Re: [006/nnn] poly_int: tree constants

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:25:38AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 10/27/2017 02:08 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Martin Sebor writes: > > > On 10/26/2017 11:52 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > > Martin Sebor writes: > > > > > For offset_int the default

Re: [09/nn] Add a fixed_size_mode_pod class

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 09:37:31PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Can you figure what oldest GCC release supports the C++11/14 POD handling > > that would be required? > > GCC needs to be buildable by other compilers than itself though. It sounds like people are mostly concerned about sun

[Bug target/81803] [7/8 regression] miscompilation at -O1 on mips64el

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803 Chen Qi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qi.chen at windriver dot com --- Comment #11

[wwwdocs] Document Nios II changes for GCC 8

I've checked in this patch to document my recent flurry of Nios II patches in the release notes for GCC 8. -Sandra Index: htdocs/gcc-8/changes.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-8/changes.html,v retrieving revision

Re: [RFA][PATCH] Provide a class interface into substitute_and_fold.

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:20:38AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/24/2017 03:45 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 10/24/2017 02:57 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > >> On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 12:44 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > >>> This is similar to the introduction of the ssa_propagate_engine, but > >>> for > >>>

[PATCH] fix cygwin builds

Cygwin builds were accidentally broken by the patch for PR sanitize/82517.  This added uses of MAX_SUPPORTED_STACK_ALIGNMENT, which for cygwin expands to a call to ix86_cfun_abi(), and hence we need an include of tm_p.h which is currently missing. Tested with a cygwin default languages bootstrap.

[Bug sanitizer/82517] use-after-scope for a variable with big alignment causes a false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517 --- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson --- Author: wilson Date: Mon Oct 30 01:57:59 2017 New Revision: 254211 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254211=gcc=rev Log: Fix cygwin builds, broken by PR sanitizer/82517 fix. gcc/ *

Re: [committed][PATCH] Convert sprintf warning code to a dominator walk

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 02:03:59PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 10:55 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > Prereq for eventually embedding range analysis into the sprintf > > warning > > pass. The only thing that changed since the original from a few days > > ago was the addition of

Re: [std-discussion] Is this union aliasing code well-defined?

In math, once you reach a contradiction, you realize that one of your premises was false. In religion, once you reach a contradiction, you write books of theology to paper over the mess. I guess we know what category type-based alias analysis falls under.

Re: [PATCH 00/13] Removal of SDB debug info support

I checked in my patch series today.  I did some quick builds before check in to look for mistakes, and am now doing full builds after check in to reverify that I did it right. Jim

Re: [PATCH 06/13] remove sdb and -gcoff from non-target files

On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 10:45 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > Does > > gcoff > Common Driver JoinedOrMissing Ignore Warn(switch %qs no longer > supported) > Does nothing.  Preserved for backward compatibility. > > gcoff1 > Common Driver Alias(gcoff) > > gcoff2 > Common Driver Alias(gcoff) > >

gcc-8-20171029 is now available

Snapshot gcc-8-20171029 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20171029/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision

Re: Problems in IPA passes

Hi Jeff, On 28 October 2017 at 18:28, Jeff Law wrote: > > Jan, > > What's the purpose behind calling vrp_meet and > extract_range_from_unary_expr from within the IPA passes? This is used such that when we have an argument to a function and this for which we know the VR and this

[Bug c/58884] OPTIONAL warning when a temprary value is created and not used.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58884 --- Comment #4 from Max TenEyck Woodbury --- I think there is a misunderstanding here... These patches, when I submit them, will add a new warning option. It is not appropriate to add this to the normal "unused-value" warning because the

[Bug libfortran/80850] Sourced allocate() fails to allocate a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850 --- Comment #22 from DIL --- On the other hand, I have another test which also crashes in clone_object() for the same reason, but does not involve gfc_vector.F90. It goes through line 710 of gfc_list.F90, function ListIterAppend(), where again a

[Bug libfortran/80850] Sourced allocate() fails to allocate a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850 --- Comment #21 from DIL --- Paul, And as you have noticed, this characteristic construct is there (gfc_vector:806) :) call this%container%vec_tile(q(4))%tile_batch(q(3))%batch_seg(q(2))%seg_elem(q(1))%&

[Bug libfortran/80850] Sourced allocate() fails to allocate a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850 --- Comment #20 from DIL --- So, if we for a second trust valgrind executed on an -O3 optimized binary, then line 1402 of gfc_graph.F90, namely, ierr=git%append_vertex(vrt) should be the origin. The object vrt (type graph_vertex_t) is the object

