Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 11:33:22AM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 31/01/18 15:44, Cory Fields wrote: > >After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to > >proceed. > > > >As of now, static and static-pie are mutually exclusive. So given the >

Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:58:31AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Cory Fields wrote: > >> After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to > >> proceed.

Re: Debugging optimizer problems

Le 02/02/2018 à 22:11, Florian Weimer a écrit : * jacob navia: I have in my small C compiler introduced the following construct: #pragma optimize(on/off,push/pop) Not sure what you are after. GCC has something quite similar:

Re: Debugging optimizer problems

* jacob navia: > I have in my small C compiler introduced the following construct: > > #pragma optimize(on/off,push/pop) Not sure what you are after. GCC has something quite similar:

Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

Original message From: Rich Felker Date: 02/02/2018 18:32 (GMT+00:00) To: Szabolcs Nagy Cc: li...@coryfields.com, "H.J. Lu" , n...@arm.com, GCC Development Subject: Re: -static-pie and

Debugging optimizer problems

Hi I am confronted with a classical problem: a program gives correct results when compiled with optimizations off, and gives the wrong ones with optimization (-O2) on. I have isolated the probem in a single file but now there is no way that I can further track down the problem to one of the

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:17 PM, Roman Popov wrote: > Hello, > I'm trying to switch from g++ 5.4 to g++ 7.2. > GDB 8.0.1 however does not understand RTTI generated by g++7.2, so my > Python scripts for GDB are not working. > > Here is a code example: > > struct base { virtual

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

2018-02-02 20:54 GMT-08:00 Simon Marchi : > > GCC changed how it outputs unsigned template parameters in the debug info > (from 2u to just 2), and it doesn't look like it's going to change it > back. So I suppose we'll have to find a way to make GDB deal with it. > Simon

gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

Hello, I'm trying to switch from g++ 5.4 to g++ 7.2. GDB 8.0.1 however does not understand RTTI generated by g++7.2, so my Python scripts for GDB are not working. Here is a code example: struct base { virtual ~base(){} }; template< int IVAL, unsigned UVAL, unsigned long long ULLVAL> struct

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 2018-02-02 22:17, Roman Popov wrote: Hello, I'm trying to switch from g++ 5.4 to g++ 7.2. GDB 8.0.1 however does not understand RTTI generated by g++7.2, so my Python scripts for GDB are not working. Here is a code example: struct base { virtual ~base(){} }; template< int IVAL, unsigned

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

Yes, problem is still there in g++7.3 / gdb 8.1. I wonder why they decided to emit different strings to RTTI and debug info? What is the technical reason behind this? -Roman 2018-02-02 20:54 GMT-08:00 Simon Marchi : > On 2018-02-02 22:17, Roman Popov wrote: > >> Hello,

Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

On 31/01/18 15:44, Cory Fields wrote: After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to proceed. As of now, static and static-pie are mutually exclusive. So given the GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC you pasted earlier, "static" matches before "static-pie", causing the wrong

[Bug c/84179] New: -save-temps breaks implicit-fallthrough comment heuristic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84179 Bug ID: 84179 Summary: -save-temps breaks implicit-fallthrough comment heuristic Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/82711] -Wignored-qualifiers could be moved into -Wextra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82711 --- Comment #3 from Sylvestre Ledru --- Jonathan, if I write a patch to implement the change, will you accept it?

[Bug c/84173] Support glibc multiarch interpreter names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173 --- Comment #7 from Adam Conrad --- (In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #6) > > > the discussion about names is probably more appropriate on the libc side > > Adam, do you agree? I agree with this statement, sure. But I don't agree

Go patch committed: Treat void_type_node as zero sized

The interface between the Go frontend and the GCC middle-end sets the return type of a function type that returns a zero-sized value to void_type_node. This was done to avoid confusion with libffi, for PR 72814. However, there are various ways that Go code can correctly use a zero-sized type

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] PR target/84164: Relax predicate in *aarch64__reg_di3_mask2

