime/aeshash.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77933
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48361
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18438
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Maxim Kuvyrkov from comment #9)
> I've looked into another case where inability to handle stores with gaps
> generates sub-optimal code. I'm interested in spending some time on fixing
> this,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78790
Bug ID: 78790
Summary: Disable IPA-VRP for noclone functions.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78684
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |fortran
--- Comment #5 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78774
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78786
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
With "%.*f", the problem comes from GMP (and possibly glibc) since MPFR calls
the GMP functions to handle non-MPFR format specifiers.
But the patch seems to use "%.*Rf", for which I cannot reproduce the pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78775
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78787
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59874
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Allan Jensen from comment #5)
> This is more problematic to fix in Qt itself. How can we determine if we
> should/can use __builtin_clzs or __lzcnt16?
>
> Note the former is practically standard b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please send patches to the libstdc++@ and gcc-patches@ mailing lists, rather
than attaching them to closed bugs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/appendix_contributing.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78788
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Found new range for msgcnt_138: [-2147483646, +INF]
Found new range for msgcnt_228: [-2147483646, +INF]
Found new range for msgcnt_172: [-INF, 2147483645]
Found new range for msgcnt_138: [-2147483646, +INF(O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78791
Bug ID: 78791
Summary: [7.0 regression] ACATS cxf2001 failure
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78791
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
> ACATS cxf2001 fails on 32-bit x86 because Double_Divide of s-arit64.adb is
> miscompiled at -O2 by the STV pass. Self-contained testcase to be attached.
AFAICS the issue is the management of stack slots b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78788
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Index: gcc/tree-vrp.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vrp.c (revision 243599)
+++ gcc/tree-vrp.c (working copy)
@@ -365,10 +365,6 @@ set_value_range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78792
Bug ID: 78792
Summary: gfortran + gcov confused by #line directive
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78779
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Same thing a few lines further down in the same file:
trunk/libgcc/soft-fp/op-common.h:913:10: warning: this statement may fall
through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
Source code is
case _FP_CLS_COMBINE (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78791
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> AFAICS the issue is the management of stack slots by assign_386_stack_local.
In .combine:
(call_insn 181 180 182 22 (set (reg:DI 0 ax)
(call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:SI ("__udivmoddi4") [flags 0x41]) [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78793
Bug ID: 78793
Summary: list_read.c: 7 * possible unintended fallthrough ?
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78779
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78765
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78756
--- Comment #1 from Mojca Miklavec ---
In the meantime I realized that the part of our build system that supports
compiling cross-tools does the following:
---> Extracting gcc-6.2.0.tar.bz2
---> Patching cpp.texi: s|setfilename cpp.info|setfil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unless you do something very nasty in the spec files (in which case you should
just avoid those tests), the user specified objects should always appear before
stuff coming from -lc unless -lc is specified fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78516
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40317|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
Bug ID: 78794
Summary: [7 Regression] We noticed ~9% regression in 32-bit
mode for 462.libquntum on Avoton after r243202
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 40322
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40322&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Compile with -O2 -march=slm -m32 options to reproduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78791
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|[7.0 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78786
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Well, concerning "%.*Rf", indeed, mpfr_snprintf allocates 2 GB for a short
period. But I notice that glibc is much worse. Consider the following program.
#include
#include
#include
#include
int main (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78786
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #3)
> On -33 0, this program outputs:
>
> 2147483616
> 10487712
I forgot to say that I used "/usr/bin/time -f %M ..." to get the second output
number, which is th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(Although I have a simpler patch that does something similar, as well as
allowing the arena size to be controlled form the environment).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78788
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
$ cat ghosts.i
int a;
long b;
long c;
void d() {
int e = 0;
for (; b; b++)
if (c) {
e++;
e++;
}
while (e)
a = e -= 2;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Previously we entered STV pass with:
(insn 32 31 33 4 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 118)
(and:DI (reg:DI 88 [ _5 ])
(reg:DI 97 [ _24 ])))
(clobber (reg:CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59171
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Perhaps as simple as:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 1cd1cd8..6899d4f 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -3424,7 +3424,7 @@ dimode_scalar_ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59161
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Perhaps as simple as:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index 1cd1cd8..6899d4f 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #42 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #41)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #40)
> > But I still haven't figured out why we need to allow 2 levels of recursion
> > for some of the cases. See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59171
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 1cd1cd8..f718040 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -3417,7 +3417,10 @@ dimode_scalar_chain::compute_convert_g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it's simply wrong to automatically dereference iterators. GDB doesn't
do that when printing pointers, so why do the pretty printers do it for
iterators?
