[Bug fortran/99139] ICE: gfc_get_default_type(): Bad symbol '__tmp_UNKNOWN_0_rank_1'

2021-10-23 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139

sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem noted in comment 1 looks related to PR 102641 --
automatically-inserted implicit initialization code can't cope with
assumed-rank arrays.

I tested the patch in comment 2 and saw a whole lot of regressions (ICEs).  :-(

[Bug testsuite/102910] cf-descriptor-5-c.c fails to build

2021-10-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
  Component|fortran |testsuite
   Last reconfirmed||2021-10-24
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
Version|unknown |12.0

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski  ---
I think the following is better:

#ifndef alloca
#define alloca __builtin_alloca
#endif

Instead of the include of alloca.h.

[Bug c++/102802] Selection of inherited operator contrary to `using` clause in C++ when using lambda type

2021-10-23 Thread rs2740 at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102802

TC  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com

--- Comment #3 from TC  ---
No, this is valid. B's operator() is not visible, but its conversion to
function pointer is, and that introduces a surrogate call function during the
overload resolution for the function call expression (and it's selected because
it is the only viable candidate).

[Bug c/102909] Missing -Wunused-but-set-variable warning

2021-10-23 Thread mytbk920423 at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909

--- Comment #3 from Iru Cai  ---
Looks like this kind of things are detected in the front-end. The GNAT
front-end can warn on the similar things:

procedure Main is
A : Integer;
B : constant Integer := 1;
begin
A := 0;
A := A + B;
end Main;

$ gcc -O2 -gnatwa -gnatwe -c main.adb 
main.adb:6:09: warning: possibly useless assignment to "A", value might not be
referenced

[Bug c/102909] Missing -Wunused-but-set-variable warning

2021-10-23 Thread mytbk920423 at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909

--- Comment #2 from Iru Cai  ---
So it looks something like https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677

GCC thinks ``a`` is set but not used in ``a = 1 + b;``, but is used in ``a = 1;
a += b;``.

[Bug sanitizer/102911] AddressSanitizer: CHECK failed: asan_malloc_linux.cpp:46

2021-10-23 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911

H.J. Lu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Last reconfirmed||2021-10-24
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu  ---
Also see:

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52278

[Bug c/102867] [12 Regression] -Waddress from macro expansion in readelf.c

2021-10-23 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102867

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|[12 Regression] Waddress|[12 Regression] -Waddress
   |complaint in readelf.c  |from macro expansion in
   ||readelf.c
   Keywords||patch

--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor  ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582415.html

[Bug sanitizer/102911] New: AddressSanitizer: CHECK failed: asan_malloc_linux.cpp:46

2021-10-23 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911

Bug ID: 102911
   Summary: AddressSanitizer: CHECK failed:
asan_malloc_linux.cpp:46
   Product: gcc
   Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: sanitizer
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
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: ---

On Fedora 35/x86-64 with glibc 2.34, I got

[hjl@gnu-skx-1 gcc]$
/export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-debug/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-debug/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/
/export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/alloca_detect_custom_size.c
-m32
-B/export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-debug/build-x86_64-linux/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/32/libsanitizer/
-B/export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-debug/build-x86_64-linux/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/32/libsanitizer/asan/
-L/export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-debug/build-x86_64-linux/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/32/libsanitizer/asan/.libs
-fsanitize=address -g
-I/export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/testsuite/../../libsanitizer/include
-fdiagnostics-plain-output-O0-lm  -o
./alloca_detect_custom_size.exe.bad
[hjl@gnu-skx-1 gcc]$ export
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-debug/build-x86_64-linux/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/32/libsanitizer/asan/.libs
[hjl@gnu-skx-1 gcc]$ ./alloca_detect_custom_size.exe.bad
=
==3485262==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: dynamic-stack-buffer-overflow on address
0xffe51f80 at pc 0x08049279 bp 0xffe51e98 sp 0xffe51e8c
WRITE of size 1 at 0xffe51f80 thread T0
#0 0x8049278 in foo
/export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/alloca_detect_custom_size.c:16
#1 0x80492dc in main
/export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/alloca_detect_custom_size.c:20
#2 0xf7653468 in __libc_start_call_main (/lib/libc.so.6+0x25468)
#3 0xf765355f in __libc_start_main@@GLIBC_2.34 (/lib/libc.so.6+0x2555f)
#4 0x80490eb in _start
(/export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-debug/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/testsuite/gcc/alloca_detect_custom_size.exe.bad+0x80490eb)

