[Bug target/85530] New: [X86] _mm512_mullox_epi64 and _mm512_mask_mullox_epi64 not implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85530 Bug ID: 85530 Summary: [X86] _mm512_mullox_epi64 and _mm512_mask_mullox_epi64 not implemented Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH] Try to use issetugid before falling back to insecure getenv

Dne sreda, 25. april 2018 ob 19:53:08 CEST je Andreas Schwab napisal(a): > On Apr 25 2018, Matija Skala wrote: > > diff --git a/libvtv/configure.ac b/libvtv/configure.ac > > index ba3009ee3fb..878ba02a2e2 100644 > > --- a/libvtv/configure.ac > > +++ b/libvtv/configure.ac > > @@

[Bug tree-optimization/85529] New: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529 Bug ID: 85529 Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/85528] New: ICE in code_motion_process_successors, at sel-sched.c:6403

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85528 Bug ID: 85528 Summary: ICE in code_motion_process_successors, at sel-sched.c:6403 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-checking,

PING: [PATCH] Don't mark IFUNC resolver as only called directly

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:50 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:39 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >

[PATCH] C/C++: Add -Waddress-of-packed-member

When address of packed member of struct or union is taken, it may result in an unaligned pointer value. This patch adds -Waddress-of-packed-member to check alignment at pointer assignment and warn unaligned address as well as unaligned pointer: $ cat x.i struct pair_t { char c; int i; }

GCC 8.1 RC1 Bootstrap comparison failure on AIX

Jakub and Richi, GCC 8.1 is experiencing the same bootstrap failure with GCC 8.1 RC1 as we saw previously. Bootstrap comparison failure! gcc/function-tests.o differs And the same reason: unique, static symbol that includes a random timestamp. 1949c1949 < [1936]m 0x0060 1

Re: [PATCH 0/4] ASAN for MIPS (o32)

> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 03:49:01 +0100 > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson The patches enabling ASAN for MIPS (32-bit) have now been committed, on trunk for gcc-9. I didn't persist pinging release maintainers for gcc-8, but I'd certainly like to backport them, if so allowed. brgds, H-P

[Bug fortran/85526] [6/7/8/9 regression] ICE when calling a (pure) function from inside another pure function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:33:34PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > The code compiles with 6.4.0 and 7.3.0, but not with 6.4.1, 7.3.1, > 8.0.1 and trunk (9.0). This is likely r258347 for gcc8,

I'm waiting for your response

Vincent Forbes has invited you to join Nextdoor. Nextdoor is a private social network that helps neighbors connect with each other to build stronger communities. To accept your invitation, follow the link below: https://nextdoor.com/invitation/?i=ggkkfghlzxggthdsqdslstage=2

[Bug fortran/85526] [6/7/8/9 regression] ICE when calling a (pure) function from inside another pure function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

Re: RFC: bash completion

[moving from gcc to gcc-patches mailing list] On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 15:12 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > On 04/24/2018 06:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-04-24 at 16:45 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > Some time ago, I investigated quite new feature of clang which > >

[Bug fortran/85526] [6.4 regression] calling a (pure) function from inside another pure function may cause segmentation fault during compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/85525] Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1

gcc-6-20180425 is now available

Snapshot gcc-6-20180425 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20180425/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6

[Committed] Remove myself as MIPS maintainer

2018-04-25 Catherine Moore * MAINTAINERS (mips): Remove myself as MIPS maintainer.

[Bug testsuite/85527] New: [openacc] atomic_capture-1.{c,f90} undefined behaviour

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85527 Bug ID: 85527 Summary: [openacc] atomic_capture-1.{c,f90} undefined behaviour Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

MIPS maintainership

Hi all, I need to resign as maintainer for the MIPS port. My work commitments have taken me in a different direction and as a result I haven't been able to actively participate over the last year. I don't see that changing anytime soon. I hope that someone with the interest and the time is

[Bug target/85525] Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525 --- Comment #7 from Tom Ritter --- I'm compiling some AVX code with MinGW+gcc. I'm afraid it's difficult to create a test case, but I think there's an alignment issue here. Registers at crash site: rbp is 0x00 % 20 > 0:000> r >

[Bug target/85525] Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525 --- Comment #6 from Tom Ritter --- Created attachment 44020 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44020=edit Disassembly of affected function

