Re: [PATCH] c++: Diagnose when "requires" is used instead of "requires requires" [PR94306]

On 3/26/20 11:49 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/26/20 6:36 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/26/20 5:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: This adds support to detect and recover from the case where an opening brace

[Bug analyzer/94350] internal compiler error: in make_region_for_unexpected_tree_code, at analyzer/region-model.cc:4874

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94350 --- Comment #4 from Stephen Hemminger --- X86 On Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 5:38 PM pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94350 > > --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- > Also

Re: [PATCH 2/2] c++: Respect current_constraint_diagnosis_depth in diagnose_compound_requirement

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Patrick Palka wrote: > The first patch tries to avoid changing our current default diagnostics. But > for the sake of consistency we arguably should also respect > current_constraint_diagnosis_depth in diagnose_compound_requirement() like we > do > in the other

Re: [PATCH 1/2] c++: Replay errors during diagnosis of constraint satisfaction failures

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020, Patrick Palka wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2020, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > On 3/11/20 4:18 PM, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches wrote: > > ... > > > Hmm, like this? This version introduces a new static member function > > >

Re: [PATCH] c++: Diagnose when "requires" is used instead of "requires requires" [PR94306]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 3/26/20 6:36 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > > On 3/26/20 5:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > > > > This adds support to detect and recover from the case where an opening > > > > brace > > > > immediately

[Bug web/94349] Bugzilla user preferences are blank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94349 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/86715] ICE passing too large argument on stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86715 Nicholas Krause changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,

Re: [PATCH] c++: Handle COMPOUND_EXPRs in ocp_convert [PR94339]

On 3/26/20 3:13 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! My recent change to get_narrower/warnings_for_convert_and_check broke the following testcase, warnings_for_convert_and_check is upset that expr is a COMPOUND_EXPR with INTEGER_CST at the rightmost operand, while result is a COMPOUND_EXPR with a

Re: [PATCH] c++: Avoid calls in non-evaluated contexts affect whether function can or can't throw [PR94326]

On 3/26/20 3:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! The following testcase FAILs -fcompare-debug, because if we emit a -Wreturn-local-addr warning, we tsubst decltype in order to print the warning and as that function could throw, set_flags_from_callee during that sets cp_function_chain->can_throw and

[Bug c++/94336] template keyword accepted before destructor names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94336 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71d69548a1b2c85220ac6354564fd272beb9263f commit r10-7408-g71d69548a1b2c85220ac6354564fd272beb9263f Author: Marek Polacek Date:

[Bug c++/94336] template keyword accepted before destructor names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94336 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [PATCH] c++: template keyword accepted before destructor names [PR94336]

On 3/26/20 6:31 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: This came up on the C++ core list recently. We don't diagnose the case when 'template' is followed by a destructor name which is not permitted by [temp.names]/5. OK. PR c++/94336 - template keyword accepted before destructor names. *

Re: [PATCH] c++: Diagnose when "requires" is used instead of "requires requires" [PR94306]

On 3/26/20 6:36 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/26/20 5:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: This adds support to detect and recover from the case where an opening brace immediately follows the start of a requires-clause. So rather than emitting the error

[Bug c++/94346] [9/10 Regression] ICE due to handle_copy_attribute since r9-3982

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94346 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor

[PATCH] avoid passing expressions to decl_attributes [PR94346]

Attribute copy can be invoked with an expression argument to copy from the expression's type. However, it must avoid passing the expression as the last (optional) argument to decl_attributes because the function is only prepared to deal with DECLs and types. The attached patch passes null as

Re: GSoC Static Analysis

On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 15:36 -0700, Andrew Briand via Gcc wrote: > Hello, > > I am an undergrad interested in extending GCC’s static analysis pass > for GSoC 2020. In particular, I’m interested in adding C++ support. Hi Andrew, thanks for your interest in the project. > The selected project

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Save/restore r31 if frame_pointer_needed is true

On 2020/3/27 07:59, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:15:22PM -0500, luo...@linux.ibm.com wrote: >> frame_pointer_needed is set to true in reload pass setup_can_eliminate, >> but regs_ever_live[31] is false, so pro_and_epilogue doesn't save/restore >> r31 even it

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Check -+0 and NaN for smax/smin generation

Matthias Klose writes: Thanks so much for all of you for pay attention and take care of this. Matthias and Segher point out this; Joseph helped remove this file. Sorry for spend your extra time on this. Thanks again! > diff --git a/a b/a > new file mode 100644 > index

[Bug analyzer/94350] internal compiler error: in make_region_for_unexpected_tree_code, at analyzer/region-model.cc:4874

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94350 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Also, which version of the compiler? I've fixed a few similar-looking problems to this recently.

Re: [PATCH] tree: Fix -fcompare-debug issues due to protected_set_expr_location [PR94323]

On Mar 26, 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > The hardest issue I gave up completely on after trying 3 different > approaches is PR93786, I just don't know what to do in that case. struct S {virtual void v();}; void f(S * s) { ({ s; })->v(); } Thanks, I can now see how markers create situations

RE: Question on lto-stream-out

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks again:) > -Original Message- > From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] > Sent: 2020年3月26日 21:19 > To: lizekun (A) > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: Question on lto-stream-out > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 2:00 PM lizekun (A) wrote: > > > >

Re: [PATCH] avoid modifying type in attribute access handler [PR94098]

On 3/26/20 4:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 3/25/20 3:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/16/20 4:41 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: The recent fix to avoid modifying in place the type argument in handle_access_attribute (PR 92721) was incomplete and didn't fully resolve the problem (an ICE in the C++

[Bug analyzer/94350] internal compiler error: in make_region_for_unexpected_tree_code, at analyzer/region-model.cc:4874

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94350 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Also which target is this on? x86_64 or aarch64?

[Bug analyzer/94350] internal compiler error: in make_region_for_unexpected_tree_code, at analyzer/region-model.cc:4874

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94350 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0

[Bug analyzer/94350] internal compiler error: in make_region_for_unexpected_tree_code, at analyzer/region-model.cc:4874

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94350 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Can you attach the preprocessed source?

[committed] coroutines, testsuite: Fix symmetric-transfer-00-basic.C on Linux.

Hi. I failed to comment out some test printing before committing the testcase. However, for that to work, we need to include on Linux platforms. tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, applied to master. thanks Iain 2020-03-27 Iain Sandoe *

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Save/restore r31 if frame_pointer_needed is true

Hi! On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:15:22PM -0500, luo...@linux.ibm.com wrote: > frame_pointer_needed is set to true in reload pass setup_can_eliminate, > but regs_ever_live[31] is false, so pro_and_epilogue doesn't save/restore > r31 even it is used actually, causing CPU2006 465.tonto segment fault

Re: [PATCH] tree: Fix -fcompare-debug issues due to protected_set_expr_location [PR94323]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 08:41:41PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Mar 26, 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > Or disable -gstatement-frontiers by default and declare it -fcompare-debug > > incompatible. > > I don't get what makes debug stmts introduced by -gstatement-frontiers > special in

[PATCH] i386: Fix up *one_cmplv*2* insn with avx512f [PR94343]

Hi! This define_insn has two issues. One is that with -mavx512f -mno-avx512vl it can emit an AVX512VL-only insn - 128-bit or 256-bit EVEX encoded vpternlog{d,q}. Another one is that because there is no vpternlog{b,w}, we emit vpternlogd instead, but then we shouldn't pretend we support masking of

Re: [PATCH] tree: Fix -fcompare-debug issues due to protected_set_expr_location [PR94323]

On Mar 26, 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Or disable -gstatement-frontiers by default and declare it -fcompare-debug > incompatible. I don't get what makes debug stmts introduced by -gstatement-frontiers special in this regard. I recall working a lot on making statement list management

[Bug debug/94273] [10 Regression] ICE in splice_child_die, at dwarf2out.c:5657 since r10-7235-g52b3aa8be1893848

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94273 --- Comment #8 from Alexey Neyman --- Created attachment 48129 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48129=edit Patch

[PATCH v2] Fix vextract* masked patterns (PR target/93069)

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 05:59:36PM -0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > Sorry. I know you asked me to look at this eons ago, but ever time I just get > lost. > > I get the distinct impression that we could do something much simpler (the > patch > you initially proposed for backporting to

[Bug c++/64697] C++11 thread_local: relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol `TLS init function for N::ptd'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697 --- Comment #24 from Jim Wilson --- Joel Sherrill offered to create a binutils bug report for this.

Re: [PATCH] avoid modifying type in attribute access handler [PR94098]

I have removed both calls to remove_attribute because with the changes to calls.c they are no longer needed. The revised patch is attached. I will plan to commit it tomorrow unless there's something else. In hindsight, I think changing the attribute from the human-readable form to the internal,

[Bug c++/64697] C++11 thread_local: relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol `TLS init function for N::ptd'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697 --- Comment #23 from Václav Haisman --- I am not sure what to report. I do not understand the background of linker and relocations enough. Also, I don't have access to Windows and Cygwin any more.

Re: -static-pie does not seem to work on alpha, hppa, m68k, sparc

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:43:37 + Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Sergei Trofimovich via Gcc wrote: > > > Hi all! > > > > Recently I attempted to build glibc-2.31 with --enable-static-pie > > (gcc-9.3.0). > > Some targets work just fine, some don't. A few faulty ones so far are:

Re: [PATCH] c++: Diagnose when "requires" is used instead of "requires requires" [PR94306]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 17:28 -0400, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches wrote: > > This adds support to detect and recover from the case where an > > opening brace > > immediately follows the start of a requires-clause. So rather than > > emitting the > >

[Bug c++/94336] template keyword accepted before destructor names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94336 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek

Re: [PATCH] avoid -Wredundant-tags on a first declaration in use (PR 93824)

On 3/26/20 4:16 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/26/20 2:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 3/25/20 11:36 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/23/20 12:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 3/23/20 8:49 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/21/20 5:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: +  /* Diagnose class/struct/union

[Bug c++/94057] [9/10 Regression] -std=gnu++20 causes failure naming nested templated class since r9-4536

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94057 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/94057] [9/10 Regression] -std=gnu++20 causes failure naming nested templated class since r9-4536

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94057 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:517f5356bb0ca717f51e937be880e38a828edbf7 commit r10-7403-g517f5356bb0ca717f51e937be880e38a828edbf7 Author: Marek Polacek Date:

Re: -static-pie does not seem to work on alpha, hppa, m68k, sparc

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Sergei Trofimovich via Gcc wrote: > Hi all! > > Recently I attempted to build glibc-2.31 with --enable-static-pie (gcc-9.3.0). > Some targets work just fine, some don't. A few faulty ones so far are: See the relevant section at

Re: [PATCH] c++: Diagnose when "requires" is used instead of "requires requires" [PR94306]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 3/26/20 5:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > > This adds support to detect and recover from the case where an opening brace > > immediately follows the start of a requires-clause. So rather than emitting > > the > > error > > > >error: expected

[Bug c/94350] New: internal compiler error: in make_region_for_unexpected_tree_code, at analyzer/region-model.cc:4874

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94350 Bug ID: 94350 Summary: internal compiler error: in make_region_for_unexpected_tree_code, at analyzer/region-model.cc:4874 Product: gcc Version: 10.0

[PATCH] c++: template keyword accepted before destructor names [PR94336]

This came up on the C++ core list recently. We don't diagnose the case when 'template' is followed by a destructor name which is not permitted by [temp.names]/5. PR c++/94336 - template keyword accepted before destructor names. * parser.c (cp_parser_unqualified_id): Give an error

Blog post about static analyzer in GCC 10

I wrote a blog post "Static analysis in GCC 10" giving an idea of the current status of the -fanalyzer feature: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/03/26/static-analysis-in-gcc-10/ At some point I'll write up the material for our changes.html page. Dave

Re: [PATCH] c++: requires-expression outside of a template is misevaluated [PR94252]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 3/26/20 5:24 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > > On 3/25/20 12:17 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > > > > This PR reports that the requires-expression in > > > > > > > > auto f = [] { }; > > > >

[Bug fortran/94348] gfortran 8/9 reject module procedure definition in same module as function interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94348 --- Comment #2 from Damian Rouson --- Thanks for the quick reply, Steve. My apologies for not providing any text. I dashed this off during a call with the person who reported the problem to me. I think the code is legal, but I'm very open to