Address 0xffe51f80 is located in stack of thread T0
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: dynamic-stack-buffer-overflow
/export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/alloca_detect_custom_size.c:16
in foo
Shadow bytes around the buggy address:
  0x3ffca3a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x3ffca3b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x3ffca3c0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x3ffca3d0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ca ca ca ca 00 00 00 00
  0x3ffca3e0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
=>0x3ffca3f0:[cb]cb cb cb 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x3ffca400: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x3ffca410: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x3ffca420: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x3ffca430: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x3ffca440: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Shadow byte legend (one shadow byte represents 8 application bytes):
  Addressable:   00
  Partially addressable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 
  Heap left redzone:   fa
  Freed heap region:   fd
  Stack left redzone:  f1
  Stack mid redzone:   f2
  Stack right redzone: f3
  Stack after return:  f5
  Stack use after scope:   f8
  Global redzone:  f9
  Global init order:   f6
  Poisoned by user:f7
  Container overflow:  fc
  Array cookie:ac
  Intra object redzone:bb
  ASan internal:   fe
  Left alloca redzone: ca
  Right alloca redzone:cb
==3485262==ABORTING
[hjl@gnu-skx-1 gcc]$ export
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-debug/build-x86_64-linux/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/32/libsanitizer/asan/.libs
[hjl@gnu-skx-1 gcc]$ ./alloca_detect_custom_size.exe.bad
AddressSanitizer: CHECK failed: asan_malloc_linux.cpp:46
"((allocated_for_dlsym)) < ((kDlsymAllocPoolSize))" (0x421, 0x400)
(tid=3485264)


[hjl@gnu-skx-1 gcc]$ ls -l /export/build
lrwxrwxrwx 1 hjl hjl 15 Dec  4  2018 /export/build -> users/hjl/build
[hjl@gnu-skx-1 gcc]$ 

It is related to

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33206

[Bug fortran/102910] cf-descriptor-5-c.c fails to build

2021-10-23 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910

--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This fixes the issue.  The assumption that alloca.h is available on
all systems is likely not a good idea.  The function alloca() lives
in stdlib.h on at least FreeBSD.

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5-c.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c
-interop/cf-descriptor-5-c.c
index 12464b55512..2a525c522b8 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5-c.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5-c.c
@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
 #include 
 #include 
+#ifndef alloca
 #include 
+#endif

 #include 
 #include "dump-descriptors.h"

[Bug fortran/102910] cf-descriptor-5-c.c fails to build

2021-10-23 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Target||x86_64-*-freebsd
   Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug fortran/102910] New: cf-descriptor-5-c.c fails to build

2021-10-23 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910

Bug ID: 102910
   Summary: cf-descriptor-5-c.c fails to build
   Product: gcc
   Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: fortran
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

