[Bug debug/115235] Non-standard .debug_addr section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115235 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- The implementation of -gsplit-dwarf deals specifically with DWARF 5 and later.
[Bug rtl-optimization/115038] [14/15 regression] internal error in seh_cfa_offset with -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou --- Thanks for reporting the problem.
[Bug rtl-optimization/115038] [14/15 regression] internal error in seh_cfa_offset with -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038 --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- > Eric, do you want to handle the final bootstrap+regression test? Or do you > want me to take it from here? I can do it right now.
[Bug target/115188] New: [14/15 regression] invalid Thumb assembly for atomic store in loop on ARMv6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115188
Bug ID: 115188
Summary: [14/15 regression] invalid Thumb assembly for atomic
store in loop on ARMv6
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This apparently comes from the fix for PR target/111235: the following code:
int data[4];
void init (unsigned int lb, unsigned int hb)
{
for (unsigned int i = lb; i < hb; i++)
__atomic_store_4 ([i], 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
}
yields invalid assembly when compiled with -mthumb -mcpu=cortex-m0 -O2:
t.s: Assembler messages:
t.s:35: Warning: missing operand; zero assumed
t.s:35: Error: cannot use register index with PC-relative addressing -- `str
r1,r0!'
[Bug ada/115168] [15 regression] Several libada compile errors on Solaris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115168 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- > Both i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstraps are well > into make check now. Thanks. You're welcome.
[Bug ada/115168] [15 regression] Several libada compile errors on Solaris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115168 --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- Created attachment 58255 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58255=edit Tentative fix
[Bug ada/115168] [15 regression] Several libada compile errors on Solaris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115168 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2024-05-20 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- Two different changes this time, sorry about that:
[Bug rtl-optimization/115038] [14/15 regression] internal error in seh_cfa_offset with -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug rtl-optimization/115038] [14/15 regression] internal error in seh_cfa_offset with -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |rtl-optimization Keywords|EH | --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- Recategorizing.
[Bug ada/115106] [15 regression] SEGV in sem_elab.internal_representation.nts_map.mutate_and_rehash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- > However, I will comment that it maybe built but there are cats regressions > (1) on x86_64, (2) on i686-darwin17 (many) on i686-darwin9. No idea what > caused those at the moment - and my hardware is very tied up with the > releases. The ACATS regression on x86-64 (cxa4001) is an issue in the test itself, not in the compiler. Darwin-specific regressions might come from Ada changes though.
[Bug ada/115106] [15 regression] SEGV in sem_elab.internal_representation.nts_map.mutate_and_rehash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- > as of r15-644, Ada bootstrap succeeded on i686-darwin9 and 17. Great! > I do not known whether that means the issue is actually fixed by recent Ada > commits, or that it's now just become latent. Ada commits have nothing to do with it though, the breakage and the probable fix both came from recent optimization changes.
[Bug ada/115133] [15 regression] s-oslock__solaris.ads doesn't compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- Thanks for reporting the problem.
[Bug ada/115133] [15 regression] s-oslock__solaris.ads doesn't compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #58229|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- Created attachment 58230 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58230=edit Tentative fix Hopefully the final version of it.
[Bug rtl-optimization/78664] LRA must honor REG_ALLOC_ORDER to pick reload registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78664 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- OK, thanks for the explanation.
[Bug ada/115133] [15 regression] s-oslock__solaris.ads doesn't compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #58228|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- Created attachment 58229 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58229=edit Tentative fix The complete version of it.
