https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81665
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palves at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86837
--- Comment #2 from Pascal ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #1)
> If I add "-fno-frontend-optimize", the test case runs properly.
>
> There have been other cases where front-end optimization fell over
> nested loops. You were lucky
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86854
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86854
--- Comment #1 from Joshua Oreman ---
To clarify, the -freorder-blocks-and-partition argument in the example
invocations is superfluous (that optimization is enabled by default at -O2).
With -fno-reorder-blocks-and-partition the issue is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86854
Bug ID: 86854
Summary: crash on stack unwinding with
reorder-blocks-and-partition + linker code folding +
C++ exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86853
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86853
Bug ID: 86853
Summary: sprintf optimization for wide strings doesn't account
for conversion failure
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80537
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
fiesh at zefix dot tv changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86852
Bug ID: 86852
Summary: map and unordered_map wrong deduction guides for
inilializer_list
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86851
Bug ID: 86851
Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow on %s with a constant string
plus variable offset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86846
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86849
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86850
Bug ID: 86850
Summary: ubsan: runtime error: member call on null pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86849
Bug ID: 86849
Summary: g++ applies guaranteed copy elision to delegating
construction, resulting in miscompiles
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Aug 3 18:38:13 2018
New Revision: 263298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263298=gcc=rev
Log:
Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in assignment operators (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86837
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86848
--- Comment #4 from Caleb James DeLisle ---
Very sorry to have bothered you and thank you for your time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86848
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is in
https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/blob/crashey/memory/BufferAllocator.c
/* Define alignment as the size of a pointer which is usually 4 or 8 bytes. */
#define ALIGNMENT sizeof(char*)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86848
--- Comment #1 from Caleb James DeLisle ---
This issue also reproduces on 6.3.0:
root@dirtysanchez:/home/user# gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/6/lto-wrapper
Target:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86848
Bug ID: 86848
Summary: ARM: (-O3 -march=armv7-a -mfpu=neon-vfpv4) vst1 wrong
alignment for `vst1.64 {d16-d17}, [r4 :64]` before
function call
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86795
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86795, which changed state.
Bug 86795 Summary: mn10300 port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86795
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86795
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Aug 3 17:39:00 2018
New Revision: 263296
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263296=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/86795
* config/mn10300/mn10300.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86847
Bug ID: 86847
Summary: [9 Regression] Switch code size growth
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86846
Bug ID: 86846
Summary: [9 Regression] ld: (Warning) Unsatisfied symbol
"__atomic_exchange_8" in libstdc++.sl
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86845
Bug ID: 86845
Summary: libgccjit.so.0.0.1 build error with in-tree isl:
relocation R_X86_64_32 against `.rodata.str1.8' can
not be used when making a shared object; recompile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to janus from comment #5)
> However, in-pack.f90 is the only one that is made to fail by the combination
> of -Ofast and -march=skylake-avx512. I think it's the same problem as PR
> 86735 (at least it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86844
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't apparently have this enabled in my builds so I can't readily confirm
this error -- I get f951: sorry, unimplemented: Graphite loop optimizations
cannot be used (isl is not available) (-fgraphite,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86844
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 44503
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44503=edit
experimental patch
This patch adds a check to check_no_overlap which rejects overlaps if it has
seen a non-constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86844
Bug ID: 86844
Summary: wrong code generation cause by store merging pass
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
My machine is Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 and I have no problem under
kernel 4.17.11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
I can no longer reproduce it under kernel 4.17.11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86690
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86690
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Aug 3 15:25:35 2018
New Revision: 263294
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263294=gcc=rev
Log:
Avoid infinite loop with duplicate anonymous union fields (PR c/86690).
If a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In fact I'm not really sure there's anything concrete that can be done here.
"Check stuff!" isn't very helpful. We already check stuff.
Specific suggestions for additional checks are useful. Overly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Checking all possible preconditions isn't practical anyway, so isn't going to
happen, so we don't need knobs to control that.
Not everything can be checked, at some point users need to write correct code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86706
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 3 15:10:32 2018
New Revision: 263293
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263293=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86706
* class.c (build_base_path): Use currently_open_class.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
--- Comment #4 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
> So I'm strongly opposed to that part of the suggestion. Either you get all
> the ABI-preserving debug checks, or none.
Checking all (possible) preconditions without any limit on the introduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86738
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86838
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
Antony Polukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Antony
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to fiesh from comment #2)
> > Not everything. Some Expects preconditions cannot be tested (e.g. that
> > pointer points to an array of at least N objects).
>
> True. I suppose it's sufficient
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86738
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
> Not everything. Some Expects preconditions cannot be tested (e.g. that
> pointer points to an array of at least N objects).
True. I suppose it's sufficient to have that memory accessed (somehow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86834
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Thanks for the detailed report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86843
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The irreflexivity checks I originally asked for are done - do we want to keep
this open for more extensive checks, or close as FIXED?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86823
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Confirmed by commenting out the two:
tentative_firewall firewall (parser);
lines and the testcase is rejected again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86843
Bug ID: 86843
Summary: Allow separating debug mode into ABI-changing part and
rest
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86842
Bug ID: 86842
Summary: Allow run-time checks of pre- and postconditions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86823
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86834
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86835
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
void
foo (int n, double *x, double *y)
{
int i;
double b = y[4];
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
y[3] += __builtin_tanh (x[i] / b);
y[0] /= b;
y[1] /= b * b;
y[2] /= b;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86752
Sebastian Peryt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86745
Sebastian Peryt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86836
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841
Bug ID: 86841
Summary: ICE in
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/tree-vrp.c:1325 with
graphite
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86839
--- Comment #3 from galileaman bugzilla
---
OK, always thought that non-aligned vars only hit performance.
I see know it is a requirement in the standard.
Sorry, and thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86836
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86840
Bug ID: 86840
Summary: __attribute__((optimize("exceptions"))) is silently
ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86836
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86839
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86838
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86839
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try using -fsanitizer=undefined . As I think you are violating c/c++ alignment
rules. That is a pointer to a float has an alignment requirement of 4 bytes
but your pointer that you are using only has an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #31 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 44498
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44498=edit
Proposed patch for gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86839
Bug ID: 86839
Summary: O3 create wrong code (segmentation fault) on extern
non-aligned buffer
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
[...]
> Does the attachment fix the problem?
Seems I completely missed this, sorry.
I've just ran sparc-sun-solaris2.11 and i386-pc-solaris2.11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86838
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-8-3
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86838
Bug ID: 86838
Summary: ICE in gen_aarch64_frecpe, at ./insn-opinit.h:571
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84332
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Any progress here please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I wouldn't object to that. In fact I thought we kicked that around along with
an option to remove path leading to the undefined behavior completely. But
it's not something I'm likely to work on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> And FWIW, I think we should be using __builtin_trap rather than
> __builtin_unreachable in many more places because of the security concerns.
It would be better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50360
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|dominiq at lps dot ens.fr |
--- Comment #4 from
85 matches
Mail list logo