On 02/02/18 15:10, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > In this [8 Regression] PR we ICE because we can't recognise the insn: > (insn 59 58 43 7 (set (reg:DI 124) >     (rotatert:DI (reg:DI 125 [ c ]) >     (subreg:QI (and:SI (reg:SI 128) >     (const_int 65535

[Bug target/84124] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr80969-4.c execution test

on test FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr80969-4a.c execution test FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr80969-4b.c execution test === gcc Summary === # of expected passes3 # of unexpected failures3 /export/build/gnu/gcc-test/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc version 8.0.1 20180202 (exper

Go patch committed: Don't incorrectly evaluate range variable

The Go language spec says that in a range loop with a single iteration variable, the range value is not evaluated if its length is a constant. This only matters when the range value is an array type and evaluating it causes some side effect. gccgo never got this right; this patch fixes it. This

[Bug tree-optimization/39612] [6/7/8 Regression] LIM inserts loads from uninitialized local memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/57438] bootstrap fails on x86_64 darwin in stage2 linking cc1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57438 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/83370] [AARCH64]Tailcall register may be corrupted by epilogue code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83370 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5

Re: [PATCH] PR52665 do not let .ident confuse assembler scan tests

On 19 June 2016 at 22:21, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jun 18, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer > wrote: >> >> A branch with a name matching scan-assembler pattern triggers >> inappropriate FAIL. > >> The patch below adds -fno-ident if a

Re: Fix PR rtl-optimization/84071

On 02/02/18 12:21, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> That's always been my interpretation too. Seems like we may be changing >> the meaning of this macro... > > The main (and essentially only) effect of WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS in the > compiler happens during combine and is explained by this comment

[Bug c++/82734] -Wignored-qualifiers is maybe too strict when using decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82734 --- Comment #3 from Sylvestre Ledru --- For people who are getting these error, we fixed it with: static_cast::type>(INT32_MAX)

Re: Avoid assembler warnings from AArch64 constructor/destructor priorities

On 01/02/18 17:26, Joseph Myers wrote: On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi Joseph, aarch64 maintainers, On 28/09/17 13:31, Joseph Myers wrote: Many GCC tests fail for AArch64 with current binutils because of assembler warnings of the form "Warning: ignoring incorrect section type

[PATCH, testsuite]: Remove statements with to effect from two fortran testcases

Hello! Attached patch removes two statements with no effect. These two statements operate with uninitalized variables, and - depending on the uninitialized value - can cause denormal FP exceptions when compiled with -O0. The exception causes runtime failure on the target that requires -mieee for

[Bug c/84183] New: internal compiler error: in initialize, at alloc-pool.h:257

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84183 Bug ID: 84183 Summary: internal compiler error: in initialize, at alloc-pool.h:257 Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/84173] Support glibc multiarch interpreter names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173 --- Comment #6 from Javier Serrano Polo --- > As long as the new behavior is optional (not the default), the patch stands a > chance of being accepted. Thank you. I will change the status of the report if you do not mind. > the discussion

[Bug c/84100] [7 Regression] Function __attribute__((optimize(align-loops=32))) gives spurious warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100 --- Comment #6 from Chris Hall --- Created attachment 43325 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43325=edit Summary of results using Compiler Explorer: for v5.4.0, 6.3.0 and 7.2.0. Setting -O2 or -O3 on the command line appears

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] fix-ups for vec-cmpne-long.c runtime tests

Hi! On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 01:50:37PM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote: > The vec-cmpne-long.c tests targets -mcpu=power8, but always dg-do-run, even > on P7 (or earlier) systems. Add a dg-do run requirement for p8vector_hw to > prevent illegal instruction errors. > (noticed during review of test

[Bug rtl-optimization/84071] [7/8 regression] wrong elimination of zero-extension after sign-extended load

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071 --- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou --- > How is this any different from 32-bit operations in say MIPS? The only > difference seems to be that MIPS sign-extends 32-bit operations to 64 bit > while AArch64 zero-extends. If that's correct for MIPS

Re: Fix PR rtl-optimization/84071

> That's always been my interpretation too. Seems like we may be changing > the meaning of this macro... The main (and essentially only) effect of WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS in the compiler happens during combine and is explained by this comment taken from eliminate_regs_1 and written by Jim in

