[Bug target/79430] [7/8 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #75 from Thomas Koenig --- To provide some more context, here is the code as compiled with the patch (correct version): callintegral_over_z_part_isr.6797 .LVL1464: .loc 1 3089 0 fldt496(%rsp)

[Bug target/80479] [7/8 Regression] strcmp() produces valgrind errors on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479 jreiser at bitwagon dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jreiser at bitwagon dot com

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Enable -fstrict-overflow by default

On 04/24/2017 05:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: The following makes signed overflow undefined for all (non-)optimization levels. The intent is to remove -fno-strict-overflow signed overflow behavior as that is not a sensible option to the user (it ends up with the worst of both -fwrapv and

Re: [PATCH] handle sprintf(d, "%s", ...) in gimple-ssa-sprintf.c

On 04/25/2017 04:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 04/21/2017 03:33 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Bug 77671 - missing -Wformat-overflow warning on sprintf overflow with "%s", is caused by gimple-fold.c transforming s{,n}printf calls with a plain "%s" format string into strcpy regardless of whether they are

[Bug tree-optimization/80523] -Wformat-overflow doesn't consider -fexec-charset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80523 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code

[Bug tree-optimization/80523] New: -Wformat-overflow doesn't consider -fexec-charset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80523 Bug ID: 80523 Summary: -Wformat-overflow doesn't consider -fexec-charset Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c/80522] New: Enhancement request: __attribute((warn_untested_result))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80522 Bug ID: 80522 Summary: Enhancement request: __attribute((warn_untested_result)) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/80521] New: Wrong line reported in error for missing template argument in friend class declaration.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80521 Bug ID: 80521 Summary: Wrong line reported in error for missing template argument in friend class declaration. Product: gcc Version: 7.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/80520] New: Performance regression from missing if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520 Bug ID: 80520 Summary: Performance regression from missing if-conversion Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

Re: suggestion: c compiler warning for failure to test result

On 04/25/2017 02:35 PM, Joe Perches wrote: A possibly useful addition similar to: __attribute__((warn_unused_result)) might be __attribute__((warn_untested_result)) for things like allocation failures that are not verified before use. I agree that this would be a useful feature. In fact,

gcc-5-20170425 is now available

Snapshot gcc-5-20170425 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20170425/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5

[PATCH] Alias analysis of zero sized arrays

This patch changes get_ref_base_and_extent to treat zero sized arrays like C99 flexible arrays and assume that references to zero sized arrays can also be made beyond the 'end' of the array.  C99 flexible arrays are recognized by not having an INTEGER_CST limit/size and the routine then sets

Re: [PATCH] C++: fix-it hints suggesting accessors for private fields

On 04/25/2017 04:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote: On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 12:11 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 04/25/2017 11:58 AM, David Malcolm wrote: { return FIELD; } I tried adding the kind of filtering you suggest, but the binfo doesn't seem to have info on const vs non-const

[C++ PATCH] fix test breakage

I've committed this patch to remove the TCL 8.5ism of {*}[returns-a-list]. I recall now seeing that 8.5 was released 10 years ago, so thought it'd be ok. Sadly not :( nathan -- Nathan Sidwell 2017-04-25 Nathan Sidwell * g++.dg/dg.exp (find-cxx-tests): Remove TCL 8.5-ism.

Re: [PATCH] handle sprintf(d, "%s", ...) in gimple-ssa-sprintf.c

On 04/21/2017 03:33 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Bug 77671 - missing -Wformat-overflow warning on sprintf overflow with "%s", is caused by gimple-fold.c transforming s{,n}printf calls with a plain "%s" format string into strcpy regardless of whether they are valid well before the -Wformtat-overflow

GCC 7.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

The first release candidate for GCC 7.1 is available from ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7.0.1-RC-20170425 and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 247264. I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on x86_64-linux and i686-linux. Please test

[Bug target/79430] [7/8 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #74 from Thomas Koenig --- This part looks wrong: @@ -19206,8 +19196,9 @@ movq%r11, 112(%rsp) movq%rax, 96(%rsp) callintegral_over_z_part_isr.6797 -.LVL1464: +.LVL1465: .loc 1 3089 0 +

Re: std::vector move assign patch

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Jonathan Wakely wrote: That's only 5 more memory operations. If I tweak vector swapping to avoid calling swap on each member (which drops type-based aliasing information, that was the topic of PR64601) I didn't really understand the discussion in the PR. I find that's