[Bug ada/115133] [15 regression] s-oslock__solaris.ads doesn't compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- Created attachment 58228 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58228=edit Tentative fix
[Bug ada/115133] [15 regression] s-oslock__solaris.ads doesn't compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-05-17 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- > There's a 2-space indentation instead of the expected 3 spaces. I had > to look several times to see it, though. Maybe the error could be > clearer? Style error messages are the hardest to get right, so I won't even try. ;-) > After that, I run into > > s-taprop.adb:1402:20: error: expected type "System.Os_Locks.RTS_Lock_Ptr" > s-taprop.adb:1402:20: error: found type "System.Task_Primitives.Lock_Ptr" > s-taprop.adb:1443:57: error: expected type "System.Task_Primitives.Lock_Ptr" > s-taprop.adb:1443:57: error: found type "System.Os_Locks.RTS_Lock_Ptr" > s-taprop.adb:1471:20: error: expected type "System.Os_Locks.RTS_Lock_Ptr" > s-taprop.adb:1471:20: error: found type "System.Task_Primitives.Lock_Ptr" > s-taprop.adb:1552:57: error: expected type "System.Task_Primitives.Lock_Ptr" > s-taprop.adb:1552:57: error: found type "System.Os_Locks.RTS_Lock_Ptr" > make[6]: *** [../gcc-interface/Makefile:306: s-taprop.o] Error 1 Sorry about the mess, tentative fix to be attached.
[Bug web/115105] Document "Reimplement GNU threads library on native Windows" change on GCC 13 changes list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115105 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma ||il/gcc-cvs-wwwdocs/2024/010 ||474.html --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- .
[Bug ada/115113] [15 Regression] Ada bootstrap fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115113 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[15 Regression] Ada |[15 Regression] Ada |bootstrap fails for |bootstrap fails |i686-darwin.| Last reconfirmed||2024-05-16 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- See also PR ada/115106.
[Bug ada/115106] [15 regression] SEGV in sem_elab.internal_representation.nts_map.mutate_and_rehash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2024-05-16 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- > The reghunt identified > > commit 9b7cad5884f21cc5783075be0043777448db3fab > Author: Jan Hubicka > Date: Wed May 15 14:14:27 2024 +0200 > > Avoid pointer compares on TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT in TBAA Thanks for tracking this down! > FWIW, none of amd64-pc-solaris2.11, i686-pc-linux-gnu, and > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu show the failure. See PR ada/115113 though.
[Bug web/115105] Document "Reimplement GNU threads library on native Windows" change on GCC 13 changes list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115105 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-05-15 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- The thing is, the final state of the implementation is a bit different from the description present in the commit as far as _WIN32_WINNT is concerned, and I'm not sure I understand it, so I'd rather not be too precise... But I presume that a sentence in https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/changes.html mentioning the need for a recent version of MinGW-W64 should be good enough.
[Bug target/64835] -fno-ipa-cp is inconsitently supported when attributes optimize or target are used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64835 --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou --- > Eric, gcc.dg/ipa/iinline-attr.c XPASSes on 64-bit SPARC since > > commit ffabce849033e57ebaf60029822b81e981681c21 > Author: Eric Botcazou > Date: Tue Nov 29 11:43:32 2022 +0100 > > Couple of testsuite adjustments > > gcc/testsuite/ > * gcc.dg/ipa/iinline-attr.c: XFAIL on SPARC. > > while the 32-bit test is XFAILed. Should we restrict the xfail to 32-bit > sparc then? The reason why it has been XFAILed does not depend on the word size though.
[Bug target/115038] [14/15 regression] internal error in seh_cfa_offset with -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Tentative fixlet:
diff --git a/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc b/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc
index 2e15b05529e..84b9623058b 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc
+++ b/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc
@@ -491,7 +491,7 @@ fold_offsets (rtx_insn *insn, rtx reg, bool analyze, bitmap
foldable_insns)
{
rtx_insn *def = get_single_def_in_bb (insn, reg);
- if (!def || GET_CODE (PATTERN (def)) != SET)
+ if (!def || RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (def) || GET_CODE (PATTERN (def)) != SET)
return 0;
rtx dest = SET_DEST (PATTERN (def));
[Bug target/115038] [14/15 regression] internal error in seh_cfa_offset with -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- It's the -ffold-mem-offsets pass messing up with the prologue and the frame-related instructions (so -fno-fold-mem-offsets is a workaround).
[Bug target/115038] [14/15 regression] internal error in seh_cfa_offset with -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |14.2 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2024-05-12 Summary|ICE in seh_cfa_offset since |[14/15 regression] internal |14.1.0 |error in seh_cfa_offset ||with -O2 ||-fno-omit-frame-pointer --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- I can reproduce.
