assume","at","ate","atm","attached","attachment

Bear's iPhone

[Bug target/88473] AVX512: constant folding on mask does not remove unnecessary instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88473 Hongtao.liu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crazylht at gmail dot com --- Comment #6

[Bug target/88798] AVX512BW code does not use bit-operations that work on mask registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88798 Hongtao.liu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crazylht at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug target/88808] bitwise operators on AVX512 masks fail to use the new mask instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88808 --- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu --- Fixed in GCC11.

[Bug other/91085] fixincludes breaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91085 --- Comment #12 from Bruce Korb --- I'll put it on my to-do list, but I might be participating in a fire evacuation tonight or tomorrow and I haven't built GCC in several years now. I'm going to guess that you have to not do the substitution

[Bug target/88808] bitwise operators on AVX512 masks fail to use the new mask instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88808 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:388cb292a94f98a276548cd6ce01285cf36d17df commit r11-2796-g388cb292a94f98a276548cd6ce01285cf36d17df Author: liuhongt Date: Thu Aug

[Bug target/71453] Spills to vector registers are sub-optimal.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71453 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00cb3494cab397b5655ab42fd69310883c12137c commit r11-2793-g00cb3494cab397b5655ab42fd69310883c12137c Author: H.J. Lu Date: Tue Sep 3

[RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

Hi, There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of code like: int foo (int n) { int t1 = 8 * n; int t2 = 8 * (n - 1); return t1 - t2; } It can be perfectly caught by the rule "(A * C) +- (B * C) -> (A +- B) * C", and be folded to constant "8". But

[Bug tree-optimization/96730] New: ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu with `-O1` to `-O3` (in verify_sra_access_forest, at tree-sra.c:2352)

ported LTO compression algorithms: zlib gcc version 11.0.0 20200820 (experimental) [master revision :01cb32abf:04e23a4051fb3c049f85b9e6e2fc58f937337aff] (GCC)

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Power10: Add PCREL_OPT load support

Hi! On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:34:01AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > +// Maximum number of insns to scan between the load address and the load that Please don't mix /* and // comments. Just stick to /* comments, like all the rest of our backend? > +const int MAX_PCREL_OPT_INSNS= 10;

[Bug c/96729] New: hang on x86_64-linux-gnu with `-g -O3`

c version 11.0.0 20200820 (experimental) [master revision :01cb32abf:04e23a4051fb3c049f85b9e6e2fc58f937337aff] (GCC) $ $ gcc-trunk -g -O2 t.c $ $

How to decide if a target supports relocations or not?

Hi, Some questions about relocation. Could anyone kindly help on them? Thanks a lot. 1 If targetm.asm_out.reloc_rw_mask () returns 0, does it mean the target doesn't support relocations in read only section. So it should be put in read-write section? 2 Here, does the read only section

[Bug analyzer/95152] ICE in get_or_create_mem_ref, at analyzer/region-model.cc:6938 since r10-5950-g757bf1dff5e8cee3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95152 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[committed] analyzer: add regression tests [PR95152]

PR analyzer/95152 reports various ICEs in region_model::get_or_create_mem_ref. I removed this function as part of the state rewrite in r11-2694-g808f4dfeb3a95f50f15e71148e5c1067f90a126d. I've verified that these two test cases reproduce the issue with 10.2 and don't ICE with trunk; adding them as

[Bug analyzer/95152] ICE in get_or_create_mem_ref, at analyzer/region-model.cc:6938 since r10-5950-g757bf1dff5e8cee3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95152 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b31b6b52612a6d4a7a84e71f6331464d68400d4 commit r11-2792-g6b31b6b52612a6d4a7a84e71f6331464d68400d4 Author: David Malcolm Date:

[Bug fortran/95352] ICE on select rank with assumed-size selector and lbound intrinsic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95352 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 11:15:27PM +, jrfsousa at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95352 > > --- Comment #4 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa --- > I have tested the

[Bug d/96250] d: Field access in parentheses causes error: need 'this' for 'field' of type 'type'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96250 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf465206b7012a9049821c68236093969d7767da commit r10-8650-gbf465206b7012a9049821c68236093969d7767da Author: Iain Buclaw

[Bug c/84919] [8/9 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 --- Comment #31 from Marietto --- they don't reply to messages and they don't fix old bugs. And new users aren't interested to use xen anymore. So,it's a waste of time.

[Bug c/84919] [8/9 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 --- Comment #30 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Marietto from comment #28) > I'm not a coder. can u explain to me carefully what should I do ? thanks. Usually packages provide a mechanism to prevent compiler warnings from causing errors (by

Re: [PATCH] improve validation of attribute arguments (PR c/78666)

On 8/20/20 3:00 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: First, didn't Marek say in the PR that the diagnostic code should go in diagnose_mismatched_attributes? My understanding of the structure of the attribute handling code is that with just a few exceptions, for C and C++ it's pretty much all in

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Power10 PCREL_OPT support

Hi! On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:31:41AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > Currently on power10, the compiler compiles this as: > > ret_var: > pld 9,ext_variable@got@pcrel > lwa 3,0(9) > blr > > store_var: > pld

[Bug c/84919] [8/9 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 --- Comment #29 from Marietto --- I get this error : gcc -m64 -DBUILD_ID -fno-strict-aliasing -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wno-unused-local-typedefs -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer

[Bug fortran/95352] ICE on select rank with assumed-size selector and lbound intrinsic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95352 --- Comment #4 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa --- I have tested the patch posted by Steve Kargl and it seems to do the trick. Can I do anything to get this going? Best regards, José Rui

[Bug d/96250] d: Field access in parentheses causes error: need 'this' for 'field' of type 'type'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96250 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug d/96254] d: ICE using non-local variable: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96254 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[committed] d: Merge upstream dmd 1b5a53d01.

Hi, This patch fixes an ICE in setValue at dmd/dinterpret.c:7046 This was originally seen when running the testsuite for a 16-bit target, however, it could be reproduced on 32-bit using long[] as well. Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu/-m32/-mx32, committed to mainline and backported to gcc-10

[Bug d/96250] d: Field access in parentheses causes error: need 'this' for 'field' of type 'type'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96250 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee11a23b334d5fea08b80c2d87874388ed51d08e commit r10-8649-gee11a23b334d5fea08b80c2d87874388ed51d08e Author: Iain Buclaw

[Bug d/96254] d: ICE using non-local variable: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96254 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5d07caca15958980ae9cc4570a784f8b1a43403 commit r10-8647-ga5d07caca15958980ae9cc4570a784f8b1a43403 Author: Iain Buclaw

Re: [Patch, fortran, v2] PR fortran/96728 - Fatal Error: Reading module inquiry functions on assumed-rank

Hi all! Exactly the same thing, only actually including the patch this time. Sorry for the mishap. Thank you very much. Best regards, José Rui On 20/08/20 19:33, José Rui Faustino de Sousa wrote: Hi all! Proposed patch to PR96728 - Fatal Error: Reading module inquiry functions on

[Bug c/84919] [8/9 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 --- Comment #28 from Marietto --- I'm not a coder. can u explain to me carefully what should I do ? thanks. Il giorno gio 20 ago 2020 alle ore 16:40 msebor at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> ha scritto: >

[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/94110 - Passing an assumed-size to an assumed-shape argument should be rejected

Hi all! Proposed patch to PR94110 - Passing an assumed-size to an assumed-shape argument should be rejected. Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Add code to also check for deferred-shape and assumed-rank pointer (allocatable arguments are checked elsewhere) dummy arguments being

gcc-8-20200820 is now available

Snapshot gcc-8-20200820 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20200820/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch

Re: [Patch 5/5] rs6000, Conversions between 128-bit integer and floating point values.

