https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47785
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #24 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Sat Jun 16 21:34:29 2018
New Revision: 261681
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261681&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-06-16 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82479
--- Comment #13 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Sat Jun 16 21:39:31 2018
New Revision: 261682
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261682&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-06-16 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91468
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I added iv-use for MASKED_LOAD_LANE and the result is
cmp w3, 0
ble .L1
sub w5, w3, #1
mov x4, 0
lsr w5, w5, 1
add w5, w5, 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45661
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45661&action=edit
ivopt patch v1
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
void test_func(void) {
int loop; // uninitialized and "garbage"
while (!loop) {
loop = get_a_value(); // <- must be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45661|0 |1
is obsolete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #6 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>
> Note the difference in mode for aarch64_classify_address. Not sure if this
> is because of the way my patch changes ivopt.
Yes, it ws my mistake in iv-use. with attached patch,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88838
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88838
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45794&action=edit
RFC patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88838
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
sorry wr(In reply to kugan from comment #3)
> Created attachment 45794 [details]
> RFC patch
Oops wrong place, it should be for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88836
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88836
--- Comment #2 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45795&action=edit
RFC patch
AFIK, we need to:
1. Change the whilelo pattern in backend
2. Change RTL CSE
- Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88838
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 46000
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46000&action=edit
RFC patch
RFC patch fixes this for review.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 46039
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46039&action=edit
patch
With the commit:
commit 67c18bce7054934528ff5930cca283b4ac967dca
Author: eb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #8 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #7)
> Thanks for looking at this.
>
> (In reply to kugan from comment #6)
> > cmp w3, 0
> > ble .L1
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45686|0 |1
is obsolete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89862
--- Comment #2 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> Can you try this instead?
>
> Index: rtl.h
> ===
> --- rtl.h (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89862
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Sat Mar 30 04:24:22 2019
New Revision: 270030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-29 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
Eric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89862
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Sat Mar 30 04:28:51 2019
New Revision: 270031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-29 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #12 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 46040 [details]
> > patch
>
> Wasn't sure whether this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46040|0 |1
is obsolete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #14 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 46104
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46104&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #15 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> There is also something odd with the way the loop iterates, this doesn't
> look right:
>
> whilelo p0.s, x3, x4
> incw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #17 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #16)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> > > There is also something odd with the way the loop iter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #19 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Thu Jun 13 03:18:54 2019
New Revision: 272232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272232&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-06-13 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88838
--- Comment #6 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Thu Jun 13 03:34:28 2019
New Revision: 272233
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272233&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-06-13 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #21 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #20)
> Hi Kugan,
>
> The new test fails with -mabi=ilp32:
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr88834.c scan-assembler-times \\tld2w\\t{z[0-9]+.s
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86489
--- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry about the breakage, I am trying to reproduce it on x86-64. Please let me
know if you have testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86489
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> gimple *phi = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (b_11);
> if (gimple_code (phi) != GIMPLE_PHI
> || (gimple_assign_lhs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86489
--- Comment #7 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Fri Jul 13 05:25:47 2018
New Revision: 262622
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262622&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-07-13 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86544
--- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #0)
> Great to see that GCC now detects the popcount loop in PR 82479!
> I am seeing some curious differences between gcc and g++ though.
> int
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86544
--- Comment #2 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00975.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86544
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Wed Jul 18 22:11:24 2018
New Revision: 262864
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262864&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-07-18 Kugan Vivekana
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Linux kernel build for arm/aarch64 (and possibly other targets) which does not
provide appropriate patterns in the backend will break the kernel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
--- Comment #2 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The kernel simply has to provide __popcount{s,d}i2 like it provides other
> libgcc functions if it chooses to not link against libgcc.
Yes, I c
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Python-2.7.15
Steps to reproduce error
In Python src directory:
./configure
make
./python Lib/test/regrtest.py -v test_ctypes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87469
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In the loop here, the value defined in the loop (e) is used outside the loop
hence this should not be detected as popcount (AFIK). I will have a look at
fixing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87469
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Mon Oct 29 22:02:45 2018
New Revision: 265605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-10-29 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87528
--- Comment #7 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Mon Nov 12 23:43:56 2018
New Revision: 266039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-11-13 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
--- Comment #13 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Mon Nov 12 23:43:56 2018
New Revision: 266039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-11-13 Kugan Vivekana
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When compiling the following on aarch64 with -O2:
#include
void g(int32_t *p, int32x2x2_t val, int x)
{
vst2_lane_s32(p,val,0);
}
generates
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at
gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88350
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias|PR88333 |
--- Comment #2 from kugan at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88333
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88350
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #16 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Fri Feb 12 00:24:22 2016
New Revision: 233362
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233362&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-02-12 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69708
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #17 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Fri Feb 12 06:40:55 2016
New Revision: 233368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69708
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37685
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37685&action=edit
possible fix
Attached patch fixes the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69589
--- Comment #11 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In remove_unreachable_nodes, just before ipa-cp, this node becomes local
(address taken is false and local.local = true). After that, when
ipa_propagate_frequency is run, which updates the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69589
--- Comment #12 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37688&action=edit
possible fix
This fixes the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69819
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #18 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reverted r233362 as it caused PR69786 and PR69781. I will test for these and
post a revised patch for next stage1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #10 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am looking into it. -mcpu=arm966e-s does not uses the
TARGET_NEW_GENERIC_COSTS. i.e, the rtx costs setup by the back-end might not be
optimal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #11 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Optimized gimple diff between 5.3 and trunk is :
-;; Function inttostr (inttostr, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=5268, cgraph_uid=0,
symbol_order=0)
+;; Function inttostr (inttostr, funcdef_no=0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #12 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
However, diff of cfgexand is significantly different:
;; Full RTL generated for this function:
;;
32: NOTE_INSN_DELETED
- 38: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 2
+ 39: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 2
33
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #14 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #13)
> The change to the assignment of p_22 is made by forwprop1.