[Bug ada/15614] Illegal program not detected, RM 12.1(11)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15614 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |14.0 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- Thanks!
[Bug ada/114964] Ada Address_To_Access_Conversions gnat_to_gnu_entity internal error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114964 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed||2024-05-06 --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- Thanks for the report, but we are not going to build an entire software to reproduce it. See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#gnat for detailed instructions. GCC 14.1 and 13.3 should be released soon, you could try with them.
[Bug go/114582] go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue34123.go FAILs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114582 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2024-05-03 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- Rather weird, given that there is apparently no FP in the code. The (kludgy) way out could be to exclude the inexact flag from the test, as I don't think that people really care about exceptions on inexact results in practice.
[Bug ada/81087] array index out of range in gnatlink, making test always false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81087 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- There is a fix in the pipeline for GCC 15, although I'm not sure if it will handle all the issues.
[Bug tree-optimization/114864] [12/13/14/15 regression] wrong code at -O1 with "-fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-fre" on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114864 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- Another instance is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453
[Bug tree-optimization/114864] [12/13/14/15 regression] wrong code at -O1 with "-fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-fre" on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114864 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- Yes, this is a known issue in SRA, see PR optimization/111873, but it apparently shows up only with nonsensical combinations of switches so, well...
[Bug target/114416] calling convention incompatibility with vendor compiler for V9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou --- Fixed on Solaris for GCC 14 and later.
[Bug target/114416] calling convention incompatibility with vendor compiler for V9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416 --- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou --- > The sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap (both multilibs) has just completed > successfully without regressions. > > However, sparc/sol2.h needed an #undef to fix > > In file included from ./tm.h:27, > from /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/gencheck.cc:23: > /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/sparc/sol2.h:460:9: error: > "SUN_V9_ABI_COMPATIBILITY" redefined [-Werror] > 460 | #define SUN_V9_ABI_COMPATIBILITY 1 > | ^~~~ > In file included from ./tm.h:24: > /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.h:1705:9: note: this is > the location of the previous definition > 1705 | #define SUN_V9_ABI_COMPATIBILITY 0 > | ^~~~ Thanks, fixed. > The sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu one will be running for a couple more > hours, though. The change should be a no-op for this platform. > Btw., I thought about running gcc.dg/compat against Studio 12.6 cc. I'd > started trying some time ago, but got distracted. At the very least, I > needed -features=extensions -DSKIP_COMPLEX_INT for a considerable part > of that testsuite to compile at all, for the likes of > > "/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/pr102024_test.h", > line 7: zero-sized struct/union > > "/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.h", > line 197: invalid type combination I used to do that on a regular basis 20 years ago, which led to: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/sparc-abi.html but I lost access to Sun Studio at some point.
[Bug target/114416] calling convention incompatibility with vendor compiler for V9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416 --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou --- OK, thanks, let's go ahead for Solaris then, but I agree that we'd better do nothing for other platforms at this point. Do you happen to have some spare cycles to conduct a testing cycle of the above tentative fix? It only affects the 64-bit ABI so a sparc64/sparcv9 one would be sufficient (Unfortunately I no longer have access to my SPARC/Solaris setup and haven't tried the Compile Farm yet).
[Bug target/114416] calling convention incompatibility with vendor compiler for V9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416 --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou --- Rainer, what's your take on this? Should we proceed and change the ABI on Solaris for GCC 14?
[Bug ada/114708] [12/13/14 regression] internal error on access to an incomplete formal in generic package
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- This appears to be sufficient: diff --git a/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb b/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb index 04d114694ab..f81380846e0 100644 --- a/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb +++ b/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb @@ -6076,6 +6076,12 @@ package body Exp_Util is Utyp := Underlying_Type (Base_Type (Utyp)); + -- Handle incomplete types + + if No (Utyp) then + return Empty; + end if; + -- Deal with untagged derivation of private views. If the parent is -- now known to be protected, the finalization routine is the one -- defined on the corresponding record of the ancestor (corresponding
[Bug ada/114710] temporary object finalized too late
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114710 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- I'll have a look.