Hi! On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:23:13PM -0700, Carl Love wrote: [ Perfect stuff, or I don't see anything anyway! ] Okay for trunk. Thank you! Segher

Re: [PATCH 4/6] Add `+' for Jobserver Integration

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020, Giuliano Belinassi via Gcc-patches wrote: > libbacktrace/Makefile.in | 2 +- > zlib/Makefile.in | 64 ++-- These directories use makefiles generated by automake. Rather than modifying the generated files, you need to modify the sources (whether that's

Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix several memory leaks in the driver

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, Alex Coplan wrote: > 2020-07-09 Alex Coplan > > * gcc.c (set_static_spec): New. > (set_static_spec_owned): New. > (set_static_spec_shared): New. > (driver::maybe_putenv_COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER): Use > set_static_spec_owned() to take ownership of

[PATCH 4/6] Add `+' for Jobserver Integration

GNU Make expects that a `+' token is present on the beggining of the rule command if it wants to interact with the Jobserver [1]. This commit add such token for the Makefiles in GCC. [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/POSIX-Jobserver.html#POSIX-Jobserver gcc/ChangeLog:

[PATCH 2/6] Implement a new partitioner for parallel compilation

When using the LTO infrastructure to compile files in parallel, we can't simply use any of the LTO partitioner, once extra dependency analysis is required to ensure that some nodes are correctly partitioned together. Therefore, here we implement a new partitioner called "lto_merge_comdat_map"

[PATCH 3/6] Implement fork-based parallelism engine

This patch belongs to the "Parallelize GCC with Processes" series. Here, we implement the parallelism by forking the compiler into multiple processes after what would be the LTO LTRANS stage, partitioning the callgraph into several partitions, as implemented in "maybe_compile_in_parallel". From a

[PATCH 5/6] Add invoke documentation

Add documentation about how to invoke GCC in order to use parallel compilation. gcc/ChangeLog: 20-08-2020 Giuliano Belinassi * doc/invoke.texi: Document -fparallel-jobs=. --- gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 32 +++- 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

[PATCH 6/6] New tests for parallel compilation feature

Adds new tests for testing the parallel compilation engine. They mainly test issues with regard to symbol promotion clash and incorrect early assembler output. 2020-08-20 Giuliano Belinassi * gcc.dg/parallel-early-constant.c: New test. * gcc.dg/parallel-static-1.c: New test.

[PATCH 1/6] Modify gcc driver for parallel compilation

Update the driver for parallel compilation. This process work as follows: When calling gcc, the driver will check if the flag "-fparallel-jobs" was provided by the user. If yes, then we will check what is the desired output, and if it can be parallelized. There are the following cases, which is

[PATCH 0/6] Parallelize Intra-Procedural Optimizations using the LTO Engine.

This patch series add a new flag "-fparallel-jobs=" to control if the compiler should try to compile the current file in parallel. There are three modes which is supported by now: 1. -fparallel-jobs=: Try to compile the file using a maximum of N jobs. 2. -fparallel-jobs=jobserver: Check if

Re: [Patch 4/5] rs6000, Test 128-bit shifts for just the int128 type.

Hi! On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:23:05PM -0700, Carl Love wrote: > +;; 128-bit int modes > +(define_mode_iterator VEC_I128 [V1TI TI]) We already have VSX_TI for this (in vsx.md). Rename that to something without VSX, and move it to vector.md or such? Maybe name it VEC_TI or anyTI. Do that

[Bug analyzer/93994] ICE in get_or_create_mem_ref, at analyzer/region-model.cc:6599

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93994 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/77303] std::max_element not constexpr with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77303 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[committed 2/3] [og10] Annotate inner loops in "acc kernels loop" directives (C/C++).

Normally explicit loop directives in a kernels region inhibit automatic annotation of other loops in the same nest, on the theory that users have indicated they want manual control over that section of code. However there seems to be an expectation in user code that the combined "kernels loop"

[committed 3/3] [OG10] Annotate inner loops in "acc kernels loop" directives (Fortran).

Normally explicit loop directives in a kernels region inhibit automatic annotation of other loops in the same nest, on the theory that users have indicated they want manual control over that section of code. However there seems to be an expectation in user code that the combined "kernels loop"

[committed 1/3] [OG10] Add a "combined" flag for "acc kernels loop" etc directives.