[Bug middle-end/46989] Mixing "-fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage" and OpenMP triggers a bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46989 Sylvestre Ledru changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: Go patch committed: Always check for nil pointer in value method

Hi Ian, > This patch to the Go frontend changes value methods to always check > that the pointer they are passed is not nil. We already dereference > the pointer to copy the value, but if the method does not use the > value then the pointer dereference may be optimized away. Do an > explicit

Re: Fix LRA subreg calculation for big-endian targets

Richard Sandiford writes: > Segher Boessenkool writes: >> Hi! >> >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 01:25:51PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> if (SCALAR_INT_MODE_P (inmode)) >>> new_out_reg = gen_lowpart_SUBREG (outmode, reg);

Re: Fix PR rtl-optimization/84071

> By QImode addition, do you mean: > >(set (subreg:QI (reg:SI X1) N) > (plus:QI (subreg:QI (reg:SI X2) N) >(subreg:QI (reg:SI X3) N))) > > ? Yes. > I thought the point was instead that the target expected such ops > to be done on word_mode, even if the values involved

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Update dg-requires for P9 specific tests.

Hi! On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 01:29:40PM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote: > Noticed during a review of test results on an AIX platform, a few > of the (p9 target specific) tests are expecting to see Power9 codegen, but > are failing to build due to the environment missing P9 assembler support. >

[Bug c/84173] Support glibc multiarch interpreter names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173 --- Comment #5 from Adam Conrad --- (In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #1) > Adam, if you had to come up with multiarch interpreter names for traditional > architectures, which would be the proper place to discuss? As Andrew says,

Re: [PATCH, testsuite]: Remove statements with to effect from two fortran testcases

Hi Uros, This is an easy one to OK :-) Backport it as far back as your patience allows. Thanks Paul On 2 February 2018 at 10:32, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Hello! > > Attached patch removes two statements with no effect. These two > statements operate with uninitalized

Re: [PATCH] Recognize a missed usage of a sbfiz instruction

Hi Luis, On 02/02/18 14:38, Luis Machado wrote: A customer reported the following missed opportunities to combine a couple instructions into a sbfiz. int sbfiz32 (int x) { return x << 29 >> 10; } long sbfiz64 (long x) { return x << 58 >> 20; } This gets converted to the following

[Bug c++/84182] New: [8 Regression] ICE in variadic lambda inside a template when calling a captured lambda

ropriate. Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions. $ g++ --version g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180202 (experimental) Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.

RE: [PATCH PR83789] Fix for Altivec builtin failure

Hi, Thanks for your quick reply. >> I think you should use altivec_lvx_v4si_2op_si instead? I will look into this. I had used v4si_internal as this was generated in older versions (> And the same needs to be done for v8hi, v16qi, v4sf, maybe more? I did observe some other testcase

[patch,avr,testsuite,committed]: Reduce avr fallout

This patch reduces avr testsuite fallout for some cases that cannot be easily adjusted or where int32plus et al. is not the right filter. Moreover, target-supports.exp reads: # Return 1 if according to target_info struct and explicit target list # target disables -fdelete-null-pointer-checks.

Re: Go patch committed: Always check for nil pointer in value method

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:14 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> This patch to the Go frontend changes value methods to always check >> that the pointer they are passed is not nil. We already dereference >> the pointer to copy the value, but if the method does not use the

[Bug bootstrap/84153] Bootstrap failure when using dependency libraries in non-system location

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84153 --- Comment #4 from Brett Neumeier --- Created attachment 43324 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43324=edit Patch to add rpath for GMP, MPC, MPFR, ISL when needed OK. I'm just going to leave this patch here -- tested and

[PATCH] Recognize a missed usage of a sbfiz instruction

A customer reported the following missed opportunities to combine a couple instructions into a sbfiz. int sbfiz32 (int x) { return x << 29 >> 10; } long sbfiz64 (long x) { return x << 58 >> 20; } This gets converted to the following pattern: (set (reg:SI 98) (ashift:SI (sign_extend:SI

[patch,testsuite,committed] ad PR52641: Adjust more tests to int16

Again. This change adjusts more tests to work with int16. For tests that cannot be easily adjusted, added int32plus or size32plus filters. Committed as 257333. Johann gcc/testsuite/ PR testsuite/52641 * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr83362.c: Make work for int16. *

[PATCH][AArch64] PR target/84164: Relax predicate in *aarch64__reg_di3_mask2

Hi all, In this [8 Regression] PR we ICE because we can't recognise the insn: (insn 59 58 43 7 (set (reg:DI 124) (rotatert:DI (reg:DI 125 [ c ]) (subreg:QI (and:SI (reg:SI 128) (const_int 65535 [0x])) 0))) This was created by the

Use nonzero bits to refine range in split_constant_offset (PR 81635)

This patch is part 2 of the fix for PR 81635. It means that split_constant_offset can handle loops like: for (unsigned int i = 0; i < n; i += 4) { a[i] = ...; a[i + 1] = ...; } CCP records that "i" must have its low 2 bits clear, but we don't include this information in

[Bug target/59865] gnu multiversion calculates wrong target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59865 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/52641] Test cases fail for 16-bit int targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641 --- Comment #16 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Author: gjl Date: Fri Feb 2 15:07:37 2018 New Revision: 257333 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257333=gcc=rev Log: PR testsuite/52641 * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr83362.c: Make work

[Bug c++/84181] [8 Regression] ICE in variadic lambda inside a template when accessing any member after decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Feb 2 16:42:46 2018 New Revision: 257339 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257339=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/84181 - ICE with lambda parm in template argument. * tree.c

Re: Go patch committed: Always check for nil pointer in value method

Hi Ian, >> the new test FAILs on Solaris 10, sparc and x86 (only, 11 is fine) at >> all optimization levels: >> >> +FAIL: go.go-torture/execute/printnil.go execution, -O0 >> +FAIL: go.go-torture/execute/printnil.go execution, -O1 >> +FAIL: go.go-torture/execute/printnil.go execution, -O2 >>

[Bug c++/84181] [8 Regression] ICE in variadic lambda inside a template when accessing any member after decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/84181] [8 Regression] ICE in variadic lambda inside a template when accessing any member after decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Priority|P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/84071] [7/8 regression] wrong elimination of zero-extension after sign-extended load

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071 --- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou --- > So MIPS fundamentally needs this feature to work correctly; whether AArch64 > needs it or may just benefit from it depends on a lot of detailed knowledge > of the ISA and architecture. Given Richard

Re: [PATCH] Use ptr_mode to save/restore pointers in builtin jmpbuf

> We currently read and write beyond the builtin jmpbuf on ILP32 targets > where Pmode == DImode and ptr_mode == SImode. Since the builtin jmpbuf > is an array of 5 pointers, ptr_mode should be used to save and restore > frame and program pointers. Since x86 only saves stack pointer in > stack

[Bug fortran/84155] [8 Regression] program hangs on valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84155 --- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter --- There was another test case that I submitted for #84141. It still failed after the first preliminary fix.

[Bug fortran/84141] [8 regression] Internal error: type_name(): Bad type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141 --- Comment #28 from Jürgen Reuter --- Created attachment 43329 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43329=edit Shortened test case (after prelim. fix) This is a shortened test case that still failed after the first preliminary

Re: [PATCH] i386: Pass INVALID_REGNUM as invalid register number

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:

[Bug tree-optimization/82604] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50% performance regression with trunk@253679 when ftree-parallelize-loops is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 --- Comment #23 from Alexander Nesterovskiy --- Created attachment 43326 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43326=edit r253678 vs r256990

[Bug fortran/84155] [8 Regression] program hangs on valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84155 --- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas --- Created attachment 43328 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43328=edit Patch for the bug This patch fixes the PR and PR84141. The dejagnuified version of the reproducer will appear with

[Bug fortran/84141] [8 regression] Internal error: type_name(): Bad type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141 --- Comment #27 from Paul Thomas --- Please see PR84155 for a fix that looks somewhat cleaner but note the caveat associated with it. Paul