[Bug tree-optimization/80519] New: if(p)free(p) with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80519 Bug ID: 80519 Summary: if(p)free(p) with -Os Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

suggestion: c compiler warning for failure to test result

A possibly useful addition similar to: __attribute__((warn_unused_result)) might be __attribute__((warn_untested_result)) for things like allocation failures that are not verified before use. For instance: void *malloc(size_t size); could become void *

[Bug demangler/80513] demangler walks past trailing nul in mangled name in a bunch of cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80513 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/78010] --Wsuggest-override reports a redundant warning on a 'final' method

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Arnaud Desitter from comment #3) > Interesting reference. Note that "virtual + final" can be useful even if the > core guidelines discourage its use. > > struct A { > virtual void f()

[Bug sanitizer/80498] Simple program with address sanitizer and regex hangs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498 --- Comment #11 from jonne --- Doesn't seem to work, it cannot find the symbol. (gdb) break __asan_init Function "__asan_init" not defined. Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) y (I tried with three underscores

[Bug demangler/80513] demangler walks past trailing nul in mangled name in a bunch of cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80513 --- Comment #1 from Richard Smith --- While we're here, this check for overflow in consume_count is nonsense, and any decent optimising compiler is going to optimise away the overflow check:

[Bug target/79430] [7/8 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #73 from Thomas Koenig --- Created attachment 41265 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41265=edit Difference in assembly with and without the patch This is the difference in assembly generated. *.withpatch is the

Re: [PATCH] C++: fix-it hints suggesting accessors for private fields

On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 12:11 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 04/25/2017 11:58 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > > >{ return FIELD; } > > > > for the correct field, favoring returning T to returning T&. > > Hm, that seems the poorer choice (unless you can suggest both). > After > all the T&

[Bug sanitizer/80349] [6 Regression] UBSAN: compile time crash with "type mismatch in binary expression" message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349 --- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek --- I believe this all section needs fixing and new testcases: 10793 tree arg00 = TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0); 10794 tree arg01 = TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1); 10795 tree arg10 =

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:43:00PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > This appears to fix my problem. Do you want to commit the patch > or would you rather have me do it? Note, the problem is present > in 7-branch. I haven't checked the other branches. Committed to trunk, 7.x will need to wait until

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:43:00PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > This appears to fix my problem. Do you want to commit the patch > or would you rather have me do it? Note, the problem is present > in 7-branch. I haven't checked the other branches. Committed to trunk, 7.x will need to wait until

[Bug c++/78010] --Wsuggest-override reports a redundant warning on a 'final' method

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010 --- Comment #4 from ol.rakhimov at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Arnaud Desitter from comment #3) > Interesting reference. Note that "virtual + final" can be useful even if the > core guidelines discourage its use. > > struct A { > virtual

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:58:56PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:04AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > > > Someone

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:58:56PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:04AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > > > Someone

[Bug c++/78010] --Wsuggest-override reports a redundant warning on a 'final' method

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010 --- Comment #3 from Arnaud Desitter --- Interesting reference. Note that "virtual + final" can be useful even if the core guidelines discourage its use. struct A { virtual void f() final; }; struct B : A { // "void f()" cannot be defined

[Bug c++/80518] -Wsuggest-override does not warn about missing override on destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80518 --- Comment #2 from Arnaud Desitter --- Interesting. Shame that there is no rationale. I suppose that "-Wsuggest-override=2" could warn about "override" missing for destructor.

[PATCH] Improve RTL ifcvt for empty else_bb (PR rtl-optimization/80491)

Hi! The following patch is a partial fix for PR80491, an improvement for if-conversion if there is empty else_bb. What we do right now is in that case we only look at the immediately preceeding (non-debug/non-note) instruction before cond_earliest and if it is not the set of x, we just turn it

[Bug sanitizer/80349] [6 Regression] UBSAN: compile time crash with "type mismatch in binary expression" message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349 --- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek --- Thanks, reproduced, will look into it.

[Bug sanitizer/80349] [6 Regression] UBSAN: compile time crash with "type mismatch in binary expression" message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349 --- Comment #12 from Dmitry Babokin --- int var; long a; long foo() { int i = !(1 & 808U ^ 1 & var) >> 0; long l = 0 % ((a & 1) != (3053241240409UL & 1)); return i+l; }

Re: Alias analysis and zero-sized arrays vs. flexible arrays

On April 25, 2017 8:03:20 PM GMT+02:00, Steve Ellcey wrote: >On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 12:53 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > int foo() { >> >    int i,j; >> >    for (i = 0; i < m; i++) { >> > a->o[i] = sizeof(*a); >> > b = ((struct r *)(((char *)a) +