2020-08-19 Sandra Loosemore gcc/ * tree.h (OACC_LOOP_COMBINED): New. gcc/c/ * c-parser.c (c_parser_oacc_loop): Set OACC_LOOP_COMBINED. gcc/cp/ * parser.c (cp_parser_oacc_loop): Set OACC_LOOP_COMBINED. gcc/fortran/ *

[committed 0/3] [OG10] openacc: Fix annotation of inner loops in combined "acc kernels loop" directives

The annotator that detects loops in kernels regions and adds "auto" attributes to them presently ignores loops nested in an explicitly-annotated loop, on the theory that the user likely marked up only some of the loops in the nest as a means of deliberately controlling the parallelism. Inspection

[committed] analyzer: fix infinite recursion ICE on unions [PR96723]

Attempts to store sm-state into a union in C++ triggered an infinite recursion when trying to generate a representative tree, due to erroneously trying to use the dtor of the union as a field. Fix it by filtering out non-FIELD_DECLs when walking TYPE_FIELDs in region::get_subregions_for_binding.

[Bug analyzer/96723] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV: infinite recursion in ana::region::get_subregions_for_binding with -Og -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96723 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/96723] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV: infinite recursion in ana::region::get_subregions_for_binding with -Og -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96723 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00cb0f5840795698557731c6e549a5ce99573223 commit r11-2789-g00cb0f5840795698557731c6e549a5ce99573223 Author: David Malcolm Date:

Re: [PATCH] improve validation of attribute arguments (PR c/78666)

First, didn't Marek say in the PR that the diagnostic code should go in diagnose_mismatched_attributes? An overall comment-- could we write a generic validator rather than having to special case validation on a case by case basis? Is there way of marking attributes as immutable if specified

Re: [PATCH] configure: Require C++11 for building code generation tools

Hi Tobias, This patch fixes the issue that I was seeing, thanks. I will also now try your updated patch from https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/552330.html Kind Regards Vasee On 20/08/2020, 17:29, "Tobias Burnus" wrote: Hi, how about my (unreviewed) patch for PR

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 07:31:50PM +, GT wrote: > I'm still trying to understand why we need attribute((target("vsx"))). You need Power8, even! "vsx" alone is not enough (that only guarantees Power7). Your minimum version ("b") requires Power8. Segher

[Bug c++/93529] Implement P1009R2, Array size deduction in new-expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93529 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek

[PATCH] c++: Implement P1009: Array size deduction in new-expressions.

This patch implements C++20 P1009, allowing code like new double[]{1,2,3}; // array bound will be deduced Since this proposal makes the initialization rules more consistent, it is applied to all previous versions of C++ (thus, effectively, all the way back to C++11). My patch is based on

[Bug bootstrap/96612] [11 Regression][submitted patch] Fails to bootstrap with older --build= than --host= compiler due to missing -std=c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96612 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/87711] ICE in gfc_trans_transfer, at fortran/trans-io.c:2676

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87711 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 07:31:50PM +, GT wrote: > I'm still trying to understand why we need attribute((target("vsx"))). > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#Common-Function-Attributes > > The documentation for target(string) states that the purpose is to

[Bug bootstrap/96612] [11 Regression][submitted patch] Fails to bootstrap with older --build= than --host= compiler due to missing -std=c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96612 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ffcf5d61174dda1f39a623e15f7e5d6b98bbafc commit r11-2787-g7ffcf5d61174dda1f39a623e15f7e5d6b98bbafc Author: Tobias Burnus Date:

[Bug libstdc++/71960] __glibcxx_assert and Debug Mode checks can't be used in constexpr functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71960 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Assignee|unassigned at

RE: [RFC] LTO Dead Field Elimination and LTO Field Reordering

Hi Erick, Thanks for updating the branch! From some initial testing it seems to result in some nice gains for mcf but also in lower peak memory usage and smaller binaries even for benchmarks that don't show an improvement in runtime though I haven't looked at these more closely yet. I think

[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/96728 - Fatal Error: Reading module inquiry functions on assumed-rank

Hi all! Proposed patch to PR96728 - Fatal Error: Reading module inquiry functions on assumed-rank. Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. The rank of the argument to specification functions gets written when writing the module file, but, since the value will be negative for assumed-rank

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, August 13, 2020 5:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 08:40:22PM +, GT wrote: > > > I'm looking at ix86_simd_clone_adjust and also aarch64_simd_clone_adjust. > > The latter is > > much simpler and I see how I would add PPC

