From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122027 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2015 08:37:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 121949 invoked by uid 48); 3 Aug 2015 08:37:22 -0000 From: "m.mukovnikov at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/67089] [4.8/4.9/5/6 Regression] Integer overflow checks not optimized on x86/x86_64 Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 08:37:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.2.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor X-Bugzilla-Who: m.mukovnikov at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00059.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D67089 --- Comment #2 from Mike --- (In reply to Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak from comment #1) > We shouldn't do this, and it reflected in PR58779. But can't we improve the logic to satisfy both pr58779 and pr67089? The absolute metric is code quality, and with all due respect, the code can be better in this very case. >>From gcc-bugs-return-493918-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Aug 03 08:40:36 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 126727 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2015 08:40:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 126251 invoked by uid 48); 3 Aug 2015 08:40:31 -0000 From: "gnugcc at marino dot st" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/58583] [c++11] ICE with invalid non-static data member initialization in template Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 08:40:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid, ice-on-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: gnugcc at marino dot st X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2 Content-length: 750 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583 John Marino changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gnugcc at marino dot st --- Comment #6 from John Marino --- so apparently this patch caused a lot of failures: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg01062.html However, I don't see people complaining anymore, nor do I see it on other testsuite result posts. However, we're still seeing this on DragonFly: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-08/msg00196.html What was the final conclusion? Is it a dejagnu problem or what?