Re: Alias analysis and zero-sized arrays vs. flexible arrays

On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 12:53 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > int foo() { > >    int i,j; > >    for (i = 0; i < m; i++) { > > a->o[i] = sizeof(*a); > > b = ((struct r *)(((char *)a) + a->o[a->n])); > > for (j = 0; j < 10; j++) { > > b->slot[j].b = 0; > in

[Bug tree-optimization/80497] ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "tree_to_uhwi"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80497 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/80497] ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "tree_to_uhwi"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80497 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Apr 25 17:58:32 2017 New Revision: 247264 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247264=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/80497 - ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu

[Bug target/70799] STV pass does not convert DImode shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70799 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86 Status|ASSIGNED

[PATCH, i386]: Handle ASHIFTRT in STV pass (PR 70799)

Attached fairly rivial patch adds ASHIFTRT handling for TARGET_AVX512VL targets in STV pass. The patch also merges a couple of shift vector insn patterns. 2017-04-25 Uros Bizjak PR target/70799 * config/i386/i386.c (dimode_scalar_to_vector_candidate_p): Handle

[Bug tree-optimization/79824] [7 Regression] Failure to peel for gaps leads to read beyond mapped memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79824 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

[Bug target/70799] STV pass does not convert DImode shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70799 --- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Tue Apr 25 17:45:22 2017 New Revision: 247263 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247263=gcc=rev Log: PR target/70799 * config/i386/i386.c

[Bug tree-optimization/80497] ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "tree_to_uhwi"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80497 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Apr 25 17:40:58 2017 New Revision: 247262 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247262=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/80497 - ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu

[Bug c++/78010] --Wsuggest-override reports a redundant warning on a 'final' method

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#Rh-override says that virtual functions should use exactly one of virtual, override or final. Which agrees with the suggestion

[Bug c++/80518] -Wsuggest-override does not warn about missing override on destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80518 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #1 from

[Bug target/77728] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation multiple vector iteration on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728 --- Comment #50 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #3) > Started with r225465. > Something to do with alignment. > I wonder if it's related to PR69841 ? Seems to be the same. Maybe PR 80149 too?

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:18:28AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > --- gcc/Makefile.in 2017-04-18 21:16:24.703775156 +0200 > > +++ gcc/Makefile.in 2017-04-25 18:56:58.304963926 +0200 > > @@ -2139,6 +2139,7 @@ s-specs : Makefile > > > > optionlist: s-options ; @true > > s-options:

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:18:28AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > --- gcc/Makefile.in 2017-04-18 21:16:24.703775156 +0200 > > +++ gcc/Makefile.in 2017-04-25 18:56:58.304963926 +0200 > > @@ -2139,6 +2139,7 @@ s-specs : Makefile > > > > optionlist: s-options ; @true > > s-options:

[Bug bootstrap/80486] spurious -Walloc-size-larger-than and -Wstringop-overflow in dominance.c during profiledbootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80486 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/80486] spurious -Walloc-size-larger-than and -Wstringop-overflow in dominance.c during profiledbootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80486 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/80486] spurious -Walloc-size-larger-than and -Wstringop-overflow in dominance.c during profiledbootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80486 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Apr 25 17:18:39 2017 New Revision: 247261 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247261=gcc=rev Log: PR bootstrap/80486 - spurious -Walloc-size-larger-than and -Wstringop-overflow in

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:58:56PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:04AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > > > Someone

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:58:56PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:04AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > > > Someone

[Bug target/77728] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation multiple vector iteration on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728 --- Comment #49 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On April 25, 2017 5:20:29 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728 > >--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek ---

[Bug sanitizer/80349] [6 Regression] UBSAN: compile time crash with "type mismatch in binary expression" message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349 --- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Apr 25 17:02:27 2017 New Revision: 247260 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247260=gcc=rev Log: PR sanitizer/80349 * fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc) : Convert

[Bug c++/80518] New: -Wsuggest-override does not warn about missing override on destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80518 Bug ID: 80518 Summary: -Wsuggest-override does not warn about missing override on destructor Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/80515] __attribute__ ((__noreturn__)) false alarm for 'main'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515 --- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- See also https://cplusplus.github.io/EWG/ewg-active.html#162

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:04AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > > > Someone (other than Richard who

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:04AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > > > Someone (other than Richard who

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:04AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > Someone (other than Richard who seems to have fixed his > > > bootstrap issue) in the

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:04AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > Someone (other than Richard who seems to have fixed his > > > bootstrap issue) in the

[Bug target/77728] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation multiple vector iteration on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728 --- Comment #48 from Yichao Yu --- Thanks for fixing this. I didn't follow all the comments since I'm not familiar with the C++ ABI so just to make sure I understand what's happening is it that the bug is caused by a inconsistency in C++ ABI for