Re: [Patch] configure: Also check C++11 (flags) for ${build} compiler not only for ${host}

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Thanks for the first review; new version attached. Thanks, this version is OK for GCC (but the GCC version will need updating if autoconf-archive ends up with a different version of these changes). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: reorg.c (fill_slots_from_thread): Improve for TARGET_FLAGS_REGNUM targets

Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches writes: >> > @@ -2411,6 +2411,21 @@ fill_slots_from_thread (rtx_jump_insn *insn, rtx >> > condition, >> >CLEAR_RESOURCE (); >> >CLEAR_RESOURCE (); >> > >> > + /* Handle the flags register specially, to be able to accept a >> > + candidate that

Re: [Patch] configure: Also check C++11 (flags) for ${build} compiler not only for ${host}

On 8/20/20 7:12 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: It appears you're requiring _FOR_BUILD here and considering other suffixes invalid, which would prevent any other use, e.g. _FOR_TARGET. Actually, the main reason I required _FOR_BUILD was that I couldn't find m4_ifnblank and then gave up ... Now having

[PATCH] libstdc++: Fix iota_view::size() to avoid overflow

This avoids overfow that occurs when negating the most negative value of an integral type. Also prevent returning signed int when the values have lower rank and promote to int. libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: * include/std/ranges (ranges::iota_view::size()): Perform all calculations in

[Bug fortran/96613] SIGFPE on min1() with -ffpe-trap=invalid switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96613 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Huxhorn --- I compiled the latest git GCC and rerun the program, no more problems. Thank you all :)

[Bug fortran/96728] New: Fatal Error: Reading module inquiry functions on assumed-rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96728 Bug ID: 96728 Summary: Fatal Error: Reading module inquiry functions on assumed-rank Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH v2] libgcc: Use `-fasynchronous-unwind-tables' for LIB2_DIVMOD_FUNCS

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > That said I'm of course happy to keep the ARM overrides if you consider > > them still necessary in the context of the generic change made. Let me > > know what you prefer, and if required, I will submit v3 with the ARM > > pieces removed.

[PATCH v3] libgcc: Use `-fasynchronous-unwind-tables' for LIB2_DIVMOD_FUNCS

Complement commit b932f770f70d ("x86_64 frame unwind info"), SVN r46374, , and replace `-fexceptions -fnon-call-exceptions' with `-fasynchronous-unwind-tables' in LIB2_DIVMOD_FUNCS compilation flags so as to provide unwind tables for

Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

On 19/08/20 20:36 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 19/08/20 17:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Because __int128 can be used as the difference type for iota_view, we need to ensure that it meets the requirements of an integer-class type. The requirements in [iterator.concept.winc] p10 include

[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/96727 - ICE with character length specified using specification function on assumed-rank array

Hi all! Proposed patch to PR96727 - ICE with character length specified using specification function on assumed-rank array. Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Add missing default error message for the assumed-rank array case. Thank you very much. Best regards, José Rui 2020-8-20

[Bug fortran/96727] New: ICE with character length specified using specification function on assumed-rank array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96727 Bug ID: 96727 Summary: ICE with character length specified using specification function on assumed-rank array Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/96666] [11 Regression] Analyzer creates too many regions for a particular program

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9 Arseny Solokha changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug analyzer/96723] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV: infinite recursion in ana::region::get_subregions_for_binding with -Og -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96723 Arseny Solokha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||asolokha at gmx dot com --- Comment #2

[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/96726 - ICE with user defined specification function on assumed-rank array

Hi all! Proposed patch to PR96726 - ICE with user defined specification function on assumed-rank array. Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Obvious fix, replace different operator with less than to avoid infinite loop. Thank you very much. Best regards, José Rui 2020-8-20 José

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 04:19:36PM +, GT wrote: > > Great! Please repost with what I already pointed out fixed, that > > explanation added, and working links to the documentation? > > Are you ok with the titles of the patch and this document? > >

