https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69029
Bug ID: 69029
Summary: [6 Regression] bogus -Wmisleading-indentation warning
on one-line loops
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68999
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I will have a look, but please,
can you attach a preprocessed source for maxval_r4.c
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66232
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Dec 23 09:49:28 2015
New Revision: 231923
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231923=gcc=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Allow indirect call via GOT for 64-bit Pmode x32
From: H.J. Lu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37112
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37112=edit
dom1 tree dump from 4.8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37113
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37113=edit
dom1 tree dump from 4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I also meant to add that the differences in tree dumps start at the dom1 pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
--- Comment #4 from Paul Hua ---
Created attachment 37114
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37114=edit
preprocessed source for maxval_r4.c
The compile command line :
cc1 -fpreprocessed maxval_r4.i -mel -quiet -dumpbase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
--- Comment #5 from Paul Hua ---
Created attachment 37115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37115=edit
building command
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69030
Bug ID: 69030
Summary: ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu at -O2 and above in 32-bit
mode (ICE in copy_rtx, at rtl.c:358)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61441
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab <sch...@linux-m68k.org> ---
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr61441.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20151223/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr61441.c:12:7: warning:
implicit declaration of function 'issig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
--- Comment #1 from PeteVine ---
Here's the exact error (was quoting from memory previously):
physfs.c
../src/physfs/physfs.c:76:5: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer
type
&__PHYSFS_Archiver_BIND_PHYSFS,
^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
PeteVine changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tulipawn at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
Artem S. Tashkinov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t.artem at mailcity dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69031
Bug ID: 69031
Summary: ICE: in hash_rtx_cb, at cse.c:2533 with -fPIC
-fselective-scheduling and __builtin_setjmp()
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
--- Comment #4 from PeteVine ---
The above error (using -mcpu=cortex-a5 -ffast-math) is a little different from
this one (after taking those two flags out, leaving just -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer):
physfs.c
../src/physfs/physfs.c:76:5: warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69032
Bug ID: 69032
Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE: in cfg_preds_1, at
sel-sched-ir.c:4809 with -fsched-pressure
-fsel-sched-pipelining -fselective-scheduling
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 37120
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37120=edit
non-tested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37121
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37121=edit
CFG dump before doloop pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67797
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68793
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69011
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There's a bit of code in gfc_trans_allocate:
...
if (code->expr3 && !code->expr3->mold)
{
/* Initialization via SOURCE block (or static default initializer).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
I attached simple non-tested patch which restores performance on x86. This
change is no perfect but using it I noticed 2%-6% speed-up on 32-bit x86
platform. The idea of patch is very simple - we do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67811
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67779
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
PR69011 is probably a duplicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37122
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37122=edit
CFG dump before doloop pass (loop_invariant pass)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #4)
> The above error (using -mcpu=cortex-a5 -ffast-math) is a little different
> from this one (after taking those two flags out, leaving just -O3
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
--- Comment #11 from PeteVine ---
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-MMD' '-MP' '-D' 'GLEW_STATIC' '-D' 'NDEBUG=1' '-D'
'PHYSFS_SUPPORTS_ZIP' '-I' '../src' '-I' '../src/luasocket' '-I' '../src/fov'
'-I' '../src/expat' '-I' '../src/lxp' '-I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #12 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69011
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #4)
> Marking as blocking PR 67779 because we need to fix this to get to the
> wrong-code issue in that PR again.
I suspect this PR is simply a duplicate of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69029
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69011
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||67779
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69011
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69029
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Looks like it would be fixed by:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02050.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've attached the CFG before and after the doloop pass, which I think
introduces the badness.
In loop3 the loop header exit condition is transformed but it disregards the
fact that the CC reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68232
--- Comment #4 from James Greenhalgh ---
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Wed Dec 23 16:35:20 2015
New Revision: 231929
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231929=gcc=rev
Log:
[Patch testsuite] Skip gcc.dg/ifcvt-4.c for targets on which it may not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67710
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work on Mac OS X 10.11.2: every link test
> FAILs with
>
> FAIL: 17_intro/freestanding.cc (test for excess errors)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68911
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This goes wrong during vrp1.
> Analyzing # of iterations of loop 2
> exit condition [e_6, + , 1] <= 93
> bounds on difference of bases: -4294967202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69035
Bug ID: 69035
Summary: [constexpr] Using bultins sometimes make the
expression non-constant
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67797
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Note that gcc knows about it, thanks to the "fn spec" attribute (see also
ERF_RETURNS_ARG), it just doesn't try hard enough to take advantage of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69023
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #29 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #28)
> Will report back.
