https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92312
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88337
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Sidecast now works too:
struct A {
virtual void afn () {}
};
struct B {
virtual void bfn () {}
};
struct D : A, B { };
constexpr bool
fn ()
{
bool ok = true;
D d;
A *a =
if (B *bp =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92206
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||TonyELewis at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92313
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92313
--- Comment #2 from Tony E Lewis ---
Ah yes - that looks pretty likely. Sorry, I didn't spot that one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92313
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92313
Bug ID: 92313
Summary: Regression: ICE since 9.2 for templates derived from
range-v3 code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92311
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Also, looking at that testcase, that doesn't look valid even in OpenMP 5.0.
It is using use_device_ptr on an non-associated pointer, from that one gets a
device pointer, but then it associates it with host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87181
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Keith.S.Thompson at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel at hebirobotics dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69665
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92311
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92312
Bug ID: 92312
Summary: bogus -Wstringop-overflow storing into a trailing
array backed by larger buffer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92312
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
> Yes, but since
> (A - B) - C = A - B - C = A - C - B = (A - C) - B
> we can clearly swap the order of the two RHS operands here.
My intent was to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92311
Bug ID: 92311
Summary: Fortran and OpenMP use_device_ptr and OpenACC
attach_ptr/dettach_ptr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92310
Bug ID: 92310
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/vect/vect-epilogues.c introduced
in r277659 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92309
Bug ID: 92309
Summary: Assignment to anonymous union member corrupts sibling
members in struct
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92287
--- Comment #9 from gnzlbg ---
> sparc is another, for example. And or1k, too.
Yeah, I was wrong. x86/x64, arm32/64, aarch64, riscv, ppc64, mips64, ... are
some of the ABIs that do not have any of these issues because they special case
"all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92287
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to gnzlbg from comment #7)
> > Note that the situation for zero-sized structs isn't very clear in
> > most ABIs, these included.
>
> This is incorrect: zero-sized types are well-defined and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There are 222 stops in there. Is there an easy way I can catch any of them
that fire? Just running in gdb shows this spawns a bunch of threads and it
looks like one of them is what is stopping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|7.5
Summary|[10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 31 17:38:44 2019
New Revision: 277685
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277685=gcc=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/92296
* internal.h (struct def_pragma_macro): Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Things go wrong in the forward-prop 1 pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92308
Bug ID: 92308
Summary: Gimple passes could do a better job of forming address
CSEs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Simplified a bit more:
$ cat /tmp/vect.c
unsigned int m;
#define N 128
unsigned int a[N];
unsigned int
__attribute__((noipa))
df_count_refs (bool include_defs)
{
int size = 0;
for (unsigned int regno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92307
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Even easier, use the following self-contained test-case:
$ cat /tmp/vect.c
unsigned int m;
struct df_reg_info
{
unsigned int n_regs;
};
#define N 128
struct df_reg_info a[N];
unsigned int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
--- Comment #13 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Ugh!
What to do next?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
--- Comment #14 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Created attachment 47151
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47151=edit
attachment-104715-1.eml
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
JD changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92284
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 31 16:37:55 2019
New Revision: 277679
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277679=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/92284
* gfortran.dg/bind_c_array_params_3_aux.c: Include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92307
Bug ID: 92307
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on a memcpy into an array
with out-of-bounds variable offset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89427
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 89427, which changed state.
Bug 89427 Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on a MEM_REF of array plus offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89427
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81883
--- Comment #3 from JD ---
and using --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81883
JD changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 47149
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47149=edit
double64-6.diff: Support --with-double={|32|64|32,64|64,32}
--with-long-double={|32|64|32,64|64,32,double}
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Easier way how to bisect that is to use only these dbg-cnt options:
-O3 -march=haswell -fdbg-cnt=vect_slp:0 -fdbg-cnt=vect_loop:3
which is first bad, vect_loop:2 is fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
--- Comment #6 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
I can confirm that my problem is not fixed by the patch from this PR. Do you
want me to open a new issue or will this be reopened?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Hannes Hauswedell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||h2+bugs at fsfe dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92306
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92304
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92306
--- Comment #1 from A Guy ---
Created attachment 47147
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47147=edit
this is the pre processed output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92306
Bug ID: 92306
Summary: stringize linux cut off the word
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> 3) build df-scan.o with -O3 -march=skylake
same happens for -march=haswell.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47145
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47145=edit
Reproduce patch
Ok, steps to reproduce that:
1) install latest GCC trunk and use it as compiler
2) apply the patch
3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> As you could nail it down to a single commit, I assume, you could reproduce
> the problem – still, I am completely lost why it fails for you at -O0. Can
> you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
One can reproduce that by using df-scan.o from stage2 and libgcc ICEs with -g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Technically, this patch only adds '{ dg-do run }' which has the effect that the
code is not only run once but multiple times with different compiler options
(-O1, -O2 etc.).
