https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
>
> --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80050
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80050
>
> Martin Sebor changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
>
> --- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
> ... unless labels are intended to act
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80067
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80069
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||69728
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80073
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80072
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80079
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80078
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80079
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80079
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
or:
==6305==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address 0x17d7d9d7d7d7d7da (pc
0x134b7cc0 bp 0xbebebebebebebebe sp 0x3fffd0e4aec0 T0)
==6305==The signal is caused by a UNKNOWN memory access.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80075
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Really caused by r163947, exposed by some new folding. The issue is we do not
see if the LHS may throw for *p = {} in stmt_could_throw. I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #21 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Start from r227423.
Fix spawned function with lambda function
Make sure that the spawned function's arguments will not be pushed
into lambda function.
gcc/c-family/
2015-09-02 Balaji V. Iyer
PR m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> To the value in the other BB/function. This works if the jump
> targets are semantically compatible. For function cloning it's
> probably hard to say as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60586
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryxi at stu dot xidian.edu.cn
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
Bug ID: 80080
Summary: S390: Isses with emitted cs-instructions for __atomic
builtins.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #22 from Xi Ruoyao ---
PR 60586 is a false PR to an expected behaviour... Unfortunately nobody
noticed that and someone "fixed" it.
But without r227423 GCC just ICE on the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #23 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Sorry. I was too tired so I misunderstood r227423.
Now I am not sure whether it introduced the bug. I'll test it with
NumericMonoid code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60586
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> Balaji's commit caused PR80038. However without this commit, PR80038's
> test case just ICE. More analysis required.
Sorry I misunderstood the commit log. Ignore what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79162
lucdanton at free dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucdanton at free dot fr
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80079
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80079
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Or perhaps just init it in the constructor:
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.c b/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.c
index 5bdb4597d615..a6fd8ede467c 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.c
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80079
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> Or perhaps just init it in the constructor:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.c b/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.c
> index 5bdb4597d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #24 from Xi Ruoyao ---
The cilkplus spec described an "unsymmetrical" construct/destruct of temp
variables. It seems difficult to implement in GCC. I'm trying to find a
solution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #25 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I confirmed that r227423 broke NumericMonoid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80032
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The patch causes some optimization regressions.
A different approach is to put the clobbers in non-conditional context -
something that is valid but with the clobber semantic cannot be done by the
middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80048
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 17 11:03:32 2017
New Revision: 246217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/80048
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80050
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I didnt' want to say you are wrong just had some thoughts that there may be
cases where cloning/copying is ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80048
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80050
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 17 11:04:00 2017
New Revision: 246218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-17 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/80050
* gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually, it seems weird to call cxx_constant_value after
fold_non_dependent_expr has called maybe_constant_value. :/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80073
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80081
Bug ID: 80081
Summary: gcov-dump needs man page
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80081
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Options needing documentation:
...
$ gcov-dump --help
Usage: gcov-dump [OPTION] ... gcovfiles
Print coverage file contents
-h, --help Print this help
-v, --versionPrint version number
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80032
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Optimization regressions:
FAIL: g++.dg/pr64191.C -std=gnu++11 scan-tree-dump-times cddce1 "CLOBBER" 1
FAIL: g++.dg/pr64191.C -std=gnu++11 scan-tree-dump-times cddce1 "if" 0
FAIL: g++.dg/pr64191.C -std=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80081
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80075
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 17 12:48:56 2017
New Revision: 246223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-17 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/80075
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Yes. Judging by the comment before fold_non_dependent_expr (which I wrote
myself ;) it seems we could use instantiate_non_dependent_expr_sfinae (cond,
tf_none) instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80079
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80079
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Mar 17 13:14:42 2017
New Revision: 246224
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246224&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80079
* gimple-ssa-store-merging.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80079
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80075
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Right, I think that's best. I'm testing it. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80082
Bug ID: 80082
Summary: GCC incorrectly assumes Cortex-r[578] have 64-bit
single-copy atomic LDRD
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80082
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80082
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC incorrectly assumes |[6/7 regression] GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80082
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 regression] GCC|[5/6/7 regression] GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80083
Bug ID: 80083
Summary: libgomp doacross2.f90 regtest fails with -mcpu=power9
-O1
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80084
Bug ID: 80084
Summary: [7 regression] wrong code for decomposition
declaration with debug iterator
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80032
--- Comment #9 from Jan Smets ---
The alternative patch to gimplify.c seems to run fine.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Mar 17 15:01:56 2017
New Revision: 246225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246225&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71437
* tree-vrp.c (simplify_stmt_for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70515
Norgg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at norgg dot org
--- Comment #4 from Norgg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70515
--- Comment #5 from Norgg ---
Created attachment 40994
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40994&action=edit
gcc -v output for gcc 6.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79910
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Mar 17 15:10:13 2017
New Revision: 246226
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246226&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/79910
* combine.c (record_used_regs): N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79910
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59811
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] Huge |[5 Regression] Huge
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80085
Bug ID: 80085
Summary: missing -Wlogical-op on a superfluous second operand
of &&
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80050
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79795
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79930
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80085
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80082
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80082
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Assignee|unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80084
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80086
Bug ID: 80086
Summary: ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2213 for
the gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-6.c test on MIPS
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80087
Bug ID: 80087
Summary: missing -Wtautological-compare with non-constant
operands
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80087
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80048
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78345
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80084
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll have a look tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79951
--- Comment #2 from Pat Haugen ---
Author: pthaugen
Date: Fri Mar 17 16:42:29 2017
New Revision: 246228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79951
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (copysign3_fcpsg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79993
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79841
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #6)
> Could you perhaps make all 6 messages in that function follow the same
> syntax?
Will do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79993
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with
commit d680c844a90ba12a0b12f7d206d697dc32d2cfee
Author: jason
Date: Thu May 9 16:43:43 2013 +
N3639 C++1y VLA diagnostics
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Complain abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79993
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
Summary|ICE in tree_to_uh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80018
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79960
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80073
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80072
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70631
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80072
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80085
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70631
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 80085 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80052
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Mar 17 17:05:23 2017
New Revision: 246229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[aarch64] Fix typo in aarch64.opt (dummping -> dumping).
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80052
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70515
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #33 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80083
--- Comment #1 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 40996
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40996&action=edit
asm output
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo