https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87221
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is related to bug 81523. How did you configure GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60243
--- Comment #23 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #22)
> > The IPA SRA time is all spent in compute_fn_summary via convert_callers.
> > Not sure why that's necessary here? Martin, in r152368 you reduced those
> > to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87221
Bug ID: 87221
Summary: cannot build with -pie
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86739
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86593
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for GCC 9 so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86593
--- Comment #11 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Sep 4 20:42:06 2018
New Revision: 264096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264096=gcc=rev
Log:
DWARF: Allow hard frame pointer even if frame pointer isn't used
r251028
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker ---
-fstack-clash-protection works as desired.
Based on the documentation:
"Most targets do not fully support stack clash protection. However, on those
targets -fstack-clash-protection will protect dynamic stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
What does -fstack-clash-protection give? (-fstack-check is an old option
for specific Ada requirements; for proper stack-clash protection for all
languages you want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
Bug ID: 87220
Summary: -fstack-check produces inefficient and wrong tests
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
--- Comment #9 from Peter Dimov ---
For more context, see https://godbolt.org/z/SzfpKr
```
#include
template struct variant
{
std::aligned_union_t<0, T...> storage_;
unsigned index_;
};
template
auto visit( variant& v, F f )
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
--- Comment #8 from Peter Dimov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> I'm not sure here Y are different types here and member access based on
> the type is distinct.
Yes, one could argue that, I suppose. But in the `return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87219
Bug ID: 87219
Summary: [9 Regression] internal compiler error: in
check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:709
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87216
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Peter Dimov from comment #5)
> Another:
>
> ```
> struct X
> {
> int v;
> };
>
> template struct Y: X
> {
> };
>
> void f( int v );
>
> void h( unsigned ix, void* p )
> {
> switch( ix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> ```
> h(unsigned int, void*):
> cmp edi, 5
> jbe .L5
> .L5:
> mov rdi, rsi
> jmp f(X*)
> ```
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/2Lh_GZ
Good, my patch can handle that and can generate direct call:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87198
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 4 17:49:57 2018
New Revision: 264088
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264088=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/87198
* common/config/i386/i386-common.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87218
--- Comment #1 from Toon Moene ---
Well, OK - it's more like 9 minutes ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87217
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87217
Bug ID: 87217
Summary: [9 regression] ICE in in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:709 when compiling SPEC2000
starting with r264069
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87218
Bug ID: 87218
Summary: Extremely long compile time with 710 line Fortran code
using -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #19 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-04 12:35 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> I don't think we care about glibc <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think we care about glibc < 2.0.6 though.
__max_digits * 4 is not enough for:
std::cout << std::fixed << std::numeric_limits::max();
That needs 4940 bytes, but we don't want to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Benson ---
Thanks Janus. That does solve the problem, and regtests cleanly, with this
patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
===
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #17 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-04 11:20 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I don't think __cs_size + 1 will be enough in general. There's no reason to
> think it's only 1 byte too small.
>
> Maybe we need a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86505
--- Comment #9 from rpirrera at aitek dot it ---
The patch cannot be applied to the compiler we are using (GCC 5), we get a
function not defined error.
Is it possible to have a patch for GCC 5 too?
Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86985
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86740
Michal Urbanczyk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michal.w.urbanczyk at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87216
Bug ID: 87216
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr59521-3.c scan-assembler
\\nfoo:\\n.*cmp.*1,.*cmp.*10,.*cmp.*100 on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
--- Comment #5 from Peter Dimov ---
Another:
```
struct X
{
int v;
};
template struct Y: X
{
};
void f( int v );
void h( unsigned ix, void* p )
{
switch( ix )
{
case 0: f( ((Y<0>*)p)->v ); break;
case 1: f(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes I've just realised that passing 0 was a red herring, because we take the
#if _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDIO branch. Sorry.
I don't think __cs_size + 1 will be enough in general. There's no reason to
think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
--- Comment #4 from Peter Dimov ---
If the code is not the same the jump table is not optimized out and there's no
extra check. But it also happens with code that is not the same on the C++
side, for example:
```
struct X
{
int v;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-04 4:51 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> And the previous line an alloca call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86744
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86744
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Sep 4 15:00:41 2018
New Revision: 264086
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264086=gcc=rev
Log:
Don't xfail gcc.target/i386/addr-sel-1.c (PR target/86744)
PR target/86744
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87212
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The same error occurs with SUM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87205
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-04 10:16 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
>
> --- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2018-09-04 9:48 AM,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87208
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-04 9:48 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to dave.anglin from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87208
--- Comment #2 from SztfG at yandex dot ru ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Dup of PR 51577 ?