Build log shows

Executing on host:
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran1/../../gfortran
-B/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran1/../../
-B/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libgfortran/
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/gccx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5.f90 
  -fdiagnostics-plain-output  -fdiagnostics-plain-output-O0  -Werror -g 
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/gccx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5-c.c
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/gccx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/dump-descriptors.c
-dumpbase "" 
-B/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libatomic/.libs
-B/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libquadmath/.libs
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libquadmath/.libs
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libquadmath/.libs  -lm 
-o ./cf-descriptor-5.exe(timeout = 300)
spawn -ignore SIGHUP
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran1/../../gfortran
-B/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran1/../../
-B/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libgfortran/
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/gccx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5.f90
-fdiagnostics-plain-output -fdiagnostics-plain-output -O0 -Werror -g
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/gccx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5-c.c
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/gccx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/dump-descriptors.c
-dumpbase 
-B/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libatomic/.libs
-B/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libquadmath/.libs
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libquadmath/.libs
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/objx/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/./libquadmath/.libs -lm -o
./cf-descriptor-5.exe
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/gccx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5-c.c:3:10:
fatal error: alloca.h: No such file or directory
compilation terminated.
compiler exited with status 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/gccx/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-5-c.c:3:10:
fatal error: alloca.h: No such file or directory
compilation terminated.

[Bug fortran/102641] Bogus error for intent(out) dummy that is a polymorphic assumed-rank array

2021-10-23 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102641
Bug 102641 depends on bug 102729, which changed state.

Bug 102729 Summary: Assumed rank: ICE when passing noncontiguous to CONTIGUOUS 
assume rank (assumed-rank loop handling)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102729

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug fortran/100194] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_create_temp_array, at fortran/trans-array.c:1351

2021-10-23 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100194

sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 102729 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/102729] Assumed rank: ICE when passing noncontiguous to CONTIGUOUS assume rank (assumed-rank loop handling)

2021-10-23 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102729

sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is the same ICE previously reported as PR100194.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 100194 ***

[Bug fortran/37131] inline matmul for small matrix sizes

2021-10-23 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 65819, which changed state.

Bug 65819 Summary: overzealous checking in gfc_check_dependency for 
identical=true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65819

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/36854] [meta-bug] fortran front-end optimization

2021-10-23 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36854
Bug 36854 depends on bug 65819, which changed state.

Bug 65819 Summary: overzealous checking in gfc_check_dependency for 
identical=true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65819

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/65819] overzealous checking in gfc_check_dependency for identical=true

2021-10-23 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65819

sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |FIXED
 CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
 Status|NEW |RESOLVED

--- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This issue seems to have been fixed by the above patch.

[Bug fortran/71703] [9/10/11/12 Regression] [OOP] ICE in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1488

2021-10-23 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71703

sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #17 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this issue is fixed now?

[Bug fortran/84007] [OOP] ICE with SAME_TYPE_AS and CLASS(*) entity

2021-10-23 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84007

sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #6 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this issue is fixed now?

[Bug testsuite/102904] go testsuite does not always cause a timeout

2021-10-23 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102904

H.J. Lu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Ever confirmed|0   |1
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2021-10-23

--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu  ---
I saw

WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16095.go execution,  -O2 -g

But the hanging issue16095.go wasn't terminated until I killed it by hand.

[Bug tree-optimization/102908] [12 Regression] go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16095.go hangs again

2021-10-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102908

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski  ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This might be a bug in simple_dce_from_worklist which does not check
> stmt_unremovable_because_of_non_call_eh_p .
> 
> Let me check if that solves the issue.

The only issue here is that tree-vect-generic uses this to delete statements
they have lowered but stmt_unremovable_because_of_non_call_eh_p might return
true for those.  So I might need an other argument to simple_dce_from_worklist
about that ...  Let me try without the argument first.

[Bug tree-optimization/102908] [12 Regression] go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16095.go hangs again

2021-10-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102908

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|go  |tree-optimization
   Keywords||wrong-code
   Assignee|ian at airs dot com|pinskia at gcc dot 
gnu.org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski  ---
This might be a bug in simple_dce_from_worklist which does not check
stmt_unremovable_because_of_non_call_eh_p .

Let me check if that solves the issue.

[Bug go/102908] [12 Regression] go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16095.go hangs again

2021-10-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102908

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
   ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=102904
   Last reconfirmed||2021-10-23
   Target Milestone|--- |12.0
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
I saw it too as of r12-4626 on aarch64.  I filed PR 102904 as the hang didn't
trigger the timeout even.

