https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105143
Bug ID: 105143
Summary: ICE when trying to emit a [[nodiscard]] warning
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104303
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
So what modref see on calle is:
void concat5_pkg1.make_failed (struct s)
{
struct
Snapshot gcc-12-20220403 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20220403/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105142
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
long long int c = 3623214276426624192LL;
unsigned short b;
char a = 42;
const long long (const long long , const long long ) { return x < y ? x
: y; }
__attribute__((noipa)) void test() { b = min(a, min(a,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104987
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
The iq2000 port is mis-compiling its mulsi3 libgcc2 function.
AFAICT, the iq2000 has delay slots and can use "branch-likely" forms of
conditional branches to annul-false the slot. There's a support
routine that handles creation of the likely form. However, that
routine is not used by the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104987
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0364465e3708249ece810ca5d65164552595538c
commit r12-7974-g0364465e3708249ece810ca5d65164552595538c
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sun Apr 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105142
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105142
Bug ID: 105142
Summary: [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To be precise, with pragma pack(1) c has alignof == 1, so it really depends on
what is before it in the section. In the #c0 case, the diagnostic said
0x004040ca which means that ((uintptr_t) % 4) == 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105138
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 08:27:03PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #8)
> > This patch fixes the error. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Li Shaohua from comment #5)
> No, I meant
>
> #pragma pack(1)
> struct {
> char a[3];
> int b;
> } c;
In this case, the global variable just happens to be aligned to 4 bytes. That
is all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #5 from Li Shaohua ---
No, I meant
#pragma pack(1)
struct {
char a[3];
int b;
} c;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Without pragma pack that is correct, the compiler inserts padding so that c.b
is properly aligned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #3 from Li Shaohua ---
Thanks for your explanation.
struct {
char a[3];
int b;
} c;
When I did this, the warning did not show up. Should it still be misaligned?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That warning is completely correct and the testcase wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105138
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
Bug ID: 105141
Summary: #pragma pack(1) causes incorrect UBSAN warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ecc6450668326e52d019b3c298f2c61734ee32c2
commit r11-9755-gecc6450668326e52d019b3c298f2c61734ee32c2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1a74058b784c845e84a0cf1997b54b984df483d
commit r12-7973-ge1a74058b784c845e84a0cf1997b54b984df483d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 11:25 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase is miscompiled on ia32.
> The problem is that at -O0 we end up with:
> vector(4) short unsigned int _1;
> short unsigned int u.0_3;
> ...
> _1 = {u.0_3, u.0_3, u.0_3, u.0_3};
> statement (dead) which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104988
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
On 4/3/2022 12:36 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 10:24 AM Mark Rutland via Gcc wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for raising this.
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:44:06AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
The relaxed variants of read/write macros are only declared
as `asm volatile()` which
Hi everyone,
Hi David,
I'm interested in extending the static analysis pass as a GSoC project.
Short introduction of me: I'm Tim, currently doing my master in
computer science with focus on IT security at TU Darmstadt. I already
worked with IFDS as part of my bachelor thesis and took both
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/sv.po
(This file,
Hi,
I'd like to ping this patch.
Thanks
Mohamed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 11:33 AM Mohamed Atef
wrote:
> hello,
>I know it's too much.
> we fixed the functions' names that are not part of the standard form ompd_
> * prefix to gompd_
> Thanks
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 5:48 AM Mohamed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104878
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Hi,
This patch removes the `-Wtemplate' warnings from the code generation
pass of the D front-end.
These have been superceded by the upstream front-end's own internal
tracking of instantiations, exposed by `-ftransition=templates'.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, and committed to mainline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105140
Bug ID: 105140
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
fold_convertible_p with conflicting function
redeclaration
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100929
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(blend is now lowered in gimple)
For the integer case, the mix of vector(int) and vector(char) obfuscates things
a bit, we have
__m256i if_else_int (__m256i x, __m256i y)
{
vector(32) char _4;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103328
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0847ad33b908af88bca1e6980d0b977316d05e18
commit r12-7971-g0847ad33b908af88bca1e6980d0b977316d05e18
Author: Benno Evers
Date:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Sorry, I guess I misread your patch.
No problem, I think this stuff is hard to get right and understand in
general since it is so poorly documented.
> What is the right standalone code for the PPC64 musl case? Thanks.
In order to have the current code (i.e. current
Hi Iain,
Thank again for the detailed reply, understood now.
Shivam
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 12:23 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Hi Shivam,
>
> > On 2 Apr 2022, at 17:48, Shivam Gupta wrote:
> >
>
> > May I ask why we need to specify --with-gxx-libcxx-include-dir= at
> compile/configure time of
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 09:47, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 09:38, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 10:24 AM Mark Rutland via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jeremy,
> > >
> > > Thanks for raising this.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:44:06AM -0500,
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 09:38, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 10:24 AM Mark Rutland via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> > Thanks for raising this.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:44:06AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > > The relaxed variants of read/write macros are only
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 10:24 AM Mark Rutland via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for raising this.
>
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:44:06AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > The relaxed variants of read/write macros are only declared
> > as `asm volatile()` which forces the compiler to generate
Hi Shivam,
> On 2 Apr 2022, at 17:48, Shivam Gupta wrote:
>
> May I ask why we need to specify --with-gxx-libcxx-include-dir= at
> compile/configure time of GCC?
The libc++ headers are not part of a base system install (on Darwin they are
part of either Xcode or Command Line Tools
39 matches
Mail list logo