>
> It does create a situation where p_2 is live outside the loop and hides
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61839
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70841
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63586
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zboson at zboson dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68105
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63586
--- Comment #8 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Wed May 18 00:58:45 2016
New Revision: 236356
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236356&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-17 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63586
--- Comment #9 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Wed May 18 07:50:05 2016
New Revision: 236359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Adding the testcase which was not addaed as part of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71170
--- Comment #7 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38519
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38519&action=edit
Another way to fix
Thanks Martin Liška for looking into this. I am attaching another way to f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71170
--- Comment #8 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My patch is not going to work.
At tree-ssa-reassoc.c:3897, we have:
stmt:
_15 = _4 + c_7(D);
oe->op def_stmt:
_17 = c_7(D) * 3;
:
a1_6 = s_5(D) * 2;
_1 = (long int) a1_6;
x1_8 = _1 + c_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71170
--- Comment #9 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We could also move _17 = c_7(D) * 3; at tree-ssa-reassoc.c:3897 satisfy the
gcc_assert. We could do this based on the use count of _17? any suggestions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71179
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38521
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38521&action=edit
untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71179
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Sat May 21 07:09:16 2016
New Revision: 236554
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236554&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-21 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40921
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Sun May 22 08:13:13 2016
New Revision: 236564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-22 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71170
--- Comment #10 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Tue May 24 00:14:13 2016
New Revision: 236619
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236619&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-05-24 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
--- Comment #2 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38549
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38549&action=edit
untested patch
testing this patch which fixes this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Tue May 24 10:50:01 2016
New Revision: 236634
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236634&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-24 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
--- Comment #15 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
> 0x1090f973 crash_signal
> /home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test/gcc/toplev.c:333
> 0x10b12ca0 sort_by_operand_rank
> /home/seurer/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
--- Comment #8 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for the breakage. I can reproduce this. I am looking into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
--- Comment #9 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What application is this testcase from? I have a patch which I want to try.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71269
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #2)
> Started with r236634.
Hi Markus,
This looks like dup of PR71252. I have a patch for which I am testing now. Do
you have a preprocessed fil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
--- Comment #12 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Posted patch at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02061.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71269
--- Comment #8 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Roger Orr from comment #7)
> I've got a very similar problem, building valgrind with trunk revision
> 236644:
>
> m_mallocfree.c: In function 'san
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
--- Comment #14 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Roger Orr from comment #13)
> The patch sadly does not appear to fix the (very similar looking) valgrind
> compilation failure I posted in pr71269.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71269
--- Comment #10 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Roger Orr from comment #7)
> > > I've got a very similar problem,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71269
--- Comment #12 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
> > Sorry, I missed that.
> >
> > on x86-64-linux-gnu, with the current trunk:
> > ./build/gcc/cc1 -O2 m_mallocfree.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71292
--- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #0)
> An aarch64-none-linux-gnu bootstrap with an in-tree mpfr fails with an ICE:
> exp_2.i: In function ‘fn1’:
> exp_2.i:4:6: internal compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71292
--- Comment #2 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #1)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #0)
> > An aarch64-none-linux-gnu bootstrap with an in-tree mpfr fails with an ICE:
> > exp_2.i: I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71292
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
kugan 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=71269
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71284
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71323
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
--- Comment #21 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Mon May 30 10:45:19 2016
New Revision: 236875
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236875&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-05-30 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
--- Comment #22 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Mon May 30 10:47:57 2016
New Revision: 236876
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236876&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-30 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71269
--- Comment #16 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Mon May 30 10:47:57 2016
New Revision: 236876
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236876&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-30 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71292
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Mon May 30 10:47:57 2016
New Revision: 236876
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236876&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-30 Kugan Vivekana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71281
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry about the breakage. Looking into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71281
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38640
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38640&action=edit
proposed patch
testing this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71281
--- Comment #6 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted for review at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00316.html
1 - 100 of 276 matches
Mail list logo