There are loads of cases where it does the w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01158.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59874
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59161
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems like a GDB bug, since all the pretty printer does is:
def to_string(self):
return self.val['_M_current'].dereference()
So stringifying that is done by GDB, and should produce the "r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78725
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Dec 13 14:14:41 2016
New Revision: 243606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243606&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix pr78725
PR tree-optimization/78725
* tree-ssa-loop-spli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> I think it's simply wrong to automatically dereference iterators. GDB
> doesn't do that when printing pointers, so why do the pretty printers do it
> for itera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77830
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78737
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Dec 13 14:28:17 2016
New Revision: 243609
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243609&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-13 Janus Weil
Paul Thomas
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Shouldn't that take into account whether there is a scalar andn or not?
> I.e. only bump the gain if !TARGET_BMI?
Yes, this is a good idea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jan Kratochvil from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > I think it's simply wrong to automatically dereference iterators. GDB
> > doesn't do that when printing point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78737
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
--- Comment #8 from Jan Kratochvil ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> That doesn't help:
>
> std::vector::iterator it;
> {
> std::vector v{1};
> it = v.begin();
> }
>
> The iterator is safely initialized, safely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> Yes, this is a good idea.
Also, since pandn on non-BMI target replaces four arith insns with one, the
gain should be raised for 2 * ix86_cost->add for a total of 3 *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
--- Comment #23 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #22)
> I get the same kind of errors with "make check" for GMP 6.1.1 by using GCC
> 6.2.1 and LTO (-flto=jobserve -fuse-linker-plugin), e.g.
>
> /tmp/ccZvS3pG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78795
Bug ID: 78795
Summary: LTO causes undefined reference errors when linking
with GMP "make check"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78781
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
--- Comment #24 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Thanks for confirming. And indeed, I also get a failure with GCC 4.9.4, so that
it is really different. For the reference, I've reported bug 78795.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78756
--- Comment #2 from Mojca Miklavec ---
I just wanted to confirm that doing the same kind of replacement for gfortran
as our package manager does for gcc, I get the expected result. So gfortran's
info file doesn't seem to behave any different from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78756
--- Comment #3 from Mojca Miklavec ---
And just for the reference, here's the commit that fixed the behaviour for us:
https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/0b41554b5c627dcd5d095b1b432f554993df4c90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78795
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78428
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] wrong|[5/6 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jan Kratochvil from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> > But most code isn't compiled with debug mode enabled.
>
> IMO all code for debugging with pretty printers is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jan Kratochvil from comment #6)
> This all depends more on a different non-pretty-printers feature I plan to
> file for libstdc++ for years but I have never done so yet. With
> -D_GLIBCXX_DEB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78795
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Do you mean that's a bug in GMP? Note that when I used the same options in the
past (2012), there were no problems with GCC 4.7.1 and GMP 5.0.5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78795
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Also make sure that nm, ar and ranlib use the liblto_plugin,
by either using wrappers (gcc-ar, etc.) or setting up a symlink
to the plugin in lib/bfd-plugins/.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78794
--- Comment #9 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Hi Uros,
I checked thta with your patch performance is recovered on Avoton machine:
before after
462.libquantum18.400020.9000 +13.58%
Best regards.
Yuri.
2016-12-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78486
--- Comment #3 from Jim Michaels ---
also,
u16strfuncs-nostr.cpp:612:3: error: 'u16out' is not a member of 'std'
std::u16out<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78796
Bug ID: 78796
Summary: TLS fails to link on aarch64 with -mcmodel=large
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78795
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78731
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The patch is fine -- it can't hurt correctness and it's less invasive than
pulling out all the backedge handling like we did for later releases.
My only worry is that it's really a bandaid for code that is
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