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > Someone (other than Richard who seems to have fixed his > > bootstrap issue) in the last 3 days has broken bootstrap > > on FreeBSD. > > Did you change

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > Someone (other than Richard who seems to have fixed his > > bootstrap issue) in the last 3 days has broken bootstrap > > on FreeBSD. > > Did you change

Re: std::vector move assign patch

On 25/04/17 18:12 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 25/04/17 17:23 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 24/04/17 22:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: It seems that this patch had 2 consequences that may or may not have

[Bug target/80482] [7/8 Regression] vec_mul produces compilation error if 1 of its parms is const or volatile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80482 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [PATCH 4/7] [D] libiberty: Remove wrongly spec'd mangle rule for encoded integers.

On 20 April 2017 at 20:58, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > Hmm, it seems like D compilers until 3 years ago infact used to mangle > in this way. Better keep it around then for a little while longer for > compatibility. I'll follow-up with an amendment which doesn't remove > the

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:13:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, David Malcolm wrote: > > > >From what I can tell, the n_opts and opts in that file come direct from > > opt-read.awk, which gets them from opt-gather.awk, which appears to > > sort them (but my awk skills are

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:13:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, David Malcolm wrote: > > > >From what I can tell, the n_opts and opts in that file come direct from > > opt-read.awk, which gets them from opt-gather.awk, which appears to > > sort them (but my awk skills are

[Bug target/77728] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation multiple vector iteration on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[5/6/7/8 Regression]|[5/6 Regression]

[Bug target/77728] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Miscompilation multiple vector iteration on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728 --- Comment #46 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Apr 25 16:47:32 2017 New Revision: 247259 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247259=gcc=rev Log: PR target/77728 * config/arm/arm.c: Include gimple.h.

[PATCH] Do CRC 4 bits at a time

Hi, our current CRC routine processes 1 bit at a time, and permits arbitrary numbers of bits from 1 to 32. However we only ever feed it multiples of 8 bits to process. So part of this patch changes the interface to use a crc32_unsigned_n worker function, which crcs a N-byte integer. The

[Bug target/77728] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Miscompilation multiple vector iteration on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728 --- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Apr 25 16:46:34 2017 New Revision: 247258 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247258=gcc=rev Log: PR target/77728 * config/arm/arm.c: Include gimple.h.

Re: [PATCH 3/9] Documentation for the ia16 back end

On 04/01/2017 10:48 AM, Andrew Jenner wrote: This patch updates the documentation. 2017-04-01 Andrew Jenner Rask Ingemann Lambertsen * doc/md.texi: Update for new ia16 back end. * doc/invoke.texi: Likewise. * doc/contrib.texi:

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:09:05AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > > From what I can tell, the n_opts and opts in that file come direct from > > opt-read.awk, which gets them from opt-gather.awk, which appears to > > sort them (but my awk skills are weak). > > > > Alternatively, maybe the

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:09:05AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > > From what I can tell, the n_opts and opts in that file come direct from > > opt-read.awk, which gets them from opt-gather.awk, which appears to > > sort them (but my awk skills are weak). > > > > Alternatively, maybe the

[Bug sanitizer/80349] [6 Regression] UBSAN: compile time crash with "type mismatch in binary expression" message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349 --- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Apr 25 16:39:57 2017 New Revision: 247257 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247257=gcc=rev Log: PR sanitizer/80349 * fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc) : Convert

Re: [PATCH 7/9] ira-color

On 04/01/2017 10:48 AM, Andrew Jenner wrote: In the course of working with ia16, I found a case where the sorted_allocnos array in ira-color.c requires more than ira_allocnos_num entries. The following patch allows this array to expand when this happens. 2017-04-01 Andrew Jenner

Re: [PATCH 8/9] subreg_get_info

On 04/01/2017 10:48 AM, Andrew Jenner wrote: In the course of working with the ia16 port, I found a case of subreg shape (I think it was a 32-bit value in one 16-bit register and two 8-bit registers) which is not currently supported by subreg_get_info but which easily could be, with the

Re: [PATCH] Fix fold_binary_loc BIT_IOR_EXPR folding (PR sanitizer/80349)

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:27:01PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:09:20PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:05:25PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > Here we are crashing because fold_binary_loc produced a BIT_IOR_EXPR with > > > incompatible

Re: [PATCH] Fix fold_binary_loc BIT_IOR_EXPR folding (PR sanitizer/80349)