Re: [PATCH] avoid -Wredundant-tags on a first declaration in use (PR 93824)

On 3/26/20 2:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 3/25/20 11:36 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/23/20 12:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 3/23/20 8:49 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/21/20 5:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: +  /* Diagnose class/struct/union mismatches.  IS_DECLARATION is false + for

-static-pie does not seem to work on alpha, hppa, m68k, sparc

Hi all! Recently I attempted to build glibc-2.31 with --enable-static-pie (gcc-9.3.0). Some targets work just fine, some don't. A few faulty ones so far are: - alpha-unknown-linux-gnu - hppa-unknown-linux-gnu - hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu - m68k-unknown-linux-gnu - sparc-unknown-linux-gnu -

[Bug web/94349] Bugzilla user preferences are blank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94349 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||overseers at gcc dot gnu.org ---

Re: [PATCH] c++: Diagnose when "requires" is used instead of "requires requires" [PR94306]

On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 17:28 -0400, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches wrote: > This adds support to detect and recover from the case where an > opening brace > immediately follows the start of a requires-clause. So rather than > emitting the > error > > error: expected primary-expression before '{'

Re: rs6000: Update bswap64-4 test to reflect actual results

Hi! On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 01:26:25PM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > Update existing testcase powerpc/bswap64-4.c to > reflect that we generate ldbrx and stdbrx instructions > for newer cpu targets. This is in contrast to the > pair of lwbrx and stwbrx instructions that are > generated with

[Bug c++/64697] C++11 thread_local: relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol `TLS init function for N::ptd'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697 Jim Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #22

Re: [PATCH v6] c++: DR1710, template keyword in a typename-specifier [PR94057]

On 3/26/20 3:44 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:43:28AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: I think you want to check all typedefs like in e.g. find_parameter_packs_r; if the name is a typedef, it's only suitable if alias_template_specialization_p. ..this: Since

Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] libffi/test: Fix compilation for build sysroot

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020, Mike Stump wrote: > > Have we made any conclusions WRT the way to move forward with this stuff? > > Things remain broken and I'd prefer to get the issues off the plate while > > the stuff is hot, or at least mildly warm. I'm about to get distracted > > with other work. >

Re: [committed] Add missing T register clobber for SH port

On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 12:38 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 23:10 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > The patch you sent, as well as what you committed as r10-7383, > > was just a ChangeLog entry. > > > > > Bootstrapped

Re: [PATCH] c++: requires-expression outside of a template is misevaluated [PR94252]

On 3/26/20 5:24 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/25/20 12:17 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: This PR reports that the requires-expression in auto f = [] { }; static_assert(requires { f(); }); erroneously evaluates to false. The way we end up

Re: [PATCH] c++: Diagnose when "requires" is used instead of "requires requires" [PR94306]

On 3/26/20 5:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: This adds support to detect and recover from the case where an opening brace immediately follows the start of a requires-clause. So rather than emitting the error error: expected primary-expression before '{' token followed by a slew of irrevelant

[PATCH] c++: Diagnose when "requires" is used instead of "requires requires" [PR94306]

This adds support to detect and recover from the case where an opening brace immediately follows the start of a requires-clause. So rather than emitting the error error: expected primary-expression before '{' token followed by a slew of irrevelant errors, we now assume the user had intended

Re: [PATCH] c++: requires-expression outside of a template is misevaluated [PR94252]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 3/25/20 12:17 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > > This PR reports that the requires-expression in > > > >auto f = [] { }; > >static_assert(requires { f(); }); > > > > erroneously evaluates to false. The way we end up evaluating to false goes > >

[Bug fortran/94348] gfortran 8/9 reject module procedure definition in same module as function interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94348 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug web/94349] Bugzilla user preferences are blank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94349 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

Re: [PATCH] avoid modifying type in attribute access handler [PR94098]

On 3/25/20 3:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/16/20 4:41 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: The recent fix to avoid modifying in place the type argument in handle_access_attribute (PR 92721) was incomplete and didn't fully resolve the problem (an ICE in the C++ front-end).  The attached patch removes the