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] PR target/84164: Relax predicate in *aarch64__reg_di3_mask2

Hi Richard, On 02/02/18 15:25, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 02/02/18 15:10, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, In this [8 Regression] PR we ICE because we can't recognise the insn: (insn 59 58 43 7 (set (reg:DI 124) (rotatert:DI (reg:DI 125 [ c ]) (subreg:QI (and:SI

[Bug target/84169] [8 Regression] wrong code with u128 multiplication result at aarch64 -O

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84169 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- Confirmed. Does not happen with a compiler a few months old.

[Bug tree-optimization/82604] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50% performance regression with trunk@253679 when ftree-parallelize-loops is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 --- Comment #24 from Alexander Nesterovskiy --- Yes, it looks like more time is being spent in synchronizing. r256990 really changes the way autopar works: For r253679...r256989 the most of work was in main thread0 mostly (thread0 ~91%,

[Bug middle-end/84185] New: missing warning when ignoring attribute aligned on a member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84185 Bug ID: 84185 Summary: missing warning when ignoring attribute aligned on a member Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH] PR84068: Fix sort order of SCHED_PRESSURE_MODEL

Right, so here is version 2 which ends up much simpler: The comparison function for SCHED_PRESSURE_MODEL is incorrect. If either instruction is not in target_bb, the ordering is not well defined. Since all instructions outside the target_bb get the highest model_index, all we need to do is

[PATCH] i386: Add __x86_indirect_thunk_nt_reg for -fcf-protection -mcet

nocf_check attribute can be used with -fcf-protection -mcet to disable control-flow check by adding NOTRACK prefix before indirect branch. When -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern -mindirect-branch-register is added, indirect branch via register, "notrack call/jmp reg", is converted to call/jmp

[Bug lto/83954] [6/7 Regression] LTO: Bogus -Wlto-type-mismatch warning for array of pointer to incomplete type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954 --- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Fri Feb 2 18:09:32 2018 New Revision: 257343 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257343=gcc=rev Log: PR lto/83954 * lto-symtab.c (warn_type_compatibility_p): Do

[Bug c++/77712] int() is incorrectly treated as a null pointer constant in C++11 and later

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77712 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-09-23 00:00:00 |2018-2-2 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan

[Bug c/84108] [8 Regression] incorrect -Wattributes warning for packed/aligned conflict on struct members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84108 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[PATCH]] PR target/81084: Fork documentation for powerpcspe and clean up

This patch adds a section to invoke.texi for the new PowerPC SPE backend, mostly copied from the PowerPC backend but with irrelevant options removed. The patch also removes documentation of the SPE-specific options -mspe, -mno-spe and -mfloat-gprs from the PowerPC backend (these options have

[PATCH] PR target/81084: Hide irrelevant powerpcspe options

I have committed this patch to suppress options that are not relevant to powerpcspe targets from appearing in the output of "gcc --target-help". For now this is done by marking such options in powerpcspe.opt as Undocumented, and manually editing powerpcspe-tables.opt to remove most of the CPU

[Bug c++/84181] [8 Regression] ICE in variadic lambda inside a template when accessing any member after decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/84184] New: gcc generates wrong relocations with negative offsets in struct arrays (but not integral arrays)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184 Bug ID: 84184 Summary: gcc generates wrong relocations with negative offsets in struct arrays (but not integral arrays) Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[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 #16 from Andrew Jenner --- I have committed a patch to the .opt files: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00114.html I have also submitted a patch to the documentation:

C++ PATCH for c++/84181, ICE with capture in template argument

Here, strip_typedefs_expr was walking into PACK_EXPANSION_EXTRA_ARGS, which it shouldn't do. Fixed by using cp_tree_operand_length, which was created to address this sort of issue. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit bdf6657e3f32e903915046540c1dc6d875c32ea5 Author: Jason

[PATCH] i386: Pass INVALID_REGNUM as invalid register number

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:

[Bug c++/84182] [8 Regression] ICE in variadic lambda inside a template when calling a captured lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84182 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/84184] gcc generates wrong relocations with negative offsets in struct arrays (but not integral arrays)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184 Sergei Trofimovich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---

Re: [PATCH] Use ptr_mode to save/restore pointers in builtin jmpbuf

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> We currently read and write beyond the builtin jmpbuf on ILP32 targets >> where Pmode == DImode and ptr_mode == SImode. Since the builtin jmpbuf >> is an array of 5 pointers, ptr_mode should be used to save and

[Bug fortran/68560] [6/7/8 Regression] The test gfortran.dg/shape_8.f90 now fails when compiled with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560 --- Comment #27 from Thomas Koenig --- Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00071.html

[Bug c++/84181] [8 Regression] ICE in variadic lambda inside a template when accessing any member after decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181 Benjamin Buch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c/84184] gcc generates wrong relocations with negative offsets in struct arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/84184] gcc generates wrong relocations with negative offsets in struct arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end --- Comment #8 from Eric

[Bug c++/84186] New: nested template qualified-id not parsed correctly

struct S21 { int a[sizeof(typename N::S2::X*)]; // not OK }; }; }; That snippet gets accepted by ICC, MSVC, clang, and pretty much every other compiler I tested on, bug GCC (all versions, up to and including 8.0.1 20180202) reject it [-std=c++14 -O0 -Wall

Re: [PATCH] Use ptr_mode to save/restore pointers in builtin jmpbuf

> One more thing. Word can be bigger than pointer on ILP32 targets. > 5 pointers aren't sufficient. Yes, that's why the buffer should be 5 words, as init_eh allocates now. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: [C++ Patch] Add DECL_UNNAMED_BIT_FIELD and use it

OK. On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > this is the complete patch, tested x86_64-linux. > > Thanks, Paolo. > > >

Re: C++ PATCH to fix rejects-valid with constexpr ctor in C++17 (PR c++/83692)

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > This is a similar problem to 83116: we'd cached a constexpr call, but after a > store the result had become invalid, yet we used the wrong result again when > encountering the same call later. This resulted in evaluating

[Bug tree-optimization/84178] [7/8 Regression] ICE in release_bb_predicate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84178 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/84184] gcc generates wrong relocations with negative offsets in struct arrays (but not integral arrays)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [PATCH] Use ptr_mode to save/restore pointers in builtin jmpbuf

> I think it should be a predefined macro. Macros cannot be used outside of the C family of languages while builtins can, but a macro might be sufficient in practice and easier to implement indeed. -- Eric Botcazou

[Bug c++/84181] [8 Regression] ICE in variadic lambda inside a template when accessing any member after decltype

call.c:4567 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions. $ g++ --version g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180202 (experimental)

[PING] Re: [PATCH] C++: avoid most reserved words as misspelling suggestions (PR c++/81610 and PR c++/80567)

Ping On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 13:12 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 17:24 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:36 AM, David Malcolm > m> > > wrote: > > Original post: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg02048.html > > >

[Bug c++/84036] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code in C++14, variadic lambda capture in a template function

y bug report. See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions. $ g++ --version g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180202 (experimental) Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNES

[Bug fortran/84141] [8 regression] Internal error: type_name(): Bad type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141 --- Comment #30 from Jürgen Reuter --- Yep, that looks good. Paul's fix is now the change in trans-array.c only, or still the change in trans-io.c ? I guess only the trans-array.c patch. I'll try it out later tonight.

Re: [PATCH] PR52665 do not let .ident confuse assembler scan tests

On Feb 2, 2018, at 5:25 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > > Given the overwhelming silence this proposal has received, i take it > for granted that folks are thrilled and even up until now speechless > :) > -fno-ident ok for stage1? > What about -fno-file? Clever

Re: [PATCH] Use ptr_mode to save/restore pointers in builtin jmpbuf

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> One more thing. Word can be bigger than pointer on ILP32 targets. >> 5 pointers aren't sufficient. > > Yes, that's why the buffer should be 5 words, as init_eh allocates now. > But, that is not what the builtin

  1   2   >