[Bug bootstrap/102675] [12 regression] Bootstrap fails in libsanitizer: 'MD5_DIGEST_STRING_LENGTH' was not declared in this scope

2021-10-23 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675

--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu  ---
Created attachment 51659
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51659=edit
A patch

Please try this.

[Bug bootstrap/102675] [12 regression] Bootstrap fails in libsanitizer: 'MD5_DIGEST_STRING_LENGTH' was not declared in this scope

2021-10-23 Thread gerald at pfeifer dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675

--- Comment #12 from Gerald Pfeifer  ---
Created attachment 51658
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51658=edit
$WRKDIR/i586-unknown-freebsd11.4/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/Makefile

[Bug bootstrap/102675] [12 regression] Bootstrap fails in libsanitizer: 'MD5_DIGEST_STRING_LENGTH' was not declared in this scope

2021-10-23 Thread gerald at pfeifer dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675

--- Comment #11 from Gerald Pfeifer  ---
Created attachment 51657
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51657=edit
$WRKDIR/i586-unknown-freebsd11.4/libsanitizer/Makefile

[Bug bootstrap/102675] [12 regression] Bootstrap fails in libsanitizer: 'MD5_DIGEST_STRING_LENGTH' was not declared in this scope

2021-10-23 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675

H.J. Lu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |WAITING

--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu  ---
(In reply to Gerald Pfeifer from comment #9)
> 
> If you have a prototype patch to try (and maybe tweak) I'll happily do.

Please send me all Makefiles under libsanitizer and the failed command line.

[Bug fortran/102901] ICE (segfault) when compiling pdt_13.f03 with -fcheck=all in gfc_check_pdt_dummy -> structure_alloc_comps

2021-10-23 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102901

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Last reconfirmed||2021-10-23
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
Confirmed.

[Bug fortran/102900] ICE via gfc_class_data_get with alloc_comp_class_4.f03 or proc_ptr_52.f90 using -fcheck=all

2021-10-23 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102900

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2021-10-23
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
Th error for gfc_class_data_get and alloc_comp_class_4.f03 is:

../../work/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:230:7: runtime error: member access within
null pointer of type 'union tree_node'

For the ICE is

internal compiler error: tree check: expected record_type or union_type or
qual_union_type, have function_type in gfc_class_data_get, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:232

[Bug bootstrap/102675] [12 regression] Bootstrap fails in libsanitizer: 'MD5_DIGEST_STRING_LENGTH' was not declared in this scope

2021-10-23 Thread gerald at pfeifer dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675

--- Comment #9 from Gerald Pfeifer  ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> Does sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_freebsd.cpp need any header
> files from GCC?

>From what I found, that does not appear to be the case.

> If yes, why aren't they needed in compiler-rt?
> If no, can you filter out these -I options in Makefile?

How do I go about that? (I did see your earlier suggestions, just ran 
out of time and, frankly, the experience on how to practically do this.)

If you have a prototype patch to try (and maybe tweak) I'll happily do.

[Bug fortran/102903] Invalid gfortran.dg testcases or wrong-code with -fcheck=all -fsanitize=undefined

2021-10-23 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102903

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Last reconfirmed||2021-10-23
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
Confirmed. The test pr17143.f90 relies on wrapping on overflow, so it's
probably
a WONTFIX. Reduced test for power_8.f90:

  integer(1) :: j
  j = 7
  print *, (-2_1) ** j
  print *, (-512_8) ** j
end

There are no runtime errors if I replace j with 7.

[Bug c/102909] Missing -Wunused-but-set-variable warning

2021-10-23 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
The warning works as documented.  It warns about variables that are only stored
to and never read.  new_reg in the second testcase or reg is not such a
variable, it is also read.