[Bug ada/114710] temporary object finalized too late
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114710 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|Temporary object finalized |temporary object finalized |too late, causing deadlock |too late Last reconfirmed||2024-04-20 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- Yes, this works as expected in simpler cases, but not here.
[Bug ada/114708] [12/13/14 regression] internal error on access to an incomplete formal in generic package
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- I'll have a look.
[Bug ada/114708] [12/13/14 regression] internal error on access to an incomplete formal in generic package
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug ada/114708] [12/13/14 regression] internal error on access to an incomplete formal in generic package
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Summary|Creating access to an |[12/13/14 regression] |incomplete formal in a |internal error on access to |generic package sometimes |an incomplete formal in |causes GNAT to crash|generic package Last reconfirmed||2024-04-20 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- Confirmed as a regression in GCC 12 and later.
[Bug ada/114640] ICE on elsif part of if-statement containing if-expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114640 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- I'll test the above fixlet.
[Bug ada/114640] ICE on elsif part of if-statement containing if-expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114640 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- This appears to be sufficient: diff --git a/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb b/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb index 04d114694ab..71cfdd718e0 100644 --- a/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb +++ b/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb @@ -6549,6 +6549,7 @@ package body Exp_Util is | N_Aggregate | N_Delta_Aggregate | N_Extension_Aggregate +| N_Elsif_Part and then Nkind (Parent (Par)) not in N_Function_Call | N_Procedure_Call_Statement | N_Entry_Call_Statement
[Bug ada/114640] ICE on elsif part of if-statement containing if-expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114640 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE on 'elsif' with complex |ICE on elsif part of |function call |if-statement containing ||if-expression Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2024-04-20 --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- Indeed, way too many chained/nested ifs here. :-)
[Bug ada/114636] actual does not match formal in instantiation with formal package
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114636 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- I'll test the above fixlet.
[Bug ada/114636] actual does not match formal in instantiation with formal package
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114636 --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- This appears to be sufficient: diff --git a/gcc/ada/sem_ch12.adb b/gcc/ada/sem_ch12.adb index e7b759c4e88..c06377ab4c9 100644 --- a/gcc/ada/sem_ch12.adb +++ b/gcc/ada/sem_ch12.adb @@ -6696,8 +6696,12 @@ package body Sem_Ch12 is then -- If the formal is a tagged type the corresponding class-wide -- type has been generated as well, and it must be skipped. +-- Likewise, for a formal discrete type, the base type has been +-- generated as well (see Analyze_Formal_Discrete_Type). -if Is_Type (E2) and then Is_Tagged_Type (E2) then +if Is_Type (E2) + and then (Is_Tagged_Type (E2) or else Is_Enumeration_Type (E2)) +then Next_Entity (E2); end if;
[Bug ada/114636] actual does not match formal in instantiation with formal package
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114636 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Actual does not match |actual does not match |formal in generic |formal in instantiation |instantiation |with formal package Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2024-04-20 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- This comes from the formal discrete types and has probably never worked.
[Bug ada/114593] [11/12/13/14 regression] bogus error on type conversion in instantiation of child unit inside generic child unit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114593 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-04-06 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|Failed type conversion on |[11/12/13/14 regression] |non-tagged derived type |bogus error on type |inside a generic unit |conversion in instantiation ||of child unit inside ||generic child unit Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- Confirmed, the compiler is probably a bit lost here...
[Bug go/106813] getSiginfo() libgo/runtime/go-signal.c missing Solaris specific code to get ret.sigpc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106813 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2024-04-06
[Bug ada/114550] Weird error when iterating over a character container
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114550 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |14.0 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Summary|Weird error when iterating |Weird error when iterating |over a character container. |over a character container --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- Confirmed in GCC 13.x but fixed on the mainline.
[Bug rtl-optimization/114415] [13 Regression] wrong code with -Oz -fno-dce -fno-forward-propagate -flive-range-shrinkage -fweb since r13-1826
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114415 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- > It probably would have been enough to avoid the RISC-V bug I just fixed a > week or so ago. As well as numerous similar bugs for various architectures over the last couple of decades!
[Bug ada/114065] gnat build with -D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 fails on 32bit archs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065 --- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou --- Nice work indeed, in an area that clearly needed it, thanks! Something potentially problematic though: +package body System.CRTL is + + -- In GNAT, Duration'Size = 64. + function Duration_To_int64 is new Ada.Unchecked_Conversion + (Duration, int64); That's not universal, see Targparm: - -- Duration Format -- - -- By default, type Duration is a 64-bit fixed-point type with a delta -- and small of 10**(-9) (i.e. it is a count in nanoseconds). This flag -- allows that standard format to be modified. Duration_32_Bits_On_Target : Boolean := False; -- If True, then Duration is represented in 32 bits and the delta and -- small values are set to 20.0*(10**(-3)) (i.e. it is a count in units -- of 20 milliseconds). although Duration_32_Bit is indeed False in all the system-*.ads files.
[Bug ipa/109817] internal error in ICF pass on Ada interfaces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109817 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- It's not visible in release builds and testing shows that it's a very rare situation in practice, so no real need IMO.
[Bug rtl-optimization/78664] LRA must honor REG_ALLOC_ORDER to pick reload registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78664 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- .
[Bug target/54412] minimal 32-byte stack alignment with -mavx on 64-bit Windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412 --- Comment #44 from Eric Botcazou --- > Thank you, Dmitry, but that particular solution may not be possible for me. > When I try compiling with -mstackrealign -mpreferred-stack-boundary=5 > -mincoming-stack-boundary=5 instead of forcing unaligned moves I get > "cc1.exe: error: '-mpreferred-stack-boundary=5' is not between 3 and 4". Is > that this bug in a different form, something that should be filed > separately, or known and intended behavior? No, it's the same issue: 32-byte stack alignment is not supported with SEH.
[Bug target/114416] calling convention incompatibility with vendor compiler for V9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416 --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- > Thank you for the proposed fix! I tested it with several programs that I > used to find/reproduce the issue and it seems to work now (I talked about > this with Rainer initially). OK, thanks for the testing!
[Bug target/114416] calling convention incompatibility with vendor compiler for V9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- > Hmm, I just realized that you referred to the same sections, so my previous > comment might not make it clearer... Yes, the fields in question have array types so the rules about scalar values do not obviously apply to them. This is a bit of circular reasoning but, if the rule had been crystal clear, GCC would have implemented it at some point during the last quarter of century. My interpretation is that the writers of the ABI document probably overlooked the specific cases of arrays, which cannot appear as types of standalone parameters but can as types of fields in structures.
[Bug target/112787] Codegen regression of large GCC vector extensions when enabling SVE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112787 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou --- > They have both been backported, @Eric the tests should be passing again now. Confirmed, thanks a lot!
[Bug middle-end/88670] [meta-bug] generic vector extension issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670 Bug 88670 depends on bug 112787, which changed state. Bug 112787 Summary: Codegen regression of large GCC vector extensions when enabling SVE https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112787 What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug target/114416] calling convention incompatibility with vendor compiler for V9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- Created attachment 57806 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57806=edit Tentative fix
[Bug ada/114424] gnat: Ada.Calendar.Clock crashes on 32bit architectures with 64bit time_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114424 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- But s-osprim__posix2008.adb dies not use gettimeofday, does it ?
[Bug target/114416] SPARC V9 struct return with floating-point members violates ABI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- My reading is that the ABI has overlooked this case though, so it is up to the implementation to make its opinion. That of the vendor's compiler is probably more in line with the spirit of the calling conventions, but GCC's has been so for a quarter of a century now.
[Bug ada/114424] gnat: Ada.Calendar.Clock crashes on 32bit architectures with 64bit time_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114424 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- Any file whose name contain "posix2008" should be used in lieu of the simple "posix" variant, but that apparently makes only two of them.
[Bug ada/114065] gnat build with -D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 fails on 32bit archs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- *** Bug 114424 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug ada/114424] gnat: Ada.Calendar.Clock crashes on 32bit architectures with 64bit time_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114424 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- Why don"t you use s-osprim__posix2008.adb if you use s-parame__posix2008.ads? *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 114065 ***
[Bug ada/114065] gnat build with -D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 fails on 32bit archs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- > is that the correct approach? most likely has to be guarded with a configure > option. The conditional setting is very likely superfluous, i.e. you can use the POSIX 2008 version whatever the multilib on Linux.
[Bug target/114416] SPARC V9 struct return with floating-point members violates ABI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2024-03-21 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- IMO that's not clear: "Structure or union types are always left-justified, whether stored in registers or memory. The individual fields of a structure (or containing storage unit in the case of bit fields) are subject to promotion into registers based on their type using the same rules as apply to scalar values (with the addition that a single-precision floating-point number assigned to the left half of an argument slot will be promoted into the corresponding even-numbered float register.). Any union type being passed directly is subject to promotion into the appropriate integer register(s)." I don't see how "The individual fields |...] are subject to promotion into registers based on their type using the same rules as apply to scalar values" applies to an array field, since its type is not scalar. Admittedly, this does not directly apply to a structure field either, but I think that GCC does apply the rule recursively in this case. AFAIK we have never implemented this interpretation for array fields, so I wonder whether it's not too late now.
[Bug ipa/113996] [11/12/13/14 regression] ICE with LTO at -O2 on Ada code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113996 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- Discussion at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647571.html
[Bug ada/114398] [13/14 regression] Storage_Error with 'Access of function returning limited type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- I'm going to have a look.
[Bug ada/114398] [13/14 regression] Storage_Error with 'Access of function returning limited type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|Unexpected storage error in |[13/14 regression] |return statement that |Storage_Error with 'Access |should return a limited |of function returning |controlled type.|limited type CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2024-03-20 --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- This does not compile on the mainline: eric@localhost:~/Downloads> ~/install/gcc/bin/gcc -c reproducer.adb +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 14.0.1 20240311 (experimental) [master 1d193fb3484] (x86_64-suse-linux) | | Assert_Failure exp_attr.adb:2411 | | Error detected at reproducer.adb:74:13 | | Compiling reproducer.adb pragma Assert (Extra_Formals_Match_OK (E => Entity (Pref), Ref_E => Btyp_DDT));
[Bug middle-end/88670] [meta-bug] generic vector extension issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670 Bug 88670 depends on bug 112787, which changed state. Bug 112787 Summary: Codegen regression of large GCC vector extensions when enabling SVE https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112787 What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |---
[Bug target/112787] Codegen regression of large GCC vector extensions when enabling SVE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112787 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |--- CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- This has introduced regressions on the 12 and 13 branches for x86-64/Linux: FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr91838.C -std=c++14 scan-assembler pxors+%xmm0,s+%xmm0 FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr91838.C -std=c++17 scan-assembler pxors+%xmm0,s+%xmm0 FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr91838.C -std=c++20 scan-assembler pxors+%xmm0,s+%xmm0 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-March/809244.html
[Bug ada/106037] internal error with Aggregate aspect on array type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106037 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |13.3 Summary|ICE with Aggregate aspect |internal error with ||Aggregate aspect on array ||type Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- commit ec48b99c24a422bf97af91e82203d23b69094e7c Author: Marc Poulhiès Date: Wed Mar 8 20:39:45 2023 +0100 ada: Fix error message for Aggregate aspect The error message was wrongly using % instead of & in the format string, causing the displayed message to refer to incorrect names in some cases. gcc/ada/ * sem_ch13.adb (Check_Aspect_At_Freeze_Point): fix format string, use existing local Ident. commit 3da0e4ae25f15949f87e74aa96a03b47e51a9ff3 Author: Marc Poulhiès Date: Mon Mar 6 12:15:13 2023 +0100 ada: Fix (again) incorrect handling of Aggregate aspect Previous fix stopped the processing of the Aggregate aspect early, skipping the call to Record_Rep_Item, making later call to Resolve_Container_Aggregate fail. Also, the previous fix would not handle correctly the case where the type is private and the check for non-array type can only be done at the freeze point with the full type. Adapt the resolving of the aspect when the input is not correct and the parameters can't be resolved. gcc/ada/ * sem_ch13.adb (Analyze_One_Aspect): Call Record_Rep_Item. (Check_Aspect_At_Freeze_Point): Check the aspect is specified on non-array type only... (Analyze_One_Aspect): ... instead of doing it too early here. * sem_aggr.adb (Resolve_Container_Aggregate): Do nothing in case the parameters failed to resolve. commit fd694822ca6eda8b08fea10fcabdb0ad508a963e Author: Marc Poulhiès Date: Tue Feb 28 17:10:29 2023 +0100 ada: Fix incorrect handling of Aggregate aspect This change fixes 2 incorrect handlings of the aspect. The arguments are now correctly resolved and the aspect is rejected on non array types. gcc/ada/ * sem_ch13.adb (Analyze_One_Aspect): Mark Aggregate aspect as needing delayed resolution and reject the aspect on non-array type.
[Bug ada/114300] ICE when compiling a program that instantiates a package with a nested ghost package
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114300 --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- This has never compiled apparently.
[Bug ada/114300] ICE when compiling a program that instantiates a package with a nested ghost package
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114300 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|ICE when compiling a|ICE when compiling a |program that instantiates a |program that instantiates a |package with a nested ghost |package with a nested ghost |package.|package Last reconfirmed||2024-03-11
[Bug debug/113777] ICE: in add_child_die_after, at dwarf2out.cc:5785 with -g -fsso-struct and __attribute__((__hardbool__))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113777 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |14.0 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- .
[Bug debug/113519] [14 regression] ICE: in replace_child, at dwarf2out.cc:5704 with -g -fdebug-types-section -fsso-struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113519 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- .
[Bug ipa/109817] internal error in ICF pass on Ada interfaces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109817 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14 regression] internal|internal error in ICF pass |error in ICF pass on Ada|on Ada interfaces |interfaces | --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- The Ada front-end has generated null thunks, i.e. mere forwarders, for the last couple of decades. Nothing wrong with that, but this is clearly inefficient. Not a (recent) regression in any case.
[Bug debug/113777] ICE: in add_child_die_after, at dwarf2out.cc:5785 with -g -fsso-struct and __attribute__((__hardbool__))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113777 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug debug/113777] ICE: in add_child_die_after, at dwarf2out.cc:5785 with -g -fsso-struct=big-endian and __attribute__((__hardbool__))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113777 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- > This works with __attribute__((may_alias)) though, so what's special with > __attribute__((__hardbool__)) ? Replying myself: this creates an enumeration type under the hood, so this is a duplicate of PR debug/113519.
[Bug target/111822] [12/13/14 Regression] during RTL pass: lr_shrinkage ICE: in operator[], at vec.h:910 with -O2 -m32 -flive-range-shrinkage -fno-dce -fnon-call-exceptions since r12-5301-g04520645038
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111822 --- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou --- > Preloading stuff is simply loading from the same DImode address, so I'd > think that EH_NOTE should be moved from the original insn to the new insn > without much problems. Old reload and LRA need to do that too; see copy_reg_eh_region_note_forward and its callers for a possible way out.
[Bug ipa/109817] [14 regression] internal error in ICF pass on Ada interfaces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109817 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|[14 Regression] internal|[14 regression] internal |error in ICF pass on Ada|error in ICF pass on Ada |interfaces |interfaces Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- I'll have a look.
[Bug debug/113777] ICE: in add_child_die_after, at dwarf2out.cc:5785 with -g -fsso-struct=big-endian and __attribute__((__hardbool__))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113777 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-03-08 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- This works with __attribute__((may_alias)) though, so what's special with __attribute__((__hardbool__)) ?
[Bug ipa/113996] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with LTO at -O2 and above with some Ada code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113996 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- I'll have a look.