[Bug fortran/85526] New: [6.4 regression] calling a (pure) function from inside another pure function may cause segmentation fault during compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526 Bug ID: 85526 Summary: [6.4 regression] calling a (pure) function from inside another pure function may cause segmentation fault during compilation Product: gcc

[Bug target/85525] Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525 --- Comment #5 from Tom Ritter --- ./x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=./x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/builds/worker/workspace/build/src/mingw32/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/6.4.0/lto-wrapper

[Bug target/85525] Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525 --- Comment #4 from Tom Ritter --- Created attachment 44018 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44018=edit Preprocessed source file

[Bug target/85525] Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/85525] Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525 --- Comment #2 from Tom Ritter --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > What exact target is this on? Sorry, this is x64 if that's what you mean?

[Bug target/85525] Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |target --- Comment #1 from Andrew

Re: GCC 8.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On 04/25/2018 05:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.0.1-RC-20180425/ The first release candidate for GCC 8.1 is available from ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.0.1-RC-20180425 and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 259636. I

[Bug c/85525] New: Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525 Bug ID: 85525 Summary: Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #48 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #47) > Believe it or not, but the rs6000 port maintainers *care* about older > systems. Then why is something that is still working and being used

[PATCH][arm][FreeBSD] PR libgcc/84292

Hi all, I'm going to commit this patch to all active branches as soon as the branch status permits. Built and tested on native armv5 FreeBSD12. Thanks, Andreas 2018-04-25 Andreas Tobler Maryse Levavasseur PR

[PATCH] Minor documentation correction in aarch64-simd.md

In function minmax_replacement in tree-ssa-phiopt.c, MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR are substituted for when the following condition is false - (HONOR_NANS (type) || HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)). So for FP mode, this is false when _both_ of the following conditions are fulfilled : 1. flag_signed_zeros is

[PATCH] Document that -Wreturn-type is enabled by default for C++

* doc/invoke.texi (-Wreturn-type): Document default status for C++. OK for trunk and gcc-8-branch? commit 20357a8ded851a3376b7e8978c77e7c56b1a273e Author: Jonathan Wakely Date: Wed Apr 25 19:51:10 2018 +0100 Document that -Wreturn-type is enabled by default

[Bug libstdc++/85472] Regex match bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472 --- Comment #12 from Hans Åberg --- (In reply to Tim Shen from comment #11) > > The problem is that #4 has an earlier capture, making it impossible to see > > that it is left undefined later. > > I wouldn't say it's impossible. libc++

[Bug libstdc++/85472] Regex match bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472 --- Comment #11 from Tim Shen --- > The problem is that #4 has an earlier capture, making it impossible to see > that it is left undefined later. I wouldn't say it's impossible. libc++ implements it correctly at a cost. Specifically, see

[Bug libstdc++/85472] Regex match bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472 --- Comment #10 from Hans Åberg --- (In reply to Tim Shen from comment #9) > Ah with the example it's clear, thanks! You are welcome. > > The last line gives for #1 the sub-string "z" , and for #2 "aacbbbcac". > > This is not what ECMAScript

[Bug c++/85523] Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in assignment operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- Note to self: this came out of this ML thread: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-04/msg00168.html

[Bug c++/85523] Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in assignment operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Note to self: test coverage should also verify += and so on.

[Bug middle-end/85524] Strange cbrt() result on linux in C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85524 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Component|c

[Bug c/85524] New: Strange cbrt() result on linux in C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85524 Bug ID: 85524 Summary: Strange cbrt() result on linux in C Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

Re: [PATCH] Try to use issetugid before falling back to insecure getenv

On Apr 25 2018, Matija Skala wrote: > diff --git a/libvtv/configure.ac b/libvtv/configure.ac > index ba3009ee3fb..878ba02a2e2 100644 > --- a/libvtv/configure.ac > +++ b/libvtv/configure.ac > @@ -115,6 +115,9 @@ AC_CHECK_FUNCS([__secure_getenv]) > AC_GNU_SOURCE >

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 25/04/18 13:13 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 04/25/2018 12:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: @@ -15869,6 +15851,12 @@ finish_function (bool inline_p)     {   warning (OPT_Wreturn_type,   "no return statement in function returning non-void"); +  if (DECL_NAME (fndecl) ==