[Bug c/102909] New: Missing -Wunused-but-set-variable warning

2021-10-23 Thread mytbk920423 at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909

Bug ID: 102909
   Summary: Missing -Wunused-but-set-variable warning
   Product: gcc
   Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: mytbk920423 at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

GCC misses the -Wunused-but-set-variable in the some code (GCC and Clang output
can be seen in https://godbolt.org/z/7658M4qra).

I first found a bug caused by the following code, in which no compilers warn:

void ioapic_set_max_vectors(void *ioapic_base, int mre_count)
{
u32 reg;
u8 count;
reg = io_apic_read(ioapic_base, 0x01);
count = reg >> 16;
if (mre_count > 0)
count = mre_count - 1;

// reg is defined but not used after this
reg &= ~(0xff << 16);
reg |= count << 16;
// ``count`` should be ``reg`` in the following line
io_apic_write(ioapic_base, 0x01, count);
}

I think that's because the variable ``reg`` is only unused in part of the
control flow, so I change the code as following. However, GCC doesn't warn on
this either.

void ioapic_set_max_vectors(void *ioapic_base, int mre_count)
{
u32 reg;
u32 new_reg;
u8 count;
reg = io_apic_read(ioapic_base, 0x01);
count = reg >> 16;
if (mre_count > 0)
count = mre_count - 1;

// new_reg is defined but not used
new_reg = reg & (~(0xff << 16));
new_reg |= count << 16;
// ``count`` should be ``new_reg`` in the following
io_apic_write(ioapic_base, 0x01, count);
}

[Bug fortran/102891] Passing real part of complex type component using w%z%re to a subroutine gives erroneous value of dummy argument

2021-10-23 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102891

--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Adding to main the lines

  print *, size (transfer ( w%z%re ,[1.0_dp]))
  print *, size (transfer ([w%z%re],[1.0_dp]))

prints

   4
   2

whereas e.g.

  print *, size (transfer ( real (w%z, kind (w%z%re)) ,[1.0_dp]))
  print *, size (transfer ([real (w%z, kind (w%z%re))],[1.0_dp]))

prints

   2
   2

The issue is likely with the combination of array/array constructor and
the inquiry %re .

Possibly related: pr102599.

[Bug fortran/102716] ICE in gfc_validate_kind(): Got bad kind

2021-10-23 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102716

anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |FIXED
 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on mainline for gcc-12, and on 11- and 10-branch.  Backporting to
9-branch
would require manual fixup and is not worth the effort.  Closing.

Thanks for the report!

[Bug fortran/102716] ICE in gfc_validate_kind(): Got bad kind

2021-10-23 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102716

--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits  ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bec9e43e1611b62732bf29763c3e8bddea480f62

commit r10-10231-gbec9e43e1611b62732bf29763c3e8bddea480f62
Author: Harald Anlauf 
Date:   Thu Oct 14 20:18:14 2021 +0200

Fortran: fix order of checks for the SHAPE intrinsic

gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:

PR fortran/102716
* check.c (gfc_check_shape): Reorder checks so that invalid KIND
arguments can be detected.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

PR fortran/102716
* gfortran.dg/shape_10.f90: New test.

(cherry picked from commit 1b115daf62d94337b3d0b2962b0bbbf005a450e0)

[Bug bootstrap/102675] [12 regression] Bootstrap fails in libsanitizer: 'MD5_DIGEST_STRING_LENGTH' was not declared in this scope

2021-10-23 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675

--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu  ---
Does sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_freebsd.cpp need any header
files from GCC?

If yes, why aren't they needed in compiler-rt?
If no, can you filter out these -I options in Makefile?

