https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110682
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648270.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114433
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 57786
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57786=edit
probably related, not fully reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114101
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Here's a patch to make it UNSUPPORTED on any target that doesn't define the
feature's feature test macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648266.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 114437 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
You can juse use "+mr" without the comma. There is no way to use alterantives
in inline-asm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
xog4n...@a-n.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114438
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114438
Bug ID: 114438
Summary: Missed constraint F2023:c7108
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114394
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114401
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> There's another bug in the node move assignment operator, so I'll fix that
> too.
Turns out there wasn't, just the one you reported originally. It's fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leppkes at stce dot
rwth-aachen.de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xog4n...@a-n.cc
--- Comment #18 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frederic.recoules@univ-gren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114401
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c2e28df90a1640cebadef6c6c8ab5ea964071bb1
commit r14-9636-gc2e28df90a1640cebadef6c6c8ab5ea964071bb1
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94180
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113841
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:142cc4c223d695e515ed2504501b91d8a7ac6eb8
commit r14-9635-g142cc4c223d695e515ed2504501b91d8a7ac6eb8
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at westcontrol dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114394
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31ef58b18da930b09ea0dfc1d6533c5ef97d8446
commit r14-9632-g31ef58b18da930b09ea0dfc1d6533c5ef97d8446
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109835
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> FWIW, after doing more of this work, I've decided I don't really care that
> much about this one.
>
> I still think FP mismatches are often worse, but there's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
--- Comment #3 from xog4n...@a-n.cc ---
Just to confirm, is this an incorrect constraint for the intended goal of
convincing the compiler that the value is used and modified, without actually
doing either and preserving the value, or am I just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
"+m" does not do what you think it does ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
Bug ID: 114437
Summary: Inline asm with "+m,r" operand ignores input value
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104848
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104848
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #31 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c083a453dbe51853e26e02edd8b9346fb8618292
commit r14-9631-gc083a453dbe51853e26e02edd8b9346fb8618292
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114101
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2024-03-22 3:00 p.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114101
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> This two depend on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114436
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The following testcase at least reproduces the unsigned multiplication issue,
but doesn't reproduce the signed multiplication nor division by -1.
int
main ()
{
unsigned a = (1U + __INT_MAX__) / 2U;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114101
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This two depend on _GLIBCXX_USE_NL_LANGINFO_L which is set by:
AC_TRY_COMPILE([
#include
#if __has_include()
# include
#endif
#include
],[
locale_t loc = newlocale(LC_ALL_MASK, "",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps
--- fold-const.cc.jj8 2024-03-11 22:37:29.0 +0100
+++ fold-const.cc 2024-03-22 19:31:44.189686120 +0100
@@ -7104,6 +7104,27 @@ extract_muldiv_1 (tree t, tree c, enum t
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114408
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114436
Bug ID: 114436
Summary: #pragma GCC system_header vs. _Pragma("GCC
system_header")
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #19 from Richard Earnshaw ---
This is another problem with (I suspect) incorrect aliasing information. If I
compile with -fno-strict-aliasing, I get
88: f4432a1fvst1.8 {d18-d19}, [r3 :64] // {>E} SP+96/16
8c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It isn't just those 2 values though.
MAX (INT_MIN / 2, 0) * -2 etc. would be a problem too.
So maybe play safe and only do it for MULT_EXPR when TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED
and c is non-negative? Maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > but even when overflow is undefined we don't know whether we introduce
> > additional overflow then. Consider
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> but even when overflow is undefined we don't know whether we introduce
> additional overflow then. Consider MAX (INT_MIN, 0) * -1 where we compute
> 0 * -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114435
Bug ID: 114435
Summary: Bad code generated when SSA and PCOM are enabled.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114408
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or the option option would be try if it also ICEs without your patch with
-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize-trap=undefined -O1 -fanalyzer -flto , then you
could put it into gcc.dg/analyzer/ and just use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114408
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114433
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have the workaround now, so not urgent for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
2024-03-22 Jakub Jelinek
PR c++/114426
* cp-gimplify.cc (cp_fold): Don't call maybe_const_value on
CALL_EXPRs to cdtors.
* g++.dg/cpp2a/pr114426.C: New test.
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is indeed the assert added in that patch.
When cp_fold_function is called on the _ZN12ConfiguratorD0Ev body which
contains
Configurator::~Configurator(this); call
Now, maybe_constant_value is called on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114419
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114434
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|amd64-pc-solaris2.11, |i386-pc-solaris2.11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114434
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114434
Bug ID: 114434
Summary: gdc.test/runnable/test23514.d FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114408
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 57781
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57781=edit
WIP patch for the the ICE
The attached patch seems to fix the ICE. AIUI I'm lazily creating dominance
info as it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106358
Bug 106358 depends on bug 112975, which changed state.
Bug 112975 Summary: [14 Regression] -Wanalyzer-tainted-allocation-size false
positive seen in Linux kernel's drivers/xen/privcmd.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112975
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112975
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112974
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106358
Bug 106358 depends on bug 112974, which changed state.
Bug 112974 Summary: [14 Regression] -Wanalyzer-tainted-array-index false
positive seen on Linux kernel
drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112974
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6cf5789135236c5639075c8f235e7dd461b6ff6
commit r14-9625-gc6cf5789135236c5639075c8f235e7dd461b6ff6
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112975
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6cf5789135236c5639075c8f235e7dd461b6ff6
commit r14-9625-gc6cf5789135236c5639075c8f235e7dd461b6ff6
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114423
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59465
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59465
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1d8fd2884b44598d80de1038b086eec41519d4b
commit r14-9622-gd1d8fd2884b44598d80de1038b086eec41519d4b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114101
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin ---
These two fails are different and not addressed by patch:
FAIL: std/text_encoding/cons.cc -std=gnu++26 (test for excess errors)
UNRESOLVED: std/text_encoding/cons.cc -std=gnu++26 compilation failed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #17 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 57780
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57780=edit
EarlyCSE.cpp.cpp.182t.cunroll-bad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
-fdisable-tree-cunroll seems to help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114432
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114425
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, guess it would help if evrp avoided undesirable propagation here:
It is changing:
:
# DEBUG BEGIN_STMT
_8 = .ADD_OVERFLOW (d_7(D), 0);
_1 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_8>;
_2 = (_Bool) _1;
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109835
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
FWIW, after doing more of this work, I've decided I don't really care that much
about this one.
I still think FP mismatches are often worse, but there's enough junk pointer
type mismatches that I'm not sure we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95185
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101463
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111731
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Neumann :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a364148530c28645ce87adbc58a66c9f32a325ab
commit r14-9620-ga364148530c28645ce87adbc58a66c9f32a325ab
Author: Thomas Neumann
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102264
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
--- Comment #23 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #22)
> Here we go, this still fails on trunk, just by making the data member
> private:
That's because for a non-dependent conversion to a class type we only check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104088
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104995
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105275
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105760
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106955
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114425
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107058
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 108278, which changed state.
Bug 108278 Summary: [13/14 Regression] runtime error with -O1 -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108278
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108278
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108708
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
The valgrind output might be because we vectorize the loads a[i], a[i+8], ...
as full vector loads at a[i], a[i+8] but the last we access as scalar. So
the uninit load might be harmless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112652
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #8)
>> FWIW, the iconv conversion tables in /usr/lib/iconv can be regenerated
>> from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
There are a few vectorizations in the dumps but only one early-exit where
we vectorize
[local count: 102053600]:
first$I_39 = MEM[(struct value_op_iterator *)];
last$I_40 = MEM[(struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109990
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110273
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110285
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110401
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110842
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110987
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
