https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95565
--- Comment #1 from AK ---
I believe we need to conditionally disable the following code, but I'm not sure
of all the implications. If someone can implement it that'd be great.
```
gcc/gimplify.c Around Line:14997
x =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95565
Bug ID: 95565
Summary: [Feature request] add a flag to only instrument
function entry.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #29 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
This API looks fine.
Another test would be to create a simple function, the equivalent of this:
#include
asm(
"add:\n"
"movq %rdi, %rax\n"
"add %rsi, %rax\n"
"ret\n");
extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95091
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95516
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> (In reply to Michael Bruck from comment #2)
> > I was using -Ofast -Wall:
> > https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/pAkVS8
>
> I can repeat it with -Ofast.
> [this still might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> I didn't write the code, but for more context:
Thanks for the extra context.
> Maybe it is bad style, but I still consider it a false positive.
If you go back and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95548
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eca7a60bd24ebd91addd785e420a06d8f5086634
commit r11-1016-geca7a60bd24ebd91addd785e420a06d8f5086634
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95478
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I didn't write the code, but for more context:
trans.h has:
#define GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_LBOUND(node, dim) \
(TYPE_LANG_SPECIFIC(node)->lbound[dim])
#define GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_UBOUND(node, dim) \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95516
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95440
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-06
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
Shubham Narlawar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gsocshubham at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94829
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95087
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94817
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95498
--- Comment #3 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> Try putting a breakpoint on add_error (there are a few classes with
> add_error methods; a sufficiently smart gdb ought to put the breakpoint on
> all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95498
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Try putting a breakpoint on add_error (there are a few classes with add_error
methods; a sufficiently smart gdb ought to put the breakpoint on all of them).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #28 from David Malcolm ---
Generated HTML for docs (albeit without css) here:
https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2020-06-06/asm-v3.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95561
--- Comment #5 from Janez Zemva ---
Thank you for the "fix", I am writing my own 128-bit integral type, but in the
mean time, I'm using __int128.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48684|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95543
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 05:13:31PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95543
>
> --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95561
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95561
--- Comment #3 from Janez Zemva ---
BTW: std::is_integral_v<__int128> is also false. I'm not certain, whether this
is a bug, but reporting nonetheless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95561
--- Comment #2 from Janez Zemva ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> Are you using -std=gnu++17 or -std=c++17 ?
yes, of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jeff Davis from comment #7)
> "...built-in functions are optimized into the normal string functions like
> memcpy if the last argument is (size_t) -1..."
>
> My reading of the document lead me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95543
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 04:34:53PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> This cures the ICE, which then I believe leads to wrong-code.
>
PDT are completely broken. When this is parsed
type t(a, b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #7 from Jeff Davis ---
"...built-in functions are optimized into the normal string functions like
memcpy if the last argument is (size_t) -1..."
My reading of the document lead me to believe that a last argument of -1
*would* be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94817
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03da87235697eab344cde609d81d3f405f450c42
commit r10-8259-g03da87235697eab344cde609d81d3f405f450c42
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94829
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03da87235697eab344cde609d81d3f405f450c42
commit r10-8259-g03da87235697eab344cde609d81d3f405f450c42
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95087
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03da87235697eab344cde609d81d3f405f450c42
commit r10-8259-g03da87235697eab344cde609d81d3f405f450c42
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94833
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a47259fa7737ff6d4a7def074fb30bc7baef2f86
commit r9-8659-ga47259fa7737ff6d4a7def074fb30bc7baef2f86
Author: Carl Love
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #26 from David Malcolm ---
(there's also -fno-toplevel-reorder which makes me wonder if we do need to
preserve ordering with such constructs)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95543
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95564
Bug ID: 95564
Summary: GCC rejects lambda expression with "noexcept(1+1)"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95561
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Are you using -std=gnu++17 or -std=c++17 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95543
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in is_CFI_desc, at |[PDT] ICE in is_CFI_desc,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95302
Anatol changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anatol.pomozov at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
--- Comment #3 from Rich Felker ---
In addition to a fix, this is going to need a workaround as well. Do you have
ideas for a clean one? A dummy asm in the dummy function to kill pureness is
certainly a big hammer that would work, but it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker ---
Wow. It's interesting that we've never seen this lead to incorrect codegen
before, though. All weak dummies should be affected, but only in some cases
does the pure get used to optimize out the external call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95563
--- Comment #1 from Madhur Chauhan ---
(In reply to Madhur Chauhan from comment #0)
> Created attachment 48693 [details]
> Original code
My bad, this is the simplified version of the code but its name is misleading.
The original code is in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95563
Bug ID: 95563
Summary: High memory usage and possible infinite loop
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95562
Bug ID: 95562
Summary: ICE when using noexcept depending on boolean template
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42693
--- Comment #5 from Göran Uddeborg ---
(In reply to markeggleston from comment #4)
> Does this mean that this is fixed?
I don't think so. The "_" define typically marks the string for translation,
but it doesn't add the information this is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95498
--- Comment #1 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
I'm trying to create a smaller reproducer by calling
gcc_jit_context_dump_to_file, but I don't know where to stop in gdb in order to
get the source info.
How did you do it in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95561
Bug ID: 95561
Summary: std::is_signed_v<__int128> is false
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #25 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #24)
> (In reply to bouanto from comment #23)
> > Created attachment 48685 [details]
> > Example of global assembly
>
> [...snip; thanks for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95560
--- Comment #2 from RJE ---
Created attachment 48692
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48692=edit
assembler source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95560
--- Comment #1 from RJE ---
Created attachment 48691
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48691=edit
Compile information .ii file compressed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95560
Bug ID: 95560
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See -mno-align-stringops, -minline-all-stringops,
-minline-stringops-dynamically, -mstringop-strategy= , -mmemcpy-strategy=
options and their documentation in the GCC manual.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And note that
- if (lt->pos >= (8192-sizeof(S)))
+ if (lt->pos >= (8192-16))
is not an insignificant change, the first one is unsigned comparison, the
second one signed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #24 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to bouanto from comment #23)
> Created attachment 48685 [details]
> Example of global assembly
[...snip; thanks for the feedback]
> I attached an example of global assembly.
Thanks.
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95523
--- Comment #4 from z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com ---
> Could you try setting DECL_USER_ALIGN on the FIELD_DECL?
> that should (hopefully) force the field to keep its
> natural alignment.
Do you mean to change the alignment to natural
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I fail to understand how this can be a false positive.
if (array[ X] && X < something - 1)
looks like a pretty convincing case of use before sanity checking to me.
It is a standard pattern to sanity
59 matches
Mail list logo