Re: [PATCH] configure: Require C++11 for building code generation tools

On 20/08/2020 18:07, Vaseeharan Vinayagamoorthy wrote: > Hi Szabolcs, > > In the top level gcc config.log, I see: > > configure:5541: checking whether aarch64-none-linux-gnu-g++ supports C++11 > features by default > configure:5837: aarch64-none-linux-gnu-g++ -c -g -O2 conftest.cpp >&5 >

[Bug fortran/96726] New: ICE with user defined specification function on assumed-rank array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96726 Bug ID: 96726 Summary: ICE with user defined specification function on assumed-rank array Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/90367] Spurious warning array subscript is above array bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 90367, which changed state. Bug 90367 Summary: Spurious warning array subscript is above array bounds https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/96320] gfortran 8-10 shape mismatch in assumed-length dummy argument character array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320 --- Comment #24 from Damian Rouson --- This appears to be another example of an issue with a module procedure defined in the same module as its interface body. In this case, the compiler doesn't recognize a reference to the procedure: ± cat

[Bug fortran/96100] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:14638

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96100 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:300ef2fcc10e98359d14654be23bbb84a5d141e1 commit r11-2785-g300ef2fcc10e98359d14654be23bbb84a5d141e1 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Thu

[Bug fortran/96101] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:300ef2fcc10e98359d14654be23bbb84a5d141e1 commit r11-2785-g300ef2fcc10e98359d14654be23bbb84a5d141e1 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Thu

[Bug tree-optimization/92539] [8/9/10/11 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O3 (loop unroll?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92539 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10/11 Regression]

Re: reorg.c (fill_slots_from_thread): Improve for TARGET_FLAGS_REGNUM targets

> From: Richard Sandiford > Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 10:30:56 +0200 > Anything I once knew about reorg.c has long since faded away, but since > noone else has reviewed it... Thanks. I forgot to add PATCH and/or RFA: in the subject and forgot to CC Eric, assuming he's interested (I did CC him as

[Bug bootstrap/92828] array out of bounds access in libcpp/mkdeps.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|WAITING

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 92828, which changed state. Bug 92828 Summary: array out of bounds access in libcpp/mkdeps.c https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828 What|Removed |Added

[Bug analyzer/96723] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV: infinite recursion in ana::region::get_subregions_for_binding with -Og -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96723 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

Re: [Patch] configure: Also check C++11 (flags) for ${build} compiler not only for ${host}

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020, Tobias Burnus wrote: > diff --git a/config/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4 b/config/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4 > index 9413da624d2..0cd515fc65b 100644 > --- a/config/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4 > +++ b/config/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4 > @@ -25,6 +25,10 @@ > # regardless, after defining

Re: [PATCH] configure: Require C++11 for building code generation tools

Hi Szabolcs, In the top level gcc config.log, I see: configure:5541: checking whether aarch64-none-linux-gnu-g++ supports C++11 features by default configure:5837: aarch64-none-linux-gnu-g++ -c -g -O2 conftest.cpp >&5 configure:5837: $? = 0 configure:5844: result: yes configure:6542: checking

[Bug middle-end/96725] warn for uses of global nonconstant unterminated char arrays where strings are required

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96725 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Severity|normal

[Bug fortran/96711] Internal Compiler Error on NINT() Function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 03:54:44PM +, bre08 at eggen dot co.uk wrote: > > PS (and maybe I need to post this separately as a suggestion) - will > there be a fast "octuple-precision floating point /

[Bug middle-end/96725] New: warn for uses of global nonconstant unterminated char arrays where strings are required

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96725 Bug ID: 96725 Summary: warn for uses of global nonconstant unterminated char arrays where strings are required Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

Re: Clobber REG_CC only for some constraint alternatives?

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > What I didn't understand was the (set-attr "cc") > part - as far I can tell, this results in (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in > all of the three substituted patterns, so I wondered why not just have > (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in the original

[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/96724 - Bogus warnings with the repeat intrinsic and the flag -Wconversion-extra

Hi all! Proposed patch to PR96724 - Bogus warnings with the repeat intrinsic and the flag -Wconversion-extra. Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Add code to force conversion to the default wider integer type before multiplication. Thank you very much. Best regards, José Rui

[Bug middle-end/93665] missing warning on strncmp reading past unterminated array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93665 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

  1   2   >