https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 53011
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53011=edit
Reduced fix on top of 93416de0cb; a fragmental revert
The attached patch, applied to 93416de0cb, re-introduces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is jump threading due to the fsanitize=shift option.
With the irq argument to work changed to int from unsigned, the work function
is inlined.
And then the check:
if (irq < 0 || irq >=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
--- Comment #1 from Kees Cook ---
The Linux kernel has encountered at least two of these (seen as specifically
"array subscript 32", though the root cause may be causing many others:
../drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mac.c:373:22: warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
Bug ID: 105679
Summary: erroneous -Warray-bounds warning with sanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105556
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105556
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c83d78585078d6918853fbe0f74a3a78e88e3e32
commit r12-8406-gc83d78585078d6918853fbe0f74a3a78e88e3e32
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Additional observation: the diff is local to functions f5 and f17 (in
g++.dg/opt/pr94589-2.C), i.e. "reduced" to (for reference only):
A bool f5 (double i, double j) { auto c = i <=> j; return c >= 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105669
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-20
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105674
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105678
--- Comment #2 from Francisco ---
just tried
```bash
g++ -std=gnu++2b -static-libstdc++ cpp_file.cpp
```
but same result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105678
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect it is missing from the linker script for versioning.
Using -static-libstdc++ should be a workaround.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105678
Bug ID: 105678
Summary: Undefined reference to stacktrace standard library
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105668
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105675
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105675
--- Comment #2 from Ruslan Mkoyan ---
Created attachment 53009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53009=edit
Input file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105677
Bug ID: 105677
Summary: Calling strlen on a string constant is optimized out,
but calling wcslen on a string constant is not
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61810
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53008
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53008=edit
A patch for pr104441-1a.c
Does it help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105670
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105670
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105675
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105493
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I can confirm that an Intel Cascade Lake Xeon, using -Ofast -flto
-march=native, 538.imagick_r produced by GCC 12.1 is almost 20% slower
than the benchmark built with GCC 11.2 and the same options (on Zen2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105676
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105275
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Confirmed with GCC 12.1 numbers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105676
Bug ID: 105676
Summary: Bogus `-Wsuggest-attribute=pure` on function marked
`__attribute__((const))`
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105675
Bug ID: 105675
Summary: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105673
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105674
Bug ID: 105674
Summary: Wrong bounds for assumed rank pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102844
--- Comment #28 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #27)
> We're not using the backward threader to replace DOM's threader yet. I've
> got a TODO to push on Aldy's patch, but haven't been able to get to it over
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105673
Bug ID: 105673
Summary: _M_futex_wait_until_steady() always falls back to old
syscall with FUTEX_WAIT operation even after
successful FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102844
--- Comment #27 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
We're not using the backward threader to replace DOM's threader yet. I've got
a TODO to push on Aldy's patch, but haven't been able to get to it over the
last couple weeks. It's an, umm, busy time for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> :: note: tuple and std::tuple are not the same type
And just to be clear, it was very intentional that this suggestion *doesn't*
show the template argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Barry Revzin from comment #2)
> And drop the "non-scalar type" part - does it add anything meaningful to the
> diagnostic?
Good point. I assume the intention of that wording is to say "I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> Could we add a note for ill-formed conversions between two types that have
> the same name, to make it more obvious that they're defined in different
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89370
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50880|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89370
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-02-18 00:00:00 |2022-5-20
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another option suggested by Barry Revzin is to line up the types, so that the
type's name is in the same column so the different nested-name-qualifier is
more obvious:
vt.C:276:15: error: conversion from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
Bug ID: 105672
Summary: Print note when unable to convert between types with
the same name but different scopes
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105659
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #1)
> If I recall the conversation correctly, either the CPU-specific D language
> hooks should be moved to macros - equivalent to TARGET_CPU_CPP_BUILTINS and
> others.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105654
Tobias Brunner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tobias at strongswan dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61810
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102844
--- Comment #26 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> I'm not sure about the state of this bug - the issue reproduces on the GCC
> 10 branch with checking enabled and -O[2s] -fdisable-tree-fre4
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 May 2022, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
>
> --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105600
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #13)
> FWIW, we started ICEing somewhere between
> r9-856-g7ce4ce10cd0a6f332dd473bd4726f1a1adefda0e and
> r9-870-ge062dc808950801a089ee6acd969393da2f39406, the build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2)
> On Thu, 19 May 2022, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I wonder if you can help and "bisect" the actual pattern that is now
> enabled for GENERIC folding?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105663
--- Comment #8 from Hans de Jong ---
The reduced testcase of comment #1 also fails on optimization levels O1 and Os.
I added the compiler versions which I have seen break on godbolt.org.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105671
--- Comment #1 from Cristian Morales Vega ---
It's in the full verbose build log, but failed to include it here. These are
the contents of the files:
$ cat user-config.jam
using gcc : : g++ : "-flto" ;
$ cat test.cpp
#include
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Apart from the bogus warnings caused by PR 61596, I think only the std::latch
problem remains. Comment 11 has a suggestion for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105671
Bug ID: 105671
Summary: Unexplained "undefined reference" error
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61810
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105670
Bug ID: 105670
Summary: [x86] suboptimal code for branch over two bools
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101668
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> Guess we need to extend backend hook to handle different input and output
> modes.
Yes, alternatively as said, some special cases could be directly handled.
For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105600
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12/13 Regression] |[9/10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101668
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Guess we need to extend backend hook to handle different input and output
modes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105513
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #7)
> The second sequence is 3 uops vs 1/2 (issued/executed) uops in first, and on
> Haswell and Skylake it ties up port 5 for two cycles.
>
> Unclear if you're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101668
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105513
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
The second sequence is 3 uops vs 1/2 (issued/executed) uops in first, and on
Haswell and Skylake it ties up port 5 for two cycles.
Unclear if you're microbenchmarking latency or throughput, but in any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105513
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
Also notice a intersting case impacted by a separate m alternatvie.
typedef long v2di __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
v2di
foo (v2di a)
{
a[1] = 1113;
return a;
}
with -O2 gcc generates
foo(long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102844
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
I'm not sure about the state of this bug - the issue reproduces on the GCC 10
branch with checking enabled and -O[2s] -fdisable-tree-fre4
-fno-strict-overflow
It might be that using the backward threader
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105668
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105667
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105669
Bug ID: 105669
Summary: DFP to HF (_Float16) conversions use incorrect
rounding
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103116
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fdf50499a40399a48ac5e5d521ef93ed302be157
commit r12-8405-gfdf50499a40399a48ac5e5d521ef93ed302be157
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105652
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105600
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105668
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105665
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.1.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105664
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #7)
> So, to summarise my understanding:
>
> - the problem is not specific to darwin, I can fully reproduce on
> x86_64-linux-gnu
>
> - the problem only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105663
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #4)
> Or perhaps there shouldnt be
> set (BIT_NOT_EXPR, op_bitwise_not);
> set (BIT_XOR_EXPR, op_bitwise_xor);
>
> operations on pointer values? I see also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105663
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105663
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
bitwise and is allowed for pointers on GIMPLE for alignment purposes and to
avoid round-trips to/from integer types for this. It's only natural to then
allow all bit operations on pointers (and hard to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105662
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think that first of all controlling this per OMP/OACC region would be more
useful (as for the "mandatory on-device" case). Shouldn't there be sth in the
respective specs for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101929
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
>
> > It's difficult (if not impossible) for the vectorizer to second-guess
> > the followup FRE, we're a long way from doing loop + SLP vectorization
> > in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 May 2022, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105629
>
> Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
>
>What|Removed
78 matches
Mail list logo