[Bug libfortran/80850] Sourced allocate() fails to allocate a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850 --- Comment #19 from DIL --- On my Ubuntu 16.04, removing STAT= from the allocate() statement does not help unfortunately, but it now crashes via a different path, although for the same reason. I will experiment more to see if I can finally

[Bug tree-optimization/82762] [8 Regression] ICE at -O3: in compute_antic, at tree-ssa-pre.c:2397

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82762 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug c++/82764] [7/8 Regression] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5030

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82764 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.0 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška

[Bug tree-optimization/82765] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE at -Os on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: in tree_to_shwi, at tree.c:6611

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82765 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection

Re: [PATCH, i386]: Fix PR82725, ICE in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 5:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:

[Bug c++/82764] [7/8 Regression] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5030

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82764 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc

[wwwdocs] www.generalprocessortech.com now uses https

Applied. Gerald Index: index.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v retrieving revision 1.1067 diff -u -r1.1067 index.html --- index.html 12 Oct 2017 09:56:39 - 1.1067 +++ index.html 29 Oct 2017 17:49:26

[wwwdocs] readings.html and a eah-jena.de link

Applied. Gerald Index: readings.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/readings.html,v retrieving revision 1.281 diff -u -r1.281 readings.html --- readings.html 9 Sep 2017 14:01:28 - 1.281 +++ readings.html

Re: [PATCH, i386]: Fix PR82725, ICE in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 5:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> Hello! >>> >>> split_double_mode tries to split TImode address: >>> >>>

Re: [patch, fortran, RFC] Interchange indices for FORALL and DO CONCURRENT if profitable

Am 28.10.2017 um 00:03 schrieb Thomas Koenig: +typepedef struct { That should have been typdef, obviously - the typo must have slipped in after testing. Regards Thomas

Re: [PATCH, i386]: Fix PR82725, ICE in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 5:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> Hello! >> >> split_double_mode tries to split TImode address: >> >> (insn 10 2 11 2 (set (reg/i:TI 0 ax) >> (mem/u/c:TI (const:DI (unspec:DI [

Re: [PATCH, i386]: Fix PR82725, ICE in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Hello! > > split_double_mode tries to split TImode address: > > (insn 10 2 11 2 (set (reg/i:TI 0 ax) > (mem/u/c:TI (const:DI (unspec:DI [ > (symbol_ref:DI ("_ZZ7tempDirvE5cache") [flags

Re: [006/nnn] poly_int: tree constants

On 10/27/2017 02:08 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Martin Sebor writes: On 10/26/2017 11:52 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Martin Sebor writes: For offset_int the default precision is 128-bits. Making that the default also for wide_int should be

[Bug target/68192] AIX libstdc++ TLS symbols not exported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68192 Brian Groose changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brian at groose dot com --- Comment #6

Re: [PATCH] enhance -Warray-bounds to handle strings and excessive indices

Ping -- please see my reply below. On 10/20/2017 09:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote: get_addr_base_and_unit_offset will return NULL if there's any variable component in 'ref'. So as written it seems to be dead code (you want to pass 'arg'?) Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[Bug tree-optimization/82455] missing -Warray-bounds on strcpy offset in an out-of-bounds range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82455 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|UNCONFIRMED

[PATCH] enhance -Warray-bounds to detect out-of-bounds offsets (PR 82455)

In my work on -Wrestrict, to issue meaningful warnings, I found it important to detect both out of bounds array indices as well as offsets in calls to restrict-qualified functions like strcpy. GCC already detects some of these cases but my tests for the enhanced warning exposed a few gaps. The

[wwwdocs] spam.html - www.abuse.net now uses https

Applied. Gerald Index: spam.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/spam.html,v retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -r1.7 spam.html --- spam.html 21 Sep 2006 14:17:36 - 1.7 +++ spam.html 29 Oct 2017 15:10:32 - @@

[wwwdocs,Fortran] Links to source code for the Stephen Chapman books

We carry these two links in readings.html, however they now redirect to a generic page of the institution. Does any of you have a better reference (Google did not give me one easily)? Otherwise I plan on applying the patch below. Thanks, Gerald Index: readings.html

Enquiry

Hello, I got your email from a directory on Google. I am currently undergoing a building project, and i will like to purchase items to make a few unique installments i'm sure your company will be able to provide me with the services. kindly get back to me if you can so we can discuss

