> On 29 Jan 2023, at 19:36, Jerry D via Gcc wrote:
>
> I had this show up today. I have no idea what this is about.
>
> Please advise.
>
Sorry Jerry, false positive -- something went wrong with the builder. Disregard.
We're still setting things up there.
> Jerry
Best,
sam
I had this show up today. I have no idea what this is about.
Please advise.
Jerry
Forwarded Message
Subject: ☠ Buildbot (Sourceware): gcc - failed configure (failure) (master)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 19:31:23 +
From: buil...@sourceware.org
To: Jerry DeLisle
A new
Snapshot gcc-13-20230129 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13-20230129/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 13 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 2:37 PM Jerry D via Fortran wrote:
>
> I had this show up today. I have no idea what this is about.
>
> Please advise.
I assume the buildbot thinks that
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=8011fbba7baa46947341ca8069b5a327163a68d5
broke the build, but I fail to
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 07:49:35PM +, Sam James via Fortran wrote:
>
>
> > On 29 Jan 2023, at 19:36, Jerry D via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > I had this show up today. I have no idea what this is about.
> >
> > Please advise.
> >
>
> Sorry Jerry, false positive -- something went wrong with
> the
"A 24-bit or 31-bit virtual address is expanded to 64 bits by appending 40
or 33 zeros, respectively, on the left before it is translated by means of
the DAT process, and a 24-bit or 31-bit real address is similarly expanded
to 64 bits before it is transformed by prefixing. A 24-bit or 31-bit
Hi Joe.
They aren't 24 or 31 bit addresses.
All that code I showed was running in AM64. The very
first thing that z/PDOS does when it IPLs is activate
z/Arch mode and enable AM64. That's about 10
assembler instructions and then it's pure 64-bit for
eternity.
Only the lower 32 bits of the 64-bit
Hello,
this is a fix for a gcc-12 ICE regression.
This ICE rings a bell to me, and I think the change by Tobias which
triggers it only uncovers a bug that can also happen independently in
other cases.
The problem is resolution of maxloc expressions is not idempotent, that
is resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108590
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|- 1_short_consteval is not |- 1_short_consteval is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #8 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16922
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note noipa attribute has been added for a while now if you want not IPA based
optimizations for this function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yuri at tsoft dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107820
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/riscv-protos.h (get_vector_mode): New function.
* config/riscv/riscv-v.cc (get_vector_mode): Ditto.
* config/riscv/riscv-vector-builtins-bases.cc (enum lst_type): New enum.
(class loadstore): Adjust for indexed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108592
Bug ID: 108592
Summary: In IF statements -Winteger-division is repeated 4
times
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsoxei16-1.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsoxei16-2.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsoxei16-3.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsoxei8-1.C: New test.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107820
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105593
--- Comment #16 from James Addison ---
Does it make sense to update some of the other variable declarations (like
this[1] one) within optimized blocks to use self-initialization as part of this
bug, or should I create a separate bug for that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108591
Bug ID: 108591
Summary: void{} does not error out in 12.1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108591
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102820
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Mark_B53 at yahoo dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102820
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Le 29/01/2023 à 05:17, Jerry DeLisle via Fortran a écrit :
Attached patch fixes this problem by allowing the namespace pointer to
be set correctly regardless of error condition.
Regression tested on x86_64_linux_gnu.
OK for trunk and backports?
Yes, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108593
Bug ID: 108593
Summary: No inlining after function cloning
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsoxei32-1.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsoxei32-2.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsoxei32-3.C: New test.
* g++.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsoxei64-1.C: New test.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108590
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
Hi Mikael,
Am 29.01.23 um 17:21 schrieb Mikael Morin:
Hello,
this is a fix for a gcc-12 ICE regression.
This ICE rings a bell to me, and I think the change by Tobias which
triggers it only uncovers a bug that can also happen independently in
other cases.
The problem is resolution of maxloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108593
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/avl_single-72.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/avl_single-76.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/avl_single-77.c: New test.