[Bug target/85473] internal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/85523] Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in assignment operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/85523] Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in assignment operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 44017 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44017=edit Proof-of-concept patch to add fix-it

[Bug c++/85523] New: Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in assignment operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523 Bug ID: 85523 Summary: Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in assignment operators Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic

[Bug libstdc++/85472] Regex match bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472 --- Comment #9 from Tim Shen --- Ah with the example it's clear, thanks! > The last line gives for #1 the sub-string "z" , and for #2 "aacbbbcac". This is not what ECMAScript produces either. for capture #2, ECMAScriptn produces "ac", the last

Re: [PATCH] DWARF sort longer dirs before shorter ones in directory table.

On Mon, 2018-04-16 at 09:41 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:34:17AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * dwarf2out.c (file_info_cmp): Sort longer dir prefixes before > > shorter ones. > > Ok, thanks. Pushed now that trunk is in stage 1 again.

[Bug target/85473] internal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473 --- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Wed Apr 25 17:31:20 2018 New Revision: 259654 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259654=gcc=rev Log: x86: Correct movdir64b builtin function gcc/ChangeLog: Backport

Re: [PATCH][arm] PR target/82518: Return false in ARRAY_MODE_SUPPORTED_P for BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN

> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:11 PM, Kyrill Tkachov > wrote: > > Hi all, > > This PR shows that we get the load/store_lanes logic wrong for arm big-endian. > It is tricky to get right. Aarch64 does it by adding the appropriate > lane-swapping > operations during

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 04/25/2018 12:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: @@ -15869,6 +15851,12 @@ finish_function (bool inline_p)     {   warning (OPT_Wreturn_type,   "no return statement in function returning non-void"); +  if (DECL_NAME (fndecl) == assign_op_identifier) IDENTIFIER_ASSIGN_OP_P

Re: [PATCH] Don't offer suggestions for compiler-generated variables (PR c++/85515)

On 04/25/2018 11:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote: Jason Turner's video C++ Weekly - Ep 112 - GCC's Leaky Abstractions shows two issues where g++ offers suggestions about implementation details: For the lambda capture case, there are multiple members: $9 = These names have a space at the end,

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 25/04/18 12:22 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 16:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 25/04/18 16:30 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Improve Documentation of Built-In Functions Part 1

Thank you for the prompt review and careful feedback. I didn't notice your message until this morning. At this point, I'll wait a few days before committing these changes as I understand we are still in the "RC phase of GCC 8". On 4/24/18 4:45 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue,

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 16:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 25/04/18 16:30 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > > On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > > On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > > The warning by default seems

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 25/04/18 16:30 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: The warning by default seems sufficient to me. Yes. We've been bitten by this a few times, with mysterious

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 25/04/18 14:53 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >> On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >>> We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the >>> extension will get warnings even without

[wwwdocs] Add notes on common C++ problems with GCC 8

Ville is going to prepare something for the new -Wclass-memacess and -Wcatch-value warnings. Suggestions for other gotchas to document are welcome. Committed to CVS. Index: htdocs/gcc-8/porting_to.html === RCS file:

Re: [PATCH] Don't offer suggestions for compiler-generated variables (PR c++/85515)

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:41:51AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > @@ -1224,9 +1225,19 @@ lookup_field_fuzzy_info::fuzzy_lookup_field (tree type) > >for (tree field = TYPE_FIELDS (type); field; field = DECL_CHAIN (field)) > { > - if (!m_want_type_p || DECL_DECLARES_TYPE_P (field)) >

Re: [PATCH][i386] PR target/85473, Fix _movdir64b expansion with -mx32

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 08:31:33AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Peryt, Sebastian > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Patch has been updated and tested. Now I don't see any

[PATCH] Don't offer suggestions for compiler-generated variables (PR c++/85515)

Jason Turner's video C++ Weekly - Ep 112 - GCC's Leaky Abstractions shows two issues where g++ offers suggestions about implementation details: Example 1: int main () { auto lambda = [val = 2](){}; lambda.val; } : In function 'int main()': :5:10: error: 'struct main()::' has no