[Bug libfortran/80850] Sourced allocate() fails to allocate a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850 --- Comment #18 from Paul Thomas --- It is the _len field of the unlimited polymorphic 'object' that is not being initialized... somewhere. Paul

[Bug c++/66268] struct { volatile int x; } should not be trivially copyable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66268 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jpakkane at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/82763] std::is_pod works incorrectly with volatile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82763 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Enquiry

Hello, I got your email from a directory on Google. I am currently undergoing a building project, and i will like to purchase items to make a few unique installments i'm sure your company will be able to provide me with the services. kindly get back to me if you can so we can discuss

[Bug libfortran/80850] Sourced allocate() fails to allocate a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850 --- Comment #17 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #16) > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #15) > > (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #14) > > > PS If I remove the STAT= from the allocate, the code runs just

[Bug target/54006] __atomic_always_lock_free inconsistent with __GCC_ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE et al. on crisv32 and hppa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54006 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |target

Re: [v3 PATCH] Implement LWG 2485

On 29 October 2017 at 00:57, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > 2017-10-29 Ville Voutilainen > > Implement LWG 2485 The full testsuite passes on Linux-PPC64. The debug mode tests for array have been run manually on Linux-x64.

[Bug c++/81702] [7/8 Regression] ICE in gimple_get_virt_method_for_vtable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81702 --- Comment #6 from Adam Lackorzynski --- So assuming removing the assert is ok, the following would address it: --- gimple-fold.c (revision 254205) +++ gimple-fold.c (working copy) @@ -6439,7 +6439,6 @@ gcc_assert (init); if

[Bug c++/82722] [7 Regression] ICE in finish_member_declaration, at cp/semantics.c:2984

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82722 --- Comment #4 from berni.w11 at gmx dot net --- Created attachment 42497 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42497=edit another testcase

RE: [PATCH 13/13] fix MIPS files

Jim Wilson writes: > Hand tested to verify that I didn't accidentally break passing -g to > the assembler. In case you are waiting on an OK for the MIPS part... this is fine. Thanks, Matthew

Re: [std-discussion] Is this union aliasing code well-defined?

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Yubin Ruan wrote: > ... > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 01:41:55PM -0700, Myriachan wrote: >> This question that "supercat" posted on Stack Overflow ran into an >> interesting problem: >> >>

Re: [std-discussion] Is this union aliasing code well-defined?

On October 29, 2017 2:46:42 AM GMT+01:00, Yubin Ruan wrote: >On 10/27/2017 04:54 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Yubin Ruan >wrote: >>> +Cc gcc-list. >>> >>> Does any gcc developer have any comments? >> >> See

[Bug c++/82737] [ICE] Compiler segfault on compilation of a certain file (full cause unknown) (file too large for upload, link provided)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737 --- Comment #10 from Matti Bryce --- If anyone knows how to get gcc with debug symbols, that'd be useful, because I could get a better stack trace.

[PATCH, i386]: Fix PR82725, ICE in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c

Hello! split_double_mode tries to split TImode address: (insn 10 2 11 2 (set (reg/i:TI 0 ax) (mem/u/c:TI (const:DI (unspec:DI [ (symbol_ref:DI ("_ZZ7tempDirvE5cache") [flags 0x2a]) ] UNSPEC_NTPOFF)) [1 cache+0 S16 A64 AS1])) to: (const:DI

[Bug c++/82737] [ICE] Compiler segfault on compilation of a certain file (full cause unknown) (file too large for upload, link provided)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737 --- Comment #9 from Matti Bryce --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > Hi. I can't build your pre-process source file. Please follow steps to > reduce the segfault: > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction > > And

[Bug c++/82737] [ICE] Compiler segfault on compilation of a certain file (full cause unknown) (file too large for upload, link provided)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737 --- Comment #8 from Matti Bryce --- Created attachment 42496 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42496=edit Backtrace

[Bug target/82725] [8 Regression] [x86_64] internal compiler error: in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c:2162

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82725 --- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak --- I'm testing following patch: --cut here-- Index: i386.c === --- i386.c (revision 254199) +++ i386.c (working copy) @@ -15079,10

[Bug c++/82737] [ICE] Compiler segfault on compilation of a certain file (full cause unknown) (file too large for upload, link provided)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737 --- Comment #7 from Matti Bryce --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5) > Confirmed with cross compiler, I reduce a test-case. I've attempted to reduce a test case, but after 2 days of running creduce, the produced file won't generate