---
.../riscv/rvv/vsetvl/avl_single-72.c | 27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95130
Alvin Wong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alvinhochun at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8011fbba7baa46947341ca8069b5a327163a68d5
commit r13-5485-g8011fbba7baa46947341ca8069b5a327163a68d5
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108592
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-29
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108450
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e32a12c04c72f692a7bd119fd3e4e5b74392c9d
commit r13-5486-g2e32a12c04c72f692a7bd119fd3e4e5b74392c9d
Author: Mikael Morin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107360
--- Comment #4 from Alexey Izbyshev ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #3)
> I think there there are cases were variably modified
> return types are allowed in ISO C:
>
> void f(int n, double (*(bar(void)))[n])
> {
> double
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107360
--- Comment #5 from Martin Uecker ---
Yes. After reconsidering this, this is not related to the other bugs mentioned
above. I think your first example needs to be invalid, because the derived
return type then depends on a variable inside the
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vlxei-vsxei-constraint-1.c: New test.
---
.../riscv/rvv/base/vlxei-vsxei-constraint-1.c | 121 ++
1 file changed, 121 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108450
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34563
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #13 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108595
Bug ID: 108595
Summary: -fcall-saved-a1 with -O2 leads to incorrect RISC-V
code-gen around inline assembly
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108594
Bug ID: 108594
Summary: GCC ignores deleted movement constructor is not used
on return
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:35 PM Iain Sandoe via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Technically, this is seems to be a regression somewhere between 4.2 and
> 4.6 but, it seems, not enough for anyone to care too much. Tested on
> various Darwin versions and x86_64, powerpc64 linux,
> OK for trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108573
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 02:29:04AM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:59:00PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > There is one bug that I noticed. When you use the full DMR instruction
> > > the
> > > constant copy propagation patch issues internal errors. I believe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108306
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108306
>
> --- Comment #16 from Andrew Macleod ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #42 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #40)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #39)
> > I was wonering if we should not provide flag to turn all counts
> > volatile. That way we will still have
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:25 PM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This patch adds a check in match_simplify_replacement to make sure the
> middlebb
> does not have any phi-nodes as we don't currently move those.
> This was just a thinko from before.
>
> Ok? Bootstrapped and tested on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #41 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #31)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26)
> >
> > Now, in principle we should have applied store-motion and not only PRE which
> > would have avoided
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108588
Bug ID: 108588
Summary: __is_constructible returns wrong value for invalid
(but non deleted) default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108589
Bug ID: 108589
Summary: ICE: RTL check: expected code 'reg', have 'subreg' in
rhs_regno, at rtl.h:1932 with -mtune=ampere1a
-fno-split-wide-types
Product: gcc
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023, liuhongt wrote:
> The official name is AVX512-FP16.
>
> Ready to push to trunk.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/i386/i386.opt: Change AVX512FP16 to AVX512-FP16.
> * doc/invoke.texi: Ditto.
Ok, thank you.
(And okay to backport to older branches as/if you want.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108579
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64619
Roman Žilka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roman.zilka at gmail dot com
--- Comment
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023, liuhongt wrote:
> Ready to push to trunk.
Yes, thank you.
Gerald
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #39)
> I was wonering if we should not provide flag to turn all counts
> volatile. That way we will still have race conditions on their updates
> (and it would be
Technically, this is seems to be a regression somewhere between 4.2 and
4.6 but, it seems, not enough for anyone to care too much. Tested on
various Darwin versions and x86_64, powerpc64 linux,
OK for trunk {now,stage1}?
thanks, Iain
--- 8< ---
For a regular compile job, with -v we emit the GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108590
Bug ID: 108590
Summary: Wrong integer promotoion for consteval
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108492
ming mengli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
From: Lehua Ding
Hi Richard,
According to your previous comments, I adjusted the code. It will be easier (by
extend `get_inner_reg` function) to support the forwarding of new rtx operators
(e.g. sign-extend) in the future. Please help review this code, thank you so
much.
The current code
65 matches
Mail list logo
