https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80422
Bug ID: 80422
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O3 in 32-bit mode on
x86_64-linux-gnu: in operator[], at vec.h:732
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563
--- Comment #6 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
Created attachment 41199
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41199=edit
Possible fix
FYI, I think this has been caused by r227385, see how `_internal'
is used by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68397
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 41198
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41198=edit
Testing a patch...
I'm testing the following:
2017-04-13 Edward Smith-Rowland
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80403
--- Comment #11 from Dmitry Babokin ---
I confirm that the latest patch fixes all UBSAN compile time problems that I
have. Thanks!
Though correctness issues remain - PR80386.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80421
--- Comment #2 from Ivan Johnson ---
GCC seems to be dispatching to the wrong case in a switch-statement in the
attached source. To see the problem, examine the first function in the
attached C file, which is copied below:
uint32_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80421
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Johnson ---
Created attachment 41197
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41197=edit
Preprocessor output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80421
Bug ID: 80421
Summary: Case dispatch is scrambled in switch-statement
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71951
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80415
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes exactly. When pressure is removed the reg is on the reg_use_list
eight times, but when pressure was added it was just once.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80388
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80403
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 13 19:52:58 2017
New Revision: 246917
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246917=gcc=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80403
* fold-const.c (fold_ternary_loc): Revert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59910
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> > > It does for me provided the patch is applied at the proper location:
> > >
> > > @@ -2657,6 +2657,12 @@ gfc_match_structure_constructor (gfc_sym
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80420
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80420
Bug ID: 80420
Summary: missing -Wformat-overfow on snprintf with excessive
bound
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80343
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80343
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Apr 13 18:08:51 2017
New Revision: 246914
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246914=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-04-13 Vladimir Makarov
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79929
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
I actually think that for the test case in comment #4, the warning does
highlight a problem in the code: since the test (p < c) can never be true the
memset can never be called in a valid program. At -O2 the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Actually, the null pointer str4 is dereferenced four times:
> at lines 39, 40, 68, 69.
I agree for lines 39 and 68, but in lines it points to the strings 'ABCDEFGH'
and 4_'ABCDEFGH' AFAIU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71778
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Actually, the null pointer str4 is dereferenced four times:
at lines 39, 40, 68, 69.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71672
--- Comment #2 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:15:26PM +, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71672
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79265
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
I expect the instrumentation for local arrays is going to behind the majority
of the complaints for sprintf, like the calls in f0, f1, and f2 (and other
nonnull functions). Local arrays are never allocated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51975
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I haven't looked at this the dumps for this failure, but I've just narrowed
down a very similar looking issue.
I've got a case where hard register propagation replaces the use of $2 with $sp
in a load in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80414
--- Comment #1 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Apr 13 14:52:23 2017
New Revision: 246909
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246909=gcc=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80414
* ubsan.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80343
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've reproduced it. It is a combination of scratches with rematerialization.
I guess it will be fixed in a few days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80031
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2017-04-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80031
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71672
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79392
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79929
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47358
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80403
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41195
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41195=edit
gcc7-pr80403-2.patch
Oops, thinko in the committed patch. COND_EXPR/VEC_COND_EXPR op0's type
doesn't have to be the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78783
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78783
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 41194
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41194=edit
Untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78783
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80419
Bug ID: 80419
Summary: rpmbuild with rpmrc file crashed httpd rebuild
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
URL: http://https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80388
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This has been fixed by revision r230580 (pr59910). If there is no objection, I
can back port the fix to the gcc5 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59910
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > It does for me provided the patch is applied at the proper location:
> >
> > @@ -2657,6 +2657,12 @@ gfc_match_structure_constructor (gfc_sym
> >
> > Applying the patch with patch -p0 -i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This test case is wrong.
Well, I don't if strings comparison is allowed or forbidden by the standard
when one string is a non-associated pointer as in
program test
implicit none
call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35038
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53414
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59735
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53915
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60321
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67924
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70427
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80413
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80413
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Apr 13 11:51:28 2017
New Revision: 246903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246903=gcc=rev
Log:
Do not call memcpy with a NULL argument (PR gcov-profile/80413).
2017-04-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80418
Bug ID: 80418
Summary: libgnat_pic.a built but not installed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79712
wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80416
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 13 11:17:38 2017
New Revision: 246902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246902=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-04-13 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/80416
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] Using|[5/6 Regression] Using lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79265
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There are two major reasons for the forcing of -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
by the null pointer sanitizers.
One is to avoid relying too much on UB assumptions, where the optimizers say
that something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80321
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79255
Bug 79255 depends on bug 80321, which changed state.
Bug 80321 Summary: [7 regression] infinite recursion with inlining of nested
function and debug info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80321
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80321
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 13 11:05:09 2017
New Revision: 246900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246900=gcc=rev
Log:
PR debug/80321
* dwarf2out.c (decls_for_scope): Ignore declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77698
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> One another observation, working sets are wrong as they do not respect # of
> runs:
>
> 1 run:
> threshold = 1, sum_all=190579
>
> 10 tuns:
> threshold = 10,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80416
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
or better
asm volatile ("" : "=r" (q) : "0" (q));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #29 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #24)
> Actually, the volatile attribute conflicts with the intent(in) of the final
> variable. But making the function result variable 'integral' volatile, does
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77698
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
One another observation, working sets are wrong as they do not respect # of
runs:
1 run:
threshold = 1, sum_all=190579
10 tuns:
threshold = 10, sum_all=1905790
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80417
Bug ID: 80417
Summary: GCC does not accept a well-formed code of using
declaration with pack expansion results inheriting
constructor
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80416
Bug ID: 80416
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr79671.C -O2 execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79265
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, for targets which default to -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks nonnull
sanitizing is of course pointless.
I think we should simply make sure to instrument early enough before things
are folded... or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80413
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I've got patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79265
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70878
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Apr 13 08:04:52 2017
New Revision: 246899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246899=gcc=rev
Log:
PR lto/69953
* ipa-visibility.c (non_local_p): Fix typos.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80415
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30)
> I didn't close it because I wanted to see updated benchmark numbers. Either
> I'll grab the benchmark, or if somebody else posts the latest numbers, we
> can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79703
Bug 79703 depends on bug 79390, which changed state.
Bug 79390 Summary: [7 Regression] 10% performance drop in SciMark2 LU after
r242550
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80415
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79935
Andris Pavenis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andris.pavenis at iki dot fi
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80415
Bug ID: 80415
Summary: [7 Regression] bogus "invalid initialization of
reference" error
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
85 matches
Mail list logo