https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93907
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94132
--- Comment #2 from Amir Ansari ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >Can we make this check more robust so valid usage isn't rejected?
>
> Why do you think it is valid?
Because I know the flexible array member data isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94132
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Can we make this check more robust so valid usage isn't rejected?
Why do you think it is valid?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94133
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
In the first example combine is able to combine:
Trying 13 -> 14:
13: {r96:SI=r103:SI&0x3f;clobber flags:CC;}
REG_DEAD r103:SI
REG_UNUSED flags:CC
14: {r97:TI=r95:TI<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94098
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94124
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94133
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94133
Bug ID: 94133
Summary: GCC loses track of SHIFT optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94132
Bug ID: 94132
Summary: Valid usage of flexible array member failing to
compile
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94131
Bug ID: 94131
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst,
have plus_expr in get_len, at tree.h:5927
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93596
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93901
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94130
Bug ID: 94130
Summary: Unintended result with optimization option when
assigning two structures, memset and 0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94118
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||37188
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #44 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #43)
> GCC on x86-64 uses the binary encoding for the significand.
In general, yes. This includes the 32-bit ABI under Linux. But it seems to be
different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #43 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
Joseph, Vincent, thanks a lot for the crash course in decimal floating-point.
Indeed, quite interesting types. Findings so far: bug 94035, comment 5, bug
94111, bug 94122.
Let me try to summarize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94047
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> Fixed by g:787477a226033e36be3f6d16b71be13dd917e982; I'll add a regression
> test.
Sorry; that should be g:90f7c3007d58c5cb538d00351c038f3f2cfcaf67.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94047
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Fixed by g:787477a226033e36be3f6d16b71be13dd917e982; I'll add a regression
test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94124
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93596
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92096
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92096
--- Comment #5 from Roger Orr ---
Hello Jakub, I've checked; I no longer see this fault.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94124
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
This is a bad interaction between sharing a constructor for an array and
stripping trailing zero-initializers, which is why this test works with
{{{1}}}.
While here you can initialize D from {{}}, you can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93901
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|---
Known to work|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93922
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94129
Bug ID: 94129
Summary: Using almost any openacc !$acc directive causes ICE
"compressed stream: data error"
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94041
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
This turned out to be a long-standing bug with split_nonconstant_init (since
4.7, apparently): initializion of individual elements of an aggregate are not a
full-expressions, but split_nonconstant_init was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94128
Bug ID: 94128
Summary: ICE on C++20 "requires requires" with lambda
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, quite early during LRA we get:
(insn 14 13 18 3 (set (reg:DI 9 %o1)
(zero_extend:DI (subreg:SI (mem/c:V8QI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 101 %sfp)
(const_int -8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94127
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Well it comes before the #include for sys2.h so affects that, but you're right
it shouldn't affect a header that isn't being included by sys.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94127
--- Comment #2 from Aleksey Covacevice ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I think it's intended.
>
> You should put the pragma after including other headers if you don't want
> them to be affected.
What does the pragma have to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94123
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm. This test case did fail previously and was reported in pr91797 but that
was marked as fixed although the patch for that actually didn't change this
particular test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94127
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it's intended.
You should put the pragma after including other headers if you don't want them
to be affected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94127
Bug ID: 94127
Summary: #pragma system_header marks unrelated files as system
headers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems it is the ldist pass, which fails to figure out that k[c+3] load in the
loop might alias with the k[c+1] = 0; store and moves all the 3 stores into a
memset after the loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94120
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch for Fortran:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/current/541774.html
Todo: C (see attachment 48012) and C++ (patch) + testcases for both.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code at -O3 on|[9/10 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94126
Bug ID: 94126
Summary: [concepts] suboptimal diagnostic when type after
substitution is ill-formed
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: qrzhang at gatech dot edu
Target Milestone: ---
It appears to be a regression in 9. Gcc-8.3 works fine.
Bisection points to g:8f70fdc31a7b0099e7322d0aba94830fb08f4c88
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 10.0.1 20200310
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason that the non-lowpart subreg is allowed here is:
sparc_regmode_natural_size (machine_mode mode)
which returns for MODE_VECTOR_INT modes 4 rather than UNITS_PER_WORD (and for
MODE_FLOAT too).
IRA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #28 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #21)
> Created attachment 46102 [details]
> fix g++ problem with sqrt(z) where z is complex and imag(z) = -0
This one assumes copysign is valid for arguments of type _Tp,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94112
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That would likely be far too noisy for use 99% of the time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94112
--- Comment #2 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> Confirmed with the output below. -Wterminate is fully implemented in the
> C++ front-end so it doesn't know about what might happen in called
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94124
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94121
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the difference on the reduced testcase between success (first) and hang
(second) is:
(insn 10 16 21 3 (set (reg/v:DI 117 [ hl_ ])
(subreg:DI (reg/v:V8QI 114 [ v ]) 0)) "ultrasp13.c":19:105
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94112
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not in stage 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
richi's change basically on the testcase just changed 6 times in the function:
hl_.v_ = a11_334;
- accvhi4__777 = hl_.hilo_.hi_;
- accvlo4__778 = hl_.hilo_.lo_;
+ _612 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
+ _613 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94124
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-10
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94124
Bug ID: 94124
Summary: [10 Regression] conversion from ‘’ to ‘F’ is ambiguous since
r10-6388-ge98ebda074bf8fc5
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #47 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #46)
> Thank you very much for that new testcase! I wish I had it before :-)
Do you mean /tmp/reduced.ii ? Note that it's already mentioned in c#14.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #46 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Thank you very much for that new testcase! I wish I had it before :-)
Yesterday I found the problem. It is in separate shrink-wrapping. The
fix is probably simple; hang on :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93895
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93895
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94123
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94123
Bug ID: 94123
Summary: [10 regression] r10-7093 causes
gcc.target/powerpc/pr87507