Re: [PATCH][i386] PR target/85473, Fix _movdir64b expansion with -mx32

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Peryt, Sebastian > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Patch has been updated and tested. Now I don't see any new regressions. >> >> Changelog stays the same. >> >> Is it ok for

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> The warning by default seems sufficient to me. >> >> Yes. We've been bitten by this a few times, with mysterious crashes. >> I'm not sure it even makes

[Bug libstdc++/85517] std::variant exception safety problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85517 Matt Calabrese changed: What|Removed |Added CC||metaprogrammingtheworld@gma

[Bug libstdc++/85517] std::variant exception safety problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85517 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/85434] Address of stack protector guard spilled to stack on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme --- Managed to reach a state where nothing is spilled on the stack for Thumb-1 either. I want to do 3 more changes before I start full testing: - put some compiler barrier between address computation and

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 25/04/18 14:53 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the extension will get warnings even without -Wall now. Users might want to use -Werror=return-type to ensure they aren't bitten by the new

[Bug tree-optimization/85509] fails to promote local static to const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85509 --- Comment #5 from ASA --- > > I would expect this is likely true for any non-const static duration > > function pointer, not just the case when the auto type specifier is used, > > but I have not confirmed it. > > But it is the case for any

[Bug target/85401] segfault building code for VAX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401 --- Comment #4 from Martin Husemann --- The costs are missing for various modes: (gdb) p (default_target_ira_int->x_ira_register_move_cost) $6 = {0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x7f7ff7b8c8b0, 0x7f7ff7b8c8b0, 0x0 } (that is: only HImode and SImode

[Bug target/85401] segfault building code for VAX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401 --- Comment #3 from Martin Husemann --- Indeed. Digging a bit with gdb (but in our local 6.4 version) shows: #0 0x009fa7be in allocno_copy_cost_saving (allocno=0x7f7ff679a178, hard_regno=11) at

Re: [PATCH] Improve bootstrap times

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 03:52:28PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > Forcefully setting STAGE3_[CT]FLAGS doesn't have any effect on > > a checking enabled build but it will disrupt profiledbootstrap > > on a release build by training with -fchecking.

[Bug rtl-optimization/85522] ICE: in model_update_limit_points_in_group, at haifa-sched.c:1985 with -O2 -ftracer --param=max-sched-extend-regions-iters=5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85522 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [PATCH] Improve bootstrap times

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 03:52:28PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > Forcefully setting STAGE3_[CT]FLAGS doesn't have any effect on > a checking enabled build but it will disrupt profiledbootstrap > on a release build by training with -fchecking. Suggestions > welcome - not sure whether adjusting

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: The warning by default seems sufficient to me. Yes. We've been bitten by this a few times, with mysterious crashes. I'm not sure it even makes sense only to be a warning, but I guess that's up to the

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > The warning by default seems sufficient to me. Yes. We've been bitten by this a few times, with mysterious crashes. I'm not sure it even makes sense only to be a warning, but I guess that's up to the C++ TC. -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the >> extension will get warnings even without -Wall now. Users might want >> to use -Werror=return-type to

Re: PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate process' (was: [patch, libfortran, committed] Implement stop_numeric for minimal targets)

Hi, On Thu, Apr 19 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Per PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate > process' that I just filed, we currently have to use "abort" instead of > "exit" for nvptx offloading, so I have applied the following in trunk > r259491, where I completed this

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the > extension will get warnings even without -Wall now. Users might want > to use -Werror=return-type to ensure they aren't bitten by the new > optimizations that assume control never

Re: [PATCH] Improve bootstrap times

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > The following patch improves bootstrap times in general, without > resorting to file splitting. The observation that stage2 build > of gimple-match.c improves by 50% when using -fno-checking > suggests that we avoid doing redundant checking when

[Bug middle-end/51677] don't suggest giving main() __attribute__((const))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51677 --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3) > It should be easy to white-list the main function in the > -Wsuggest-attribute= checker. At the same time, I'm not sure it's necessary > or that the problem is

[Bug other/63613] dejagnu.h needs to be fix included

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613 --- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #11) > Patch posted as https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00468.html Does this still apply?

