https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97459
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49438|divisiontable.dat |divisiontable.txt
filename|
: internal compiler error: in
propagate_controlled_uses, at ipa-prop.c:4073
17 | }
| ^
0x677dc7 propagate_controlled_uses
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20201025/work/gcc-11-20201025/gcc/ipa-prop.c:4073
0x677dc7 ipa_propagate_indirect_call_infos(cgraph_edge*, vec*)
/var
-11.0.0_alpha20201025/work/gcc-11-20201025/gcc/ipa-prop.c:3671
0x73eaf7 update_indirect_edges_after_inlining
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20201025/work/gcc-11-20201025/gcc/ipa-prop.c:3880
0x73eaf7 propagate_info_to_inlined_callees
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.0.0_alpha20201025
I know compiling is exponenental when considering it compiles operating
systems, but can someone either implement or help me implement some kind of
singular security feature for the stack so hacks dont access the heap? Im
thinking the first few bytes would be some security software or feature
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97124
--- Comment #6 from Liu Hao ---
Today I got the same ICE when building mingw-w64. I am not clear why this error
only happened with GCC previously.
On 2020/10/23 18:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020, Xiong Hu Luo wrote:
>
>> Sometimes debug_bb_slim_bb_n_slim is not enough, how about adding
>> this debug_bb_details_bb_n_details? Or any other similar call
>> existed?
> There's already debug_bb and debug_bb_n in cfg.c which
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> Build fails here now with: gimple-range.h:168:59: error:
> >> ‘EVRP_MODE_DEBUG’ was not declared in this scope
> >>
> > And now builds – as the "Hybrid EVRP and testcases" was pushed as well,
> > a bit more than a quarter of an hour
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97568
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
The bug has been introduced by commit af66094d037793773eb8a49597866457f2f6a104.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97569
--- Comment #2 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Anders Granlund from comment #0)
> > The interesting thing is that if we replace struct S with struct S {}
> > both compilers agree on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97574
Bug ID: 97574
Summary: Allow for nul output with Windows
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Snapshot gcc-11-20201025 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20201025/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97531
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't really care about test failures for non-standard configurations like
that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97563
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97572
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think GCC is correct to reject this. any(t) is not a valid constraint.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97569
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Anders Granlund from comment #0)
> The interesting thing is that if we replace struct S with struct S {}
> both compilers agree on rejecting the program.
I don't see any struct S in the
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> This patch remedies this situation: after the patch, make_extraction()
> now also identifies RTXs such as:
>
> (mult:DI (subreg:DI (reg:SI r)) (const_int 2^n))
>
> and rewrites this as:
>
> (mult:DI (sign_extend:DI (reg:SI r))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97573
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Likewise, [depr.array.comp] should be implemented too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97573
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97573
Bug ID: 97573
Summary: Implement C++20 [depr.arith.conv.enum]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Hi,
for the AMD64 alias x86_64 platform and the __int128_t [DW]type,
the first few lines of the __mulvDI3() function from libgcc2.c
| DWtype
| __mulvDI3 (DWtype u, DWtype v)
| {
| /* The unchecked multiplication needs 3 Wtype x Wtype multiplications,
| but the checked multiplication needs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95132
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
: candidate: ‘template requires Any
constexpr int f(auto:1)’
4 | constexpr static int f (Any auto) { return 42; };
| ^
bug-9.cpp:4:22: note: substitution of deduced template arguments resulted in
errors seen above
GCC version:
g++ (GCC) 11.0.0 20201025 (experimental)
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
gcc version 11.0.0 20201025 (experimental) [master revision
d7ddd287c:9f8172cd7:47d13acbda9a5d8eb57ff169ba74857cd54108e4] (GCC)
x86_64-unknown-linux
$ cat init.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97563
Damian changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97570
Bug ID: 97570
Summary: avr-gcc: error: 'void* memalign' redeclared as
different kind of entity
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97569
Bug ID: 97569
Summary: Declaring a struct in a field declaration of another
struct.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Hi Paul,
OK for master.
Committed, thanks.
Thanks for working on this one!