Your code fails to execute with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
Bug ID: 92305
Summary: [10 regression] libgomp.fortran/use_device_addr-1.f90
fails starting with r277606
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92304
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
> Then if X = 0 we should expect an exception triggered at runtime, as we have
> for example for 1 / 0.
No undefined does not mean trap at runtime, it means anything can happen ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92302
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77328
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The GCC 10 output looks almost correct. I think two things should change:
1) the warning should underline the directive (like the second note), not
the whole format string
2) the second note should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88339
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yeah, I already noticed that :-)
I have some more changes locally too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88339
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-// std::initializer_list support -*- C++ -*-
+// Three-way comparison support -*- C++ -*-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89022
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88322
Bug 88322 depends on bug 89022, which changed state.
Bug 89022 Summary: Implement P0202R3 - C++20 Constexpr Modifiers to Functions
in and Headers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89022
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92304
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92304
Bug ID: 92304
Summary: [10 regression] r277615 causes ICE compiling
gcc.target/powerpc/p9-splat-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
Bug ID: 92303
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.target/sparc/ultrasp12.c times out
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
Andrew Sutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92302
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92302
Bug ID: 92302
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.target/sparc/sparc-ret-3.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Oct 31 13:17:48 2019
New Revision: 277667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277667=gcc=rev
Log:
Remove PR 92268 workaround and fix new test failures
With the compiler bug fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Luca Rocca from comment #2)
> Consider also for comparison the approach of GCC up to gcc-6.4.0,
> reading this comment from the corresponding file gcc-6.4.0/gcc/match.pd:
>
> /* Make sure to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 92299 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92299
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 92298 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92298
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92299
Luca Rocca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92298
Luca Rocca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
Luca Rocca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84194
Kenman Tsang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kentsangkm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #8 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> Using the non-standard packed attribute already makes the code non-portable.
It may be non-standard, but its still portable
as long as all compilers agree on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92300
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Antonio Di Monaco from comment #2)
> Well, I tried, but nothing changes.
>
> assert(a.insert(std::make_pair< const int, int >(1, 1)).second);
> assert(a.insert(std::make_pair< const int,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes those tests exercise some weird, contrived corner cases. I messed some up
and will fix them (and remove my workaround for this bug - thanks!)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kenman Tsang from comment #6)
> Sorry for bring this topic back again.
That's OK, the bug is still open.
> But I think there are some
> inconsistancy with the std::is_pod and the error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
As for 'special' regs and their ordering, I'm not sure. I would suggest that
if we have a commutative operation with two registers and one of the registers
is marked as a pointer, then it should appear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #0)
>
> > Failed to match this instruction:
> > (set (reg:SI 125 [+4 ])
> > (minus:SI (minus:SI (reg:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92300
--- Comment #2 from Antonio Di Monaco ---
Well, I tried, but nothing changes.
assert(a.insert(std::make_pair< const int, int >(1, 1)).second);
assert(a.insert(std::make_pair< const int, int >(2, 2)).second);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92300
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92301
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91272
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92231
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92284
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Oct 31 10:12:55 2019
New Revision: 277663
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277663=gcc=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR92284 – gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc fixes
gcc/fortran/
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92277
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Oct 31 10:06:19 2019
New Revision: 277661
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277661=gcc=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR92277 - Fix assumed-rank array with bind(C)
gcc/fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92231
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 31 10:04:47 2019
New Revision: 277660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277660=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92231
* tree.h (fndecl_built_in_p): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92295
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 47143
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47143=edit
This patch can fix this issue
In ix86_expand_vector_init_concat, vector are initialized per 2 elements,
that's why it
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