From a current build log (5.3.1-4) [1]:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-checksum.o differs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69033
Bug ID: 69033
Summary: [6 regression] many internal compiler errors starting
with r231928
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
--- Comment #13 from PeteVine ---
Thanks; I've just remembered another one (involving lto during final link) that
doesn't happen on x86 so I'm probably going to open an issue. Could you tell me
whether a failure like this belongs in gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69034
Bug ID: 69034
Summary: ICE: RTL check: expected elt 1 type 'e' or 'u', have
'i' (rtx unspec) in copy_replacements_1, at
reload.c:6323 with -fPIC and "X" asm input
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64786
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65070
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69005
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
If we remove the copy constructor declaration or make it defaulted, clang
rejects this testcase, also due to excessive recursive instantiation, and GCC
starts accepting it. We're definitely into corner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69026
--- Comment #1 from Gary Funck ---
This can be most easily reproduced by doing a regular configure and make, then
cd-ing into the gcc build directory and forcing a re-compilation of dwarf2out.c
at -O3.
cd bld/gcc
rm dwarf2out.o
make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67811
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Dec 24 00:45:15 2015
New Revision: 231943
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231943=gcc=rev
Log:
PR ipa/67811
* tree-cfg.c (make_edges_bb): Add abort edge for outer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
--- Comment #8 from Paul Hua ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #6)
> (In reply to Paul Hua from comment #5)
> > Created attachment 37115 [details]
> > building command
>
> I'm unable to reproduce.
> What is your cross-compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69025
--- Comment #1 from Gary Funck ---
This can be most easily reproduced by doing a regular configure and make, then
cd-ing into the gcc build directory and forcing a re-compilation of df-scan.c
at -O3.
cd bld/gcc
rm df-scan.o
make CXXFLAGS='-O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69036
Bug ID: 69036
Summary: g++ hangs compiling tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64993
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64713
Bug 64713 depends on bug 64993, which changed state.
Bug 64993 Summary: Missed ccmp optimization with simple code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64993
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67919
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65968
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66012
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Happens on aarch64 also:
test:
adrpx0, l
add x1, x0, :lo12:l
ldr x1, [x1, 8]
ldr w0, [x0, #:lo12:l]
orr x0, x0, x1, lsl 32
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69035
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66012
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69033
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
patch r231928 reverted. Analysis at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg02100.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65712
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is invalid as pthread_self is marked as const or pure which means
it does not change with respect of function calls.
If anything is a deficiency in POSIX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68034
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65933
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this has been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65933
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69023
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Dec 23 21:52:50 2015
New Revision: 231938
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231938=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/69023 - bitset whose name is used in constant-expression rejected
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66261
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Paul Hua from comment #8)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Paul Hua from comment #5)
> > > Created attachment 37115 [details]
> > > building command
> >
> > I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65070
--- Comment #4 from Nadav Har'El ---
There is a fine line between relying on "Linux" (e.g., the glibc ABI functions
as defined in LSB for example), and relying on obscure architecture-specific
tricks (like calling the syscall *instruction* in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68987
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
My guilty commit is rev 222111. Went to far on the patch for pr65089 or took
care of the needed free somewhere else
This fixes it. Testing further.
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/format.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52203
--- Comment #12 from Zdenek Sojka ---
4.7 is not maintained anymore, can this be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
--- Comment #5 from PeteVine ---
Created attachment 37118
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37118=edit
Preprocessed source
Corresponding to the latter error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
--- Comment #6 from PeteVine ---
Created attachment 37119
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37119=edit
Profile data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
--- Comment #7 from PeteVine ---
I think I erroneously attached the preprocessed source from the profile-use
stage; you wanted from profile-generate, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #7)
> I think I erroneously attached the preprocessed source from the profile-use
> stage; you wanted from profile-generate, right?
We need the one from the phase where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69016
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
--- Comment #9 from PeteVine ---
Great, let me know if you need anything else.
Here's output from gcc -v:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/bin/gcc-4.9.real
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/4.9/lto-wrapper
Target:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69023
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from TC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Paul Hua from comment #5)
> Created attachment 37115 [details]
> building command
I'm unable to reproduce.
What is your cross-compiler command line?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
FYI, I used:
../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/home/ed/gnu/mips64el-unknown-linux
--target=mips64el-unknown-linux --enable-languages=c --enable-__cxa_atexit
--disable-libunwind-exceptions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
--- Comment #31 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to wuxiang from comment #30)
> (In reply to amker from comment #29)
> > I think this is fixed.
>
> Hi, I saw your patch, and patched it on gcc-4.8.4，but no improvement of
> 410.bwaves
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68940
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Jahns ---
Created attachment 37111
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37111=edit
Source to demonstrate problem with -Wno-error=unused-parameter
Running gfortran shows the problem:
$ gfortran -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173
--- Comment #15 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com ---
> I wonder if we should (finally) use a RB tree for bitmap. I even remember
> some patches posted to improve this (from Steven?) this or last year?
I used splay trees, they're a lot easier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69028
Bug ID: 69028
Summary: ICE on *any* valid Cilk+ code C/C++: -fcilkplus is
incompatible with -fprofile-arcs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
---
91 matches
Mail list logo
