https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
A fix for the offending instruction at trans-expr.c:2107
n = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) (m 0 ? -m : m);
might be
n = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) (m 0 ? - (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) m : m);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62017
Bug ID: 62017
Summary: AddressSanitizer reports *-buffer-overflow in
destructor when multiple virtual inheritance is used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One crude way to look is by looking for the w constraint that signifies usage
of FP registers in the md files and seeing whether those usages are properly
guarded by the 'simd' attribute or by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
One crude way to look is by looking for the w constraint that signifies
usage of FP registers in the md files and seeing whether those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also, James pointed out the patterns in the region of aarch64_movtilow_tilow.
They use SIMD registers to move wide values but are not guarded.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61529
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dehao at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62016
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62016
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62005
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62016
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
Bug ID: 62018
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/ftrapv-1.c * execution test on
x86_64-apple-darwin13
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
Bug ID: 62019
Summary: [4.10 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/weak2.adb (test for
excess errors) on x86_64-apple-darwin13
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
Arnaud Charlet charlet at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61876
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Aug 5 09:52:21 2014
New Revision: 213628
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213628root=gccview=rev
Log:
[convert.c] PR 61876: Guard transformation to lrint by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61876
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62020
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62020
Bug ID: 62020
Summary: [4.10 regression] ICE in add_symbol_to_partition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62021
Bug ID: 62021
Summary: ICE in verify_gimple_assign_single
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62021
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33247
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33247action=edit
test-case to reprroduce
Test should be compiled with
-O2 -fopenmp -march=core-avx2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62022
Bug ID: 62022
Summary: [4.10 regression] 27_io/basic_ofstream/pthread2.cc
FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62022
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62023
Bug ID: 62023
Summary: [4.10 regression]
30_threads/condition_variable_any/50862.cc FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62023
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62024
Bug ID: 62024
Summary: __atomic_always_lock_free is not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62020
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62023
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That exception comes from here in src/c++11/thread.cc
void
thread::_M_start_thread(__shared_base_type __b)
{
if (!__gthread_active_p())
#if __EXCEPTIONS
throw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61672
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/4.10 Regression] Less |[4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62006
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62021
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
--- Comment #3 from Andev debiandev at gmail dot com ---
This seems to be specific to some latest Intel CPUs. I am not sure which other
CPUs are affected. There is no official errata for this behavior AFAIK.
As Alexander suggested, it would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Can you please investigate a bit yourself? The test relies on fork()/wait()
to work and properly return the exit status of the forked process.
Where should I start?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61802
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61866
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
*** Bug 61865 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61865
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60874
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
I don't know why making the types smaller in comment #4 makes any difference.
On a system that does not use split stacks, the runtime will allocate a 2M
stack for each goroutine (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60874
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #6)
I don't know why making the types smaller in comment #4 makes any
difference. On a system that does not use split stacks, the runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
With a debugger?
Yerk!-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61871
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Ops, I was also testing with this patch:
--cut here--
Index: go/regexp/all_test.go
===
--- go/regexp/all_test.go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025
Bug ID: 62025
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] Miscompilation of openssl
sha512.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
If I remove the attribute 'no clone', the test succeeds with clang, but fails
with at least gcc 4.8.3, 4.9.1, and trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.2
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-fno-shrink-wrap doesn't help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #5 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
Created attachment 33249
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33249action=edit
Dhrystone, part 2 of 3
I firstly observed this issue when looking into Dhrystone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #9 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
It seems to me that it's the LRA which is forcing the use of FP registers, so,
even if the patterns are fixed, I believe that in the end the combiner would
just give up and ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What we really need here is a preprocessed testcase showing the problem.
It should be fairly easy to lock down on the problem then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #11 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #10)
What we really need here is a preprocessed testcase showing the problem.
It should be fairly easy to lock down on the problem then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62017
Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #12 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
aarch64_conditional_register_usage() marks all FP registers as unavailable if
!TARGET_FLOAT. So the real question is why this isn't sufficient to disable
use of FP registers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #27 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #25)
* Cases like:
1: const str[] = something %d;
2: printf(str);
Note that clang is able to handle this:
manuel@gcc10:~$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testcase:
void foo(void)
{
char str[] = something %d;
__builtin_printf(str);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
Bug ID: 62026
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] Crash in
lto_get_decl_name_mapping
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33251
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33251action=edit
Backtrace from 4.10.0
Appeared in rev. (208444, 209348].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
r21298O is OK, the test fails starting at r213007. Bootstrapping r212982 fails
with
In file included from ../../p_work/gcc/cgraphunit.c:164:0:
../../p_work/gcc/cgraphunit.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62027
Bug ID: 62027
Summary: missing dwarf info for struct/union nested in class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62027
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well the struct/class are unused.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62028
Bug ID: 62028
Summary: Power64/Linux: FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c
scan-rtl-dump-times sms SMS succeeded 0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
--- Comment #13 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
Created attachment 33253
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33253action=edit
Test-case
This test-case is a stripped-down version of Dhrystone, where the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62029
Bug ID: 62029
Summary: Requesting new warning: missing const-qualifier
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62014
Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33246|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61602
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su su at cs dot ucdavis.edu ---
Hi, it would be really nice if this one could be fixed very soon as it keeps
popping up during my testing. Many thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61923
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The difference after scheduling a block is in DFA state because of additional
advance_one_cycle call when debug_insns are present.
The situation looks like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62030
Bug ID: 62030
Summary: wrong code due to aliasing issue
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: alias, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62030
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here are the two stores:
(insn 30 25 33 3 (set (mem/f:DI (reg/v/f:DI 200 [ prev ]) [5 MEM[(struct head
*)heads][_8].first+0 S8 A64])
(reg/v/f:DI 199 [ next ])) t.c:22 302
74 matches
Mail list logo
