https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63607
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||2015-01-16
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #1)
> Author: jsm28
> Date: Tue Sep 23 00:48:4
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2015-01-16
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Known to fail|4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |documentation
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Jan 19 14:55:28 2015
New Revision: 219847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Improve documentation of register constraints.
While looking at P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to baoshan from comment #10)
> I have a second thought:
> As the 'y' is declared as float, should GCC infer the register is a single
> float register even the constraint is 'w' ?
I don't kn
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Mine.
||2015-01-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.9.0, 4.9.1, 4.9.2, 5.0
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed with -march
||2015-01-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Timo Teräs from comment #2)
> I got this fixed. It seems genautomata does
||2015-01-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64735
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57462
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm |arm, aarch64
Status|U
||2015-01-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.9.0, 5.0
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
If it worked in 4.6 then this is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62286
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #2)
> (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #1)
> > Because the Cortex-M3 doesn't have those instructions ? It's a testism
> > probably fixed by an appropria
||arm*
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2015-01-26
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|gcc assign wrong register |Document print modifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #19 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> It's probably not correct to simply transfer range info from *idx to
> iv->base.
> Instead SCEV analysis needs to track the range of CHREC_LEFT when it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||2015-01-28
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #5)
> Is this sort of multiple-use potential candidate for
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|ira.c update_equiv_regs |[5.0 regression] ira.c
|patch causes|update_equiv_regs patch
|gcc/testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64942
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Appears to work with r220637. Checking if dup of PR65003.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Works with r220637 - may well be a dup of PR65003. Checking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
May well be - works with r220637
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Works with r220637 - may well be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
*** Bug 65035 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
*** Bug 65030 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
*** Bug 65031 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63607
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2015-02-19
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|regression |target
Summary|long_call attribute broken |[5 regression] long_call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65284
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65121
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65121
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Mar 9 15:19:20 2015
New Revision: 221282
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221282&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR number for 65121 in Changelog.
PR target/65121
The commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
y: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Andrew Pinski reported that we have not defined REG_ALLOC_ORDER for the AArch64
backend. It would be useful during spill cost computations for this to be
defined appropriately
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
This corresponds to ticket 4402 in the ARM database.
Target||aarch64-linux-gnu
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-10-14
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
This is fixed for 5.0 - we aren't taking ABI changes back into release branches
AFAIK.
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Resolved then ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61997
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[AArch64] High amounts of |[AArch64] High amounts of
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|4.10.0 |5.0
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed on trunk.
||2014-10-28
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
This appears to have now morphed into a standards issue and possibly affects
all targets that
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed on trunk unless you intend to backport the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
|ramana at gcc dot gnu.org |wdijkstr at arm dot com
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-10-28
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|[AArch64] Performance |[5.0 regression
||, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Patch being discussed here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00731.html
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-10-28
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|bootstrap |tree-optimization
Ever confirmed|0 |1
|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|5.0 |4.9.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.2
Known to fail
||2014-10-28
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Because the Cortex-M3 doesn't have those instructions ? It's a testism probably
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63210
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60882
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #9)
> Hi, these tests are still failing.
> what are we gonna do about it?
I am happy for a patch to delete them.
Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to christophe.lyon from comment #11)
> (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #9)
> > > Hi, these tests are still failing.
> > > wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63210
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
For some cases like hmmer in SPEC2k6 we currently generate pretty rubbish code
with AArch64.
float
P7Viterbi(int **mmx, int L, int M, int **imx, int **dmx)
{
int
Target||aarch64-linux-gnu
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2014-11-03
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53579
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2014-11-10
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |renlin.li at arm dot com
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63762
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Renlin Li from comment #2)
> r278 is derived from r224 which is a VFP_LO_REGS.
>
> find_cost_and_classes assigns r278's class as GENERAL_REGS, and assign it
> hard_reg 2. Another new pseu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63365
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63724
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63724
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Revision: 217546
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Fri Nov 14 11:03:00 2014
--
--- svn:log (ori
||2014-11-17
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
||2014-11-18
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|ICE:|[5.0 regression] ICE:
|libstdc++-v3/include/chrono |libstdc++-v3/include/chrono
|:725:66: internal compiler
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Seems to have gone latent again with latest 4.9 tip of tree . the testcase
doesn't build with tip of trunk ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60882
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed presumably.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Nov 20 08:38:34 2014
New Revision: 217826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix missing output formatter.
2014-11-20 Ramana Radhakrishnan
||2014-11-27
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.8.3
Version|5.0 |4.9.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |renlin.li at arm dot
||2014-11-27
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |renlin.li at arm dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62178
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-11-27
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||5.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2014-11-27
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63870
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNC
||2014-12-11
CC||fyang at gcc dot gnu.org,
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Please assign this to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58623
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to bin.cheng from comment #3)
> Patch sent at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02209.html
> On latest trunk, the patch generates below assembly for the example:
>
> .cpu g
||2014-12-12
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
,
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Useful to CC the original author :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #9)
> Created attachment 33866 [details]
> Simple patch to exclude use of ip
>
> Simple patch that make it possible to optionally exclude use of ip for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61373
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to John Breitenbach from comment #2)
> Created attachment 33301 [details]
> siphash24.i
>
> sorry for forgetting this attachment in the original report.
mapcs-frame comes from a time when N
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #2)
||2014-12-12
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
missing testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60691
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #6)
> If sjlj exceptions are not supported for ARM, shouldn't the configure option
> be invalid for ARM or at least print a warning?
> If an option does exist and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Evgeniy Stepanov from comment #3)
> Yes, FP on ARM is non-standard and differs in GCC and Clang implementations.
> Disabling fast unwind is not really an option, as you are looking at 10x,
|ASSIGNED
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Bin Cheng has been working on this specifically around putting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55701
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Rama
801 - 900 of 1217 matches
Mail list logo