[Bug go/102908] New: [12 Regression] go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16095.go hangs again

2021-10-23 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102908

Bug ID: 102908
   Summary: [12 Regression] go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16095.go
hangs again
   Product: gcc
   Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: go
  Assignee: ian at airs dot com
  Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: cmang at google dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

On Linux/x86-64, go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16095.go hangs again as of
r12-4629:

FAIL: go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16095.go execution,  -O2 -g

[Bug c/9262] [3.3 regression] ICE on false case label

2021-10-23 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9262

--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits  ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d891ab1bc87bc5d855f6ee18337e517a2a90d759

commit r12-4640-gd891ab1bc87bc5d855f6ee18337e517a2a90d759
Author: H.J. Lu 
Date:   Sat Oct 23 05:40:09 2021 -0700

Move bind-c-intent-out-2.f90 to gfortran.dg/ubsan

Move bind-c-intent-out-2.f90 to gfortran.dg/ubsan for -fsanitize=undefined.

PR fortran/9262
* gfortran.dg/bind-c-intent-out-2.f90: Moved to ...
* gfortran.dg/ubsan/bind-c-intent-out-2.f90

[Bug tree-optimization/102892] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0)

2021-10-23 Thread aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102892

Aldy Hernandez  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Last reconfirmed||2021-10-23
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez  ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
> Maybe a duplicate of PR102879?

Hmmm, maybe not.

It doesn't look like a threading thing after a quick glance.  We only thread 1
path, in both 11.2 and trunk:

a.c.193t.dom3:  [4] Registering jump thread: (11, 3) incoming edge;  (3, 5)
joiner (5, 12) normal; 

And it's actually in DOM which has been largely untouched in this release.

Could someone bisect this?

[Bug testsuite/102857] [12 regression] r12-4526 caused regressions on ssa-dom-thread-7.c

2021-10-23 Thread aldyh at redhat dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857

--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez  ---
Thank you for your help on this (and the myriad of other PRs ;-)).
I'll submit upstream.

On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 11:06 AM pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
 wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
>
> --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski  ---
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> > Created attachment 51656 [details]
> > proposed patch 2
> >
> > How about this?
>
> I can confirm the patch works on aarch64-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
>

[Bug testsuite/102857] [12 regression] r12-4526 caused regressions on ssa-dom-thread-7.c

2021-10-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857

--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski  ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> Created attachment 51656 [details]
> proposed patch 2
> 
> How about this?

I can confirm the patch works on aarch64-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu.

[Bug testsuite/102857] [12 regression] r12-4526 caused regressions on ssa-dom-thread-7.c

2021-10-23 Thread aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857

--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez  ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 51654 [details]
> > proposed patch
> > 
> > Does this fix the problem on aarch64?
> 
> I get:
> Running
> /home/ubuntu/src/upstream-gcc-aarch64/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/tree-
> ssa.exp ...
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-7.c scan-tree-dump thread3 "Jumps
> threaded: 12"
> Let me attach the dump files.

$ grep Jumps.threaded *thread3
Jumps threaded: 20

The regex matches 12 but aarch64 20.

I really hate this test.  It never catches anything, and only creates an
endless amount of busy work.

[Bug testsuite/102857] [12 regression] r12-4526 caused regressions on ssa-dom-thread-7.c

2021-10-23 Thread aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857

Aldy Hernandez  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #51654|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez  ---
Created attachment 51656
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51656=edit
proposed patch 2

How about this?

[Bug testsuite/102857] [12 regression] r12-4526 caused regressions on ssa-dom-thread-7.c

2021-10-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857

--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Created attachment 51655
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51655=edit
Dump files for aarch64

[Bug testsuite/102857] [12 regression] r12-4526 caused regressions on ssa-dom-thread-7.c

2021-10-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski  ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6)
> Created attachment 51654 [details]
> proposed patch
> 
> Does this fix the problem on aarch64?

I get:
Running
/home/ubuntu/src/upstream-gcc-aarch64/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/tree-ssa.exp
...
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-7.c scan-tree-dump thread3 "Jumps
threaded: 12"
Let me attach the dump files.

[Bug testsuite/102857] [12 regression] r12-4526 caused regressions on ssa-dom-thread-7.c

2021-10-23 Thread aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857

--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez  ---
Created attachment 51654
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51654=edit
proposed patch

Does this fix the problem on aarch64?