https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
Bug ID: 96063
Summary: mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Snapshot gcc-10-20200704 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20200704/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96061
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Popov from comment #6)
> >> Could you explain the connection between your attribute for zeroing
> >> registers and 'no_caller_saved_registers' attribute?
> >
> > We are porting
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96061
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Popov ---
>> Could you explain the connection between your attribute for zeroing
>> registers and 'no_caller_saved_registers' attribute?
>
> We are porting
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96061
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Popov from comment #4)
> > Incorrect. There is also a zero_call_used_regs attribute.
>
> Thanks, now I've found it in your tree:
>
> ```
> You can control this behavior for a specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96061
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Popov ---
> Incorrect. There is also a zero_call_used_regs attribute.
Thanks, now I've found it in your tree:
```
You can control this behavior for a specific function by using the function
attribute
On 2020-07-04, Fangrui Song wrote:
Good idea! I've done that and made an alias for -i -> -j option.
I'm going to push it to master.
Martin
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-gcov-rename-2-options.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 5457 bytes
> Good idea! I've done that and made an alias for -i -> -j option.
> I'm going to push it to master.
>
> Martin
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: 0001-gcov-rename-2-options.patch
> Type: text/x-patch
> Size: 5457 bytes
> Desc: not available
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56a34e3e1cbb7d3b2f9298c14d4d3a3a030c7755
commit r10-8425-g56a34e3e1cbb7d3b2f9298c14d4d3a3a030c7755
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96062
Bug ID: 96062
Summary: Partial register stall caused by avoidable use of
SETcc, and useless MOVZBL
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93423
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Backports will have to wait until PR96041 is resolved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96041
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> From several runs
>
> frame #0: 0x0001000f11ed f951`gfc_free_namespace(gfc_namespace*)
> [inlined]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96061
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Popov from comment #2)
> > We are working on -fzero-call-used-regs:
>
> H.J. Lu, thanks for the information!
>
> However, this flag can't be used per-function, like the attribute.
On July 4, 2020 11:30:05 AM GMT+02:00, "Thomas König" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>in Fortran, it would sometimes be useful to have a different
>optimization
>depending on whether we generate inlined code for intrinsics (where we
>know when it is OK to „go wild“) or user code, where we need to
>adhere (for
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 04:23:58PM +, Tomar, Sourabh Singh wrote:
> Consider the following test case:
> [..]
> int main () {
> __int128 newVar = 8;
> newVar = ~newVar;
> return 0;
> }
DW_OP_implicit_value as well as DW_OP_stack_value is described in DWARF4/5,
just read
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96061
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Popov ---
> We are working on -fzero-call-used-regs:
H.J. Lu, thanks for the information!
However, this flag can't be used per-function, like the attribute.
So supporting 'no_caller_saved_registers' attribute for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96058
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Multi delta should be able to reduce this. Normally reduce which .o files
> are needed and then reduce the .ii files that needed to produce the .o files
> is the
Hello Everyone,
Consider the following test case:
[..]
int main () {
__int128 newVar = 8;
newVar = ~newVar;
return 0;
}
[..]
Compiled as: $gcc foo.c -g -O1
produces DWARF for "newVar" as:
[..]
0x004f: DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name("newVar")
On July 3, 2020 11:16:46 PM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill wrote:
>On 6/29/20 5:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:11 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:10 AM Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:53 AM Sunil Pandey
>wrote:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96061
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-04
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96041
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>From several runs
frame #0: 0x0001000f11ed f951`gfc_free_namespace(gfc_namespace*)
[inlined] free_uop_tree(uop_tree=0x00ce) at symbol.c:3881:17
frame #0: 0x0001000f11ed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 09:29:49AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
>
> --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > The patch in PR 95025
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96058
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Multi delta should be able to reduce this. Normally reduce which .o files are
needed and then reduce the .ii files that needed to produce the .o files is the
way to reduce this ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96061
Bug ID: 96061
Summary: Please support 'no_caller_saved_registers' attribute
on aarch64 (or maybe on all targets)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94506
Hauke Mehrtens changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Currently if requires_stack_frame_p() returns true for some insn,
the shrink-wrapping debug output contains only the number of a block
containing that insn.
But it is very useful to see the particular insn that requires the
prologue. Let's call print_rtl_single to display that insn in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96060
Bug ID: 96060
Summary: ICE with spaceship default operator returning int
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96059
Bug ID: 96059
Summary: ICE: in remove_unreachable_nodes, at ipa.c:575 with
-fdevirtualize-at-ltrans
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
Hi,
in Fortran, it would sometimes be useful to have a different optimization
depending on whether we generate inlined code for intrinsics (where we
know when it is OK to „go wild“) or user code, where we need to
adhere (for example) to IEEE semantics unless otherwise instructed
by the user.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The patch in PR 95025 fixes this issue.
The patch fixes the ICE, but I get the cryptic error
f951: Fatal Error: Writing module 'm' at line 15 column 14: Bad type in
constant expression
compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96025
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This fixes the ICE.
Confirmed, with the patch I get
Error: Expression at (1) must be of INTEGER type, found CHARACTER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96058
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96058
Bug ID: 96058
Summary: ICE in c_getstr at gcc/fold-const.c:15475
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
On Jun 05 2020, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wnonnull5.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
> +/* PR c++/86568 - -Wnonnull warnings should highlight the relevant argument
> + not the closing parenthesis.
> + { dg-do compile }
> + { dg-options "-O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96055
--- Comment #2 from Matwey V. Kornilov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Patches should be sent to gcc-patches@ after reading
> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html .
Thanks. I did a month ago, but nobody has answered:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96057
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There was another report about static inline where this happens too. The same
reasoning applies here. The function is unused and there for there is no
undefined runtime behavior can happen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96057
Bug ID: 96057
Summary: -Wreturn-type warning message disappears with -O1 to
-Os in unnamed namespace definition
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96056
Bug ID: 96056
Summary: arm v6/v7: Missing acquire barrier for
__atomic_compare_exchange(__ATOMIC_RELEASE,
__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96055
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patches should be sent to gcc-patches@ after reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96055
Bug ID: 96055
Summary: avr: atmega324pb not supported
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96041
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
42 matches
Mail list logo