There is still a lto to do (I left in this typo by
design :-), especially with cshift and friends. Let's see
how far I can progress until gcc 11 with this one, if helping
out Nicolas with coarray stuff leaves me
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 7:20 AM Alan Modra wrote:
>
> All these tests fail with -m32 due to lack of int128 support, in some
> cases with what I thought was not the best error message. For example
> vsx_mask-move-runnable.c:34:3: error: unknown type name 'vector'
> is misleading. The problem
Hi,
the default duplicate and insert methods of sumaries produce empty
summary that is not useful for anything and makes it easy to introduce
bugs.
This patch makes the default hooks to abort and summaries that do not
need dupicaito/insertion disable the corresponding hooks. I also
implemented
Ping?
чт, 4 июн. 2020 г. в 18:30, Matwey V. Kornilov :
> Reference: https://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/en/ATMEGA324PB
> ---
> gcc/config/avr/avr-mcus.def | 1 +
> gcc/doc/avr-mmcu.texi | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97568
Bug ID: 97568
Summary: -fanalyzer assumes that an extern const pointer is
NULL
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Hi
Given that GNU attributes are not part of the standard..
I wonder if the following is expected to work?
__attribute__((__deprecated__))
extern "C" __attribute__((__visibility__("default")))
void foo ()
{
}
t.C:3:8: error: expected unqualified-id before string constant
3 | extern "C"
I thought this one was worth at least commenting as to why it fails
when biarch testing. OK?
* gcc.target/powerpc/bswap64-4.c: Comment.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/bswap64-4.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/bswap64-4.c
index a3c05539652..11787000409 100644
---
When running with -m32
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr94740.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
cc1: error: '-mpcrel' requires '-mcmodel=medium'
The others don't run for -m32, but remove the unnecessary -mpcrel
anyway.
* gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-1.c: Remove -mpcrel from options.
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-p8-22.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
cc1: error: '-mcmodel' not supported in this configuration
* gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-p8-22.c: Disable for -m32.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-p8-22.c
All these tests fail with -m32 due to lack of int128 support, in some
cases with what I thought was not the best error message. For example
vsx_mask-move-runnable.c:34:3: error: unknown type name 'vector'
is misleading. The problem isn't "vector" but "vector __uint128_t".
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97567
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-25
Target Milestone|---
> Three bootstrap breaks in one week must be close to a record, even for
> powerpc-darwin ;)
Indeed, sorry about that!
> tested on powerpc-darwin9 (m32/m64),
> OK for master?
OK, thanks.
> P.S. There are some apparent regressions/new GNAT fails for the m64 multilib
> but these will be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97530
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
Bug 88076 depends on bug 97530, which changed state.
Bug 97530 Summary: Segmentation fault compiling coarray program with option
-fcoarray=shared (not with -fcoarray={lib,single})
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97530
Hi Richard,
that's an excellent idea, I'll try to figure out to do that.
Thanks for the advice!
Nicolas
On 23/10/2020 19:29, Richard Biener wrote:
On October 23, 2020 7:49:04 PM GMT+02:00, "Nicolas König"
wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm hoping to get shared coarrays for fortran (the
Hi Thomas,
OK for master.
Thanks for working on this one!
Paul
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 at 20:33, Thomas Koenig via Fortran
wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> here's a patch which corrects some wrong declarations (and fixes
> the segfault for FINDLOC on Darwin ARM).
>
> Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
>
Hi.
Three bootstrap breaks in one week must be close to a record, even for
powerpc-darwin ;)
tested on powerpc-darwin9 (m32/m64),
OK for master?
Iain
P.S. There are some apparent regressions/new GNAT fails for the m64 multilib
but these will be addressed separately.
Excess errors:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 11:55:39AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 12:31:43PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 02:59:34PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > Those instructions aren't generated, we don't see them anywhere on a
> > > power10 all-lang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96817
Rimvydas (RJ) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88707
Rimvydas (RJ) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com
---
version 11.0.0 20201025 (experimental) [master revision
1aeb7d7d67d:7a48d67add1:d7ddd287ca76e87f431f43687de6d8cc48e52543] (GCC)
[551] %
[551] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[552] %
[552] % gcctk -Os small.c
[553] % ./a.out
Illegal instruction
[554] %
[554] % cat small.c
int a, b, c, d;
void k
48 matches
Mail list logo