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:09:20PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:05:25PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > > Here we are crashing because fold_binary_loc produced a BIT_IOR_EXPR with > > incompatible operands. Fixed by adding the missing conversion, similarly > > to

Re: [PATCH 5/7] [D] libiberty: Fixes for demangling qualified symbol names

On 25 April 2017 at 17:35, Jeff Law wrote: > On 04/15/2017 09:25 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> This patch removes `dlang_parse_symbol', and replaces it with >> `dlang_parse_qualified' and `dlang_parse_mangle'. All callers have >> been updated to reflect as to whether we expect

Re: C++ PATCH to fix ICE in replace_placeholders_r (PR c++/79937)

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 03:27:36PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 05:09:58PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > >> > On

[Bug target/80482] [7/8 Regression] vec_mul produces compilation error if 1 of its parms is const or volatile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80482 --- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: seurer Date: Tue Apr 25 16:16:13 2017 New Revision: 247256 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247256=gcc=rev Log: [PATCH, rs6000] pr80482 Relax vector builtin parameter checks PR

Re: [ARM ABI PATCH] Change ARM ABI to match AAPCS, provide -Wpsabi notes (PR target/77728)

On 25/04/17 14:57, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, On 25/04/17 11:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! As mentioned in the PR, r225465 aka PR65956 changed the ABI on ARM to match updated AAPCS, but the change had a bug - for structures it considered DECL_ALIGN of any TYPE_FIELDS, rather than just

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, David Malcolm wrote: > >From what I can tell, the n_opts and opts in that file come direct from > opt-read.awk, which gets them from opt-gather.awk, which appears to > sort them (but my awk skills are weak). Maybe the opt-gather.awk call in Makefile.in needs to set

Re: Who broke options.h?

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, David Malcolm wrote: > >From what I can tell, the n_opts and opts in that file come direct from > opt-read.awk, which gets them from opt-gather.awk, which appears to > sort them (but my awk skills are weak). Maybe the opt-gather.awk call in Makefile.in needs to set

Re: std::vector move assign patch

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 25/04/17 17:23 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 24/04/17 22:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: It seems that this patch had 2 consequences that may or may not have been planned. Consider this example (from

Re: [PATCH] C++: fix-it hints suggesting accessors for private fields

On 04/25/2017 11:58 AM, David Malcolm wrote: { return FIELD; } for the correct field, favoring returning T to returning T&. Hm, that seems the poorer choice (unless you can suggest both). After all the T& case will meet the rvalue case (const-qualifiers ignoring). I suppose if thing is

Re: [PATCH] Fix fold_binary_loc BIT_IOR_EXPR folding (PR sanitizer/80349)

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:05:25PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > Here we are crashing because fold_binary_loc produced a BIT_IOR_EXPR with > incompatible operands. Fixed by adding the missing conversion, similarly > to . > >

[Bug target/77728] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Miscompilation multiple vector iteration on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728 --- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek --- Works for me. That would mean roughly applying the two patches, but instead of doing else if (res < 0) do if (res) (and something similar for aarch64).

[PATCH] Fix fold_binary_loc BIT_IOR_EXPR folding (PR sanitizer/80349)

Here we are crashing because fold_binary_loc produced a BIT_IOR_EXPR with incompatible operands. Fixed by adding the missing conversion, similarly to . Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk? And 7.1? 2017-04-25 Marek

[Bug target/77728] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Miscompilation multiple vector iteration on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728 --- Comment #43 from Richard Earnshaw --- Hmm, so how about just inserting the warning in the broken compilers?

[Bug c/80515] __attribute__ ((__noreturn__)) false alarm for 'main'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80515 --- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- But for C++: [[noreturn]] int main() { while(true) ; } is warning free in clang++ and icpc.

Re: [PATCH] C++: fix-it hints suggesting accessors for private fields

On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 07:49 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 04/25/2017 07:46 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > On 04/24/2017 04:06 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > > test.cc:12:13: note: field ‘int foo::m_field’ can be accessed via > > > ‘int > > > foo::get_field() const’ > > > return

[Ada] Remove zero-origin array indexing for Source_Buffers

This patch removes the zero-origin array indexing that was used for Source_Buffers with thin pointers. It is impossible to implement zero-origin indexing correctly in Ada without fat pointers. For one thing, 'First and 'Last can't work. For another thing, array bounds checking can't work. And

[Ada] Spurious error on container indexing that is in-out parameter in call

This patch fixes a spurious error on a user-defined indexing that appears as the actual in a parameter association of a procedure call. Given that the enclosing call has not been analyzed yet, determining the matching formal of the candidate subprogram must be located by name and not by position.

  1   2   3   4   >