Re: C++ 'NON_LVALUE_EXPR' in OMP array section handling

Hi! On 2020-03-26T09:09:01-0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 3/26/20 8:27 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> Note that as this code is shared between OpenACC/OpenMP, this might >> affect OpenMP, too, as far as I can tell. (Subject updated.) Jakub, can >> you please have a look, too? >> >> On

[Bug web/94349] New: Bugzilla user preferences are blank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94349 Bug ID: 94349 Summary: Bugzilla user preferences are blank Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: web

[Bug fortran/94348] New: gfortran 8/9 reject module procedure definition in same module as function interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94348 Bug ID: 94348 Summary: gfortran 8/9 reject module procedure definition in same module as function interface Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/94346] [9/10 Regression] ICE due to handle_copy_attribute since r9-3982

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94346 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- The COMPOUND_EXPRs should be handled like their second operand by handle_copy_attribute.

[Bug c++/94346] [9/10 Regression] ICE due to handle_copy_attribute since r9-3982

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94346 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Known to fail|

[Bug c++/94346] [9/10 Regression] ICE due to handle_copy_attribute since r9-3982

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94346 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #2 from

[Bug fortran/94347] Assignment pointer at declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94347 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Known to work|

[Bug libstdc++/94295] use __builtin_operator_new and __builtin_operator_delete when available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94295 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug c/94338] struct member alignment is not carried over to alignment of struct variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94338 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/94343] [10 Regression] invalid AVX512VL vpternlogd instruction emitted for -march=knl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-pr94343.c.jj 2020-03-26 17:47:40.008654504 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-pr94343.c 2020-03-26 17:48:37.169811375 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +/*

Re: [PATCH v6] c++: DR1710, template keyword in a typename-specifier [PR94057]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:43:28AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > I think you want to check all typedefs like in e.g. > > > find_parameter_packs_r; > > > if the name is a typedef, it's only suitable if > > > alias_template_specialization_p. > > > > ..this: Since

[PATCH] c++: Avoid calls in non-evaluated contexts affect whether function can or can't throw [PR94326]

Hi! The following testcase FAILs -fcompare-debug, because if we emit a -Wreturn-local-addr warning, we tsubst decltype in order to print the warning and as that function could throw, set_flags_from_callee during that sets cp_function_chain->can_throw and later on we don't set TREE_NOTHROW on foo.

[Bug tree-optimization/94335] False positive -Wstringop-overflow warning with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Few middle-end warnings consider control flow -- most simply look at a single statement at a time and consider ranges of argument values (if any). Those that do consider control flow (e.g.,

[Bug fortran/94347] New: Assignment pointer at declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94347 Bug ID: 94347 Summary: Assignment pointer at declaration Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug target/94343] [10 Regression] invalid AVX512VL vpternlogd instruction emitted for -march=knl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343 --- Comment #9 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > Created attachment 48128 [details] > gcc10-pr94343.patch The avx512vl-pr94343.c test should ideally fail because `_mm_andnot_si128 ((__m128i) (~v ^ a),

Re: [PATCH] c++: Fix ICE in tsubst_default_argument [PR92010]

On 3/22/20 9:21 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: This patch relaxes an assertion in tsubst_default_argument that exposes a latent bug in how we substitute an array type into a cv-qualified wildcard function parameter type. Concretely, the latent bug is that given the function template template void

Re: rs6000 - allow builtin initialization regardless of mask

Hi! On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 03:18:25PM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > Disable the code that limits initialization of builtins based > on the rs6000_builtin_mask. This allows all built-ins to be > properly referenced when building code using #pragma for cpu > targets newer than what was specified

[PATCH] c++: Handle COMPOUND_EXPRs in ocp_convert [PR94339]

Hi! My recent change to get_narrower/warnings_for_convert_and_check broke the following testcase, warnings_for_convert_and_check is upset that expr is a COMPOUND_EXPR with INTEGER_CST at the rightmost operand, while result is a COMPOUND_EXPR with a NOP_EXPR of INTEGER_CST at the rightmost

[Bug c++/94346] [9/10 Regression] ICE due to handle_copy_attribute since r9-3982

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94346 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/94346] New: [9/10 Regression] ICE due to handle_copy_attribute since r9-3982

