https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91002
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |c++
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62147
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62147
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
Author: linkw
Date: Thu Jun 27 05:33:15 2019
New Revision: 272732
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272732=gcc=rev
Log:
One line change onto r272731
PR target/62147
* gcc/loop-iv.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91011
Bug ID: 91011
Summary: g++ -Q --help=warning,c++ outputs from C point of view
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62147
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
Author: linkw
Date: Thu Jun 27 05:24:00 2019
New Revision: 272731
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272731=gcc=rev
Log:
Call finite_loop_p in RTL to get better finiteness information.
gcc/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59552
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47342
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jun 27 02:42:30 2019
New Revision: 272726
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272726=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90883
* tree-ssa-dse.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jun 27 02:41:27 2019
New Revision: 272725
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272725=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90883
* tree-ssa-dse.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91010
Bug ID: 91010
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in location_wrapper_p)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, openmp
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90976
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #1)
> Agreed, looks suspicious. From my reading of the code, I think using
> "constraints" rather than "recog_data.constraints" is correct.
>
> The prior call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91009
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 26 23:02:47 2019
New Revision: 272719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272719=gcc=rev
Log:
PR 91009
Modified:
branches/ibm/pcrel-trunk/gcc/ChangeLog.meissner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90328
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91007
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90963
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-06-24 12:59 p.m., wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Looking into this, pa.md is one of a few targets which defines
> builtin_longjmp.
> This subtracts 8 from the loaded frame pointer,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90822
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
I split part of the issue off into a separate bug (PR target/91009).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91009
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91009
Bug ID: 91009
Summary: Bug with future PowerPC patches with lfiwax/lfiwzx
(related to PR 90822)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jun 26 21:36:27 2019
New Revision: 272717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272717=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90883
* tree-ssa-alias.c (stmt_kills_ref_p):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55442
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90975
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90976
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2019-06-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90981
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |debug
--- Comment #5 from Mark Wielaard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91008
Bug ID: 91008
Summary: error redeclaring the same type involving a non-type
template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91007
Bug ID: 91007
Summary: stable_sort segfaults on -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
--- Comment #15 from Michel Morin ---
> Backporting to stable branches should not be done as a way to find bugs.
Makes sense. I stand corrected.
> The patch affects all targets, not just the ones currently using a PRNG, so
> it's not as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82738
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89021
--- Comment #55 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jun 26 19:12:27 2019
New Revision: 272711
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272711=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/89021
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Backporting to stable branches should not be done as a way to find bugs. Quite
the opposite!
The patch affects all targets, not just the ones currently using a PRNG, so
it's not as simple as just saying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91006
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-*-darwin*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91006
Bug ID: 91006
Summary: [10 Regression] Several test suite fails on *darwin*
after r272618
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91003
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|ICE when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
--- Comment #13 from Michel Morin ---
Pushing this into GCC-9 might help finding bugs (if there are some) and
I think having non-deterministic `random_device` _with possible small bugs_
would be more important than having deterministic one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91000
--- Comment #4 from Federico Kircheis ---
> As I explained in PR 87603 comment 6, and as the patch
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-04/msg00466.html says, the old
> behaviour triggers unwanted instantiations and so causes valid code to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91003
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
I see Martin Liska added a bunch of bugs found by the clang static analyzer as
blocking this... Martin, did you verify that cppcheck catches them, too, or are
we using this bug for static analyzers in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91005
--- Comment #1 from pipcet at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 46524
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46524=edit
illustrative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91005
Bug ID: 91005
Summary: Cannot put a nested function into a different section
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91004
Bug ID: 91004
Summary: [10 regression] Excess errors in
g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C starting with r272688
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 26 15:12:15 2019
New Revision: 272697
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272697=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90634 reduce allocations in filesystem::path construction
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91003
Bug ID: 91003
Summary: ICE when compiling LAPACK (CGEGV) with optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91000
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > This would be more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing list, as you're
> > asking a question not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
Jason's r272656 fixes the testcases here too. Again, I suspect that
corresponding testcases involving user-defined operators are not fixed. If
nobody beats me to it I will add fixed testcases and add an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
--- Comment #10 from Kris ---
that fixed the problem for me. thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91000
--- Comment #2 from Federico Kircheis ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This would be more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing list, as you're
> asking a question not reporting a bug.