[Bug debug/113519] [14 Regression] ICE: in replace_child, at dwarf2out.cc:5704 with -g -fdebug-types-section -fsso-struct=big-endian (or little-endian if the target is big-endian)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113519 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- P1 for an artificial test with exotic options is probably an oversight, but I'm going to have a look in any case.
[Bug ada/113979] [11/12/13/14 regression] bogus error on allocator for array type with Dynamic_Predicate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113979 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- Fixed on mainline and all branches.
[Bug ada/114127] Assert_Failure in nlists.adb on [] aggregate in generic with pragma Ada_2022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114127 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14 regression] |Assert_Failure in |Assert_Failure in |nlists.adb on [] aggregate |nlists.adb |in generic with pragma ||Ada_2022 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2024-02-27 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- Compile with -gnat2022 or use pragma Ada_2022 consistently, but that's not a regression.
[Bug ada/113893] finalization of object allocated by anonymous access type designating local type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.5 Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- This should run to completion now.
[Bug ada/114065] gnat build with -D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 fails on 32bit archs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-02-26 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- > however that's not the correct fix. Is there any way to fix this in a better > way? s-parame__posix2008.ads already has the 64-bit time_t so you just need to tweak Makefile.rtl.
[Bug ipa/113996] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with LTO at -O2 and above with some Ada code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113996
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-26
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
A good reason not to compile with -gnatp. ;-) It's this assertion:
/* Initialize the static chain. */
p = DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (fn)->static_chain_decl;
gcc_assert (fn != current_function_decl);
if (p)
{
/* No static chain? Seems like a bug in tree-nested.cc. */
gcc_assert (static_chain);
setup_one_parameter (id, p, static_chain, fn, bb, );
}
[Bug ada/104342] ICE with -gnata -fcallgraph-info=su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104342 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- > That thought occurred to me, but does that mean that if this code is > compiled with a release branch Bad Things will happen? (I guess the code > would probably have to get executed for that to occur) It's related to -fcallgraph-info=su and this doesn't affect the generated code.
[Bug ada/104342] ICE with -gnata -fcallgraph-info=su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104342 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14 regression] ICE with|ICE with -gnata |-gnata -fcallgraph-info=su |-fcallgraph-info=su --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- Release branches simply do not have assertions enabled.
[Bug ada/113979] [10/11/12/13/14 regression] bogus error on allocator for type with Dynamic_Predicate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113979 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- I'll have a look.
[Bug ada/113979] [10/11/12/13/14 regression] bogus error on allocator for type with Dynamic_Predicate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113979 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2024-02-19 Summary|Allocation of 2D array |[10/11/12/13/14 regression] |fails when Dynamic |bogus error on allocator |Predicate applied to type |for type with ||Dynamic_Predicate Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- Presumably something goes wrong during the expansion of the check.
[Bug ada/113972] ICE on container map for aggregate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113972 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE on container map for|ICE on container map for |aggregate. |aggregate Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2024-02-19 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- There is an assertion failure on mainline: +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 14.0.1 20240219 (experimental) [master r14-9059-ge42287eaed2] (x86_64-suse-linux) | | Assert_Failure failed precondition from einfo-entities.ads:218 | | Error detected at test_20240217_mpa_for_agg.adb:38:9 | | Compiling test_20240217_mpa_for_agg.adb |
[Bug ada/113862] error: "others" choice not allowed here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113862 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- Well, this is very irregular if it happens to be legal, since it would be illegal if the raise was replaced by anything else. More of a bug in the language than in the compiler if you ask me...
[Bug ada/113877] gnatchop -c puts gnat.adc in the current working directory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113877 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- Thanks for investigating this.
[Bug ada/113781] Bug box on array initialisation with iterated aggregate component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113781 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2024-02-14 --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- Optimization is irrelevant, it"s an issue in the front-end.
[Bug ada/113862] error: "others" choice not allowed here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113862 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
[Bug ada/113862] error: "others" choice not allowed here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113862 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2024-02-14 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou --- Not clear if there is much value in creating a PR for such a pathological case if it happens to be legal.