Strictly speaking, it is not a dup, because PR 51577 and all the bugs marked as
dups of PR 51577 are about finding an operator with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #11)
> JAGaf47646: with small buffer vsnprintf always returns -1
Aha, that is probably it. We pass 0 as the size, which is supposed to make
vsnprintf tell you how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87156
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87215
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
Neha Gowda changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neha.gnu.gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On i9-7960X I get (cc1 is -O0 checking build, so bootstrapped compiler might be
much faster), will repeat that with bootstrapped compiler if it succeeds. The
__int128 and unsigned __int128 tests are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66203
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The Arm builds that do not need anything from libgloss (and thus do not need a
specs file) while linking come from a configuration that hard codes the
underlying runtime monitor (usually the arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
--- Comment #27 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #26)
> A test generator for x % c1 == c2 expansion for unsigned, int, unsigned long
> long, long long, unsigned int128 and int128 types (assuming ilp32 or lp64)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 44658
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44658=edit
pr82853-tests.tar.xz
A test generator for x % c1 == c2 expansion for unsigned, int, unsigned long
long, long long,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87215
Bug ID: 87215
Summary: Unused debug info with -std=c++17
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-04 7:58 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
>
> --- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2018-09-04 4:51 AM,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87211
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 4 12:04:42 2018
New Revision: 264079
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264079=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87211
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214
Bug ID: 87214
Summary: [9 Regression] SPEC CPU2017, CPU2006 520/620, 403
runfails after r263772 with march=skylake-avx512
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-04 4:51 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The code assumes __convert_from_v always returns a valid length, but it seems
> to be failing and returning -1.
vsnprintf/snprintf can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87207
--- Comment #6 from blastrock at free dot fr ---
Great, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-04 6:38 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Could you see what this prints on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87176
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87176
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 4 10:55:46 2018
New Revision: 264077
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264077=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87176
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Could you see what this prints on the target please?
#include
int
getlen(char* __out, int __size __attribute__((unused)), const char* __fmt, ...)
{
__builtin_va_list __args;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87162
--- Comment #5 from Wen Yang ---
(gdb) p *(opt_pass *) 0x2434380
$4 = { = {type = GIMPLE_PASS, name = 0x18530f0 "*tminit",
optinfo_flags = 0, tv_id = TV_TRANS_MEM, properties_required = 40,
properties_provided = 0,
properties_destroyed = 0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87182
Stefan Vigerske changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87212
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I assume the implementation in libstdc++-v3/config/locale/generic/c_locale.h is
used for HPUX, so one of these is returning an error, which we then use as
__len:
#if _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDIO
const int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87162
--- Comment #4 from Wen Yang ---
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x00929fa1 in calculate_dominance_info (dir=CDI_DOMINATORS) at
../../gcc-6.2.0/gcc/dominance.c:633
633 if (dom_computed[dir_index] == DOM_OK)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And the previous line an alloca call using __len:
_CharT* __ws = static_cast<_CharT*>(__builtin_alloca(sizeof(_CharT)
* __len));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87207
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85646
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||blastrock at free dot fr
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87207
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.0 |7.2.0
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87207
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I can reproduce it with FSF GCC 7.3 and FSF GCC 8.1 but not with FSF GCC 8.2 so
it might be a duplicate of another bug that got fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87207
--- Comment #2 from blastrock at free dot fr ---
This seems to be due to this symbol in each .o file:
W
shared::shared(toto()::{lambda()#1}&&)::{lambda()#1}>(toto()::{lambda()#1})::{lambda()#1}::~shared()
It is weak and global,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87213
Bug ID: 87213
Summary: ICE in final_scan_insn_1, at final.c:3070
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87212
Bug ID: 87212
Summary: Declaration with array constructor: Error message on
valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87211
Bug ID: 87211
Summary: gcc ICE at O2: in set_ssa_val_to, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:3628
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
80 matches
Mail list logo