>
> The behaviour is as intended, for all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91002
Bug ID: 91002
Summary: ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.c:271
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jun 26 12:58:39 2019
New Revision: 272692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272692=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR preprocessor/90927] Fixe dependency output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90995
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
To wit:
bool f ()
{ enum : int a; }
we don't ICE on it but we accept it, we should reject it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
--- Comment #7 from Kris ---
Created attachment 46522
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46522=edit
petsc source file that ICE happens on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90939
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 26 12:04:08 2019
New Revision: 272689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272689=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR 90939] Remove outdated assert in ipcp_bits_lattice::meet_with
2019-06-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90982
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90982
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 26 11:16:56 2019
New Revision: 272688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272688=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-26 Richard Biener
PR ipa/90982
* tree-inline.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90995
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90998
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90997
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91001
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90756
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Hand reduced:
template struct A {
typedef T __attribute__((vector_size(N * sizeof(T a;
};
template using U = typename A::a;
using B = U<4, float>;
using C = U<4, unsigned long long>;
using D = U<4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90756
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> The r228175
> (promote_ssa_mode): Disregard BLKmode from promote_decl, and
>
> bypass TYPE_MODE to get the actual vector mode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90756
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91001
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Uroš
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I doubt -O3 would help much, a significant amount of tests is already with -O3.
As Martin's pages show, the less covered areas is e.g. old reload (you need
some target that doesn't use LRA), driver (say for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
> So it is inliner substituting the return slot which happens to be
> clobber?
Yes.
> It makes sense but I wonder how this worked w/o the patch.
> > #10 0x010f9dd5 in remap_gimple_stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90995
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
By the way, in general terms, I'm not sure I agree that a snippet which was
accepts-invalid before a given date and ice-on-invalid-code after qualifies as
a proper regression. You see, even the Bugzilla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > I'm running that once a week:
> > https://users.suse.com/~mliska/lcov/
>
> Great !
>
> I'll have a go at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> I'm running that once a week:
> https://users.suse.com/~mliska/lcov/
Great !
I'll have a go at duplicating your results, then have a go at extending
the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90995
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90996
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
--- Comment #16 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 26 08:51:50 2019
New Revision: 272675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272675=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-26 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/67184
PR c++/69445
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69445
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 26 08:51:50 2019
New Revision: 272675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272675=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-26 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/67184
PR c++/69445
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
>
> --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> So before we stream LTO byte code, we have:
>
> BEFORE:
>
> Released 0 names, 0.00%, removed 0 holes
> A::A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52274
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91000
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90991
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 26 08:26:18 2019
New Revision: 272674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272674=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/90991
* config/i386/sse.md
(*_vinsert_0): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> I am guessing that a gcc build with "-ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs"
> would help. Then find unvisited code, then write a test case that gets
> there etc
I'm running that once a week:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91001
--- Comment #1 from Shubham Narlawar ---
Below is reduced test case after fixing warning.
void f();
#pragma pack(1)
struct a {
short b;
char c;
};
union{
struct a c;
} __attribute__((aligned(128), transparent_union)) d;
void e() { f(d);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
gure --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-lto
--disable-bootstrap : (reconfigured) ../gcc/configure --enable-lto
--disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 10.0.0 20190626 (experimental) (GCC)
COMM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90990
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
So before we stream LTO byte code, we have:
BEFORE:
Released 0 names, 0.00%, removed 0 holes
A::A (struct A * const this)
{
[local count: 1073741824]:
MEM[(struct &)this_2(D)] ={v} {CLOBBER};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90995
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90996
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90998
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90973
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Jun 26 06:44:58 2019
New Revision: 272671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272671=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix one another thinko in tree-vect-loop.c (PR tree-optimization/90973).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 90978, which changed state.
Bug 90978 Summary: A suspicious code in df-scan.c since r160348
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90978
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90991
--- Comment #3 from Martin Kronbichler ---
I can confirm that this patch creates the right instruction on my test case,
"vmovups (%rdi,%rax,4), %xmm0", and also in the application code where it
originated from.
87 matches
Mail list logo