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94346 Bug ID: 94346 Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE due to handle_copy_attribute since r9-3982 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug debug/94273] [10 Regression] ICE in splice_child_die, at dwarf2out.c:5657 since r10-7235-g52b3aa8be1893848

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94273 --- Comment #7 from Alexey Neyman --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6) > (In reply to Alexey Neyman from comment #4) > > Or add a similar "return if debug level is terse" at the beginning of > > `gen_type_die` - I didn't notice that

Re: [PATCH] avoid -Wredundant-tags on a first declaration in use (PR 93824)

On 3/25/20 11:36 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/23/20 12:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 3/23/20 8:49 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/21/20 5:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: +  /* Diagnose class/struct/union mismatches.  IS_DECLARATION is false + for alias definition.  */ +  bool

Re: [committed] Add missing T register clobber for SH port

On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 23:10 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > > The patch you sent, as well as what you committed as r10-7383, > was just a ChangeLog entry. > > > Bootstrapped on sh4-linux-gnu and sh4eb-linux-gnu. Regression testing in > >

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Allow FPRs to change between SDmode and DDmode [PR94254]

Hi! On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 06:37:52PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote: > g:497498c878d48754318e486428e2aa30854020b9 caused lra to cycle > on some SDmode reloads for power6. As explained in more detail > in the PR comments, the problem was a conflict between two target > hooks:

[Bug target/94343] [10 Regression] invalid AVX512VL vpternlogd instruction emitted for -march=knl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #48127|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/94282] [amdgcn] ld: error: undefined symbol: __gxx_personality_v0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94282 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Stubbs --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1) > > The symbol __gxx_personality_v0 is part of libsupc++ – which I believe is > > not build to to lacking/restricted

[Bug target/94282] [amdgcn] ld: error: undefined symbol: __gxx_personality_v0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94282 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1) > The symbol __gxx_personality_v0 is part of libsupc++ – which I believe is > not build to to lacking/restricted C++ support. It is also exception handling

[Bug target/94343] [10 Regression] invalid AVX512VL vpternlogd instruction emitted for -march=knl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Though, there are other issues. There is only vpternlog{d,q}, so for V*[QH]Imode we shouldn't pretend we have masking support.

[Bug c/94338] struct member alignment is not carried over to alignment of struct variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94338 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- It's a mistake to be referring to the C standard for the interpretation of alignment attributes. The C standard way of specifying alignment is _Alignas, not __attribute__, and if you

[Bug libstdc++/94345] std::chrono overflows due to c++14 non-compliance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94345 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug c++/94342] GCC ignores attribute((section(...))) for static variables inside templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94342 --- Comment #6 from Anton --- I also don't understand why all the parts of a template instantiation need to be kept in the same COMDAT group. Neither clang nor gcc does it: template

[Bug c++/94342] GCC ignores attribute((section(...))) for static variables inside templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94342 --- Comment #5 from Anton --- Looking at the COMDAT groups for the example with 2 instantiations (Index and Index), I think this is what is actually expected: section for Index must not be grouped with section for Index. In general, different

[Bug target/94343] [10 Regression] invalid AVX512VL vpternlogd instruction emitted for -march=knl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94343 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > Created attachment 48127 [details] > gcc10-pr94343.patch > > That of course doesn't work if the input operand is memory. This should. LGTM. Thanks.

Re: [RFC] Fix for pr64706 testcase faulre

> > Why don't we represent the alias at the cgraph level? That is, > why do decls come into play at all here? b prevails and it has a > reference to a.c:a so we need to keep (and emit) that. The only issue > would be that we'd end up with two 'a's so we have to notice that > and fixup somehow.

Re: [RS6000] PR94145, make PLT loads volatile

Hi! On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:21:03PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 04:53:59PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Could you please send a new patch (could be the same patch even) that > > is easier to review for me? > > The PLT is volatile. On PowerPC it is a bss style

Re: [RFC] Fix for pr64706 testcase faulre

> > Is it? What does a non-weak local alias to a weak function mean? > > I think we should continue to try to model ELF semantics re weak and > aliases. If so, then yes, LTO gets it wrong and the above testcase should > not abort. Weak doesn't enter the picture for creating aliases (the >

  1   2   3   >