Re: GCC 6 backports

> Hi. > > Sending GCC 6 branch backports. > Patches can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. > I'm going to install the patches. > > Martin > >From e0d32b1f9e0dd0486e63040e1ab8f5d8e9f0fbd5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: marxin

[PATCH] Improve bootstrap times

The following patch improves bootstrap times in general, without resorting to file splitting. The observation that stage2 build of gimple-match.c improves by 50% when using -fno-checking suggests that we avoid doing redundant checking when bootstrapping and simply disable that when using the

[Bug c/49702] Undefined static functions resolve to external definitions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49702 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

Re: RFC: bash completion

On 04/24/2018 06:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > The patch doesn't have tests. There would need to be some way to > achieve test coverage for the completion code (especially as we start > to tackle the more interesting cases). I wonder what the best way to > do that is; perhaps a combination of

Re: RFC: bash completion

On 04/24/2018 06:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Tue, 2018-04-24 at 16:45 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: >> Hi. >> >> Some time ago, I investigated quite new feature of clang which >> is support of --autocomplete argument. That can be run from bash >> completion >> script and one gets more precise

[Bug middle-end/85414] [8 Regression] ICE: in ix86_expand_prologue, at config/i386/i386.c:13810 with -Og -fgcse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85414 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Apr 25 13:10:01 2018 New Revision: 259649 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259649=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/85414 * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_unary_operation_1) :

[Bug target/85401] segfault building code for VAX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401 Thomas Preud'homme changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED CC|

[Bug c/36941] gcc does not reject invalid cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36941 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic

[Bug libstdc++/85472] Regex match bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472 --- Comment #8 from Hans Åberg --- (In reply to Tim Shen from comment #5) > I'm not following the meaning of "action number" and "the partial reverse > NFA is recorded". > > How many actions numbers are recorded? for regex_match(s, regex(re)),

[Bug c/37200] duplicate warning message with braced initializer list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37200 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #3 from Eric

Re: [RFH] split {generic,gimple}-match.c files

On 04/25/2018 01:42 PM, Richard Biener wrote: Hi. Thanks for working on that. > > The following patch^Whack splits $subject files into three, one > for the predicates (due to an implementation detail) and two for > the rest - for now into similar LOC size files. > > I'd like to get help on

[Bug target/85473] internal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473 --- Comment #4 from speryt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: speryt Date: Wed Apr 25 12:39:57 2018 New Revision: 259648 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259648=gcc=rev Log: 2018-04-25 Sebastian Peryt

[Bug target/85401] segfault building code for VAX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401 Thomas Preud'homme changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

Re: [RFH] split {generic,gimple}-match.c files

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > The following patch^Whack splits $subject files into three, one > > for the predicates (due to an implementation detail) and two for > > the rest - for now into similar LOC size files. > > > > I'd

Re: [RFH] split {generic,gimple}-match.c files

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > The following patch^Whack splits $subject files into three, one > for the predicates (due to an implementation detail) and two for > the rest - for now into similar LOC size files. > > I'd like to get help on the makefile changes to make them less

[RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

G++ allows the 'main' function to be declared without a return type: $ gcc-8 -x c++ - <<< 'main() { }' :1:6: warning: ISO C++ forbids declaration of ‘main’ with no type [-Wreturn-type] We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the extension will get warnings even without

Re: [PATCH][i386] PR target/85473, Fix _movdir64b expansion with -mx32

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Peryt, Sebastian wrote: > Hi, > > Patch has been updated and tested. Now I don't see any new regressions. > > Changelog stays the same. > > Is it ok for trunk? OK for mainline and gcc-8 backport after a couple of days, the latter also

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Require that constraints are used to reference global regs

Hi, On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Michael Matz wrote: > > What is lost here (it wasn't explicit before, but is the case and must > > continue to work) is that function calls and returns count as needing the > > observable value in the specified register

[wwwdocs] Correct notes about -Wreturn-type change for C++

It's always been ill-formed to say "return;" in a non-void function, the change in GCC 8 is when control flows of the end of a function. This corrects the release notes. Committed to CVS. Index: htdocs/gcc-8/changes.html === RCS

[RFH] split {generic,gimple}-match.c files

The following patch^Whack splits $subject files into three, one for the predicates (due to an implementation detail) and two for the rest - for now into similar LOC size files. I'd like to get help on the makefile changes to make them less verbose, somehow globbing the -[12p] parts. Also you

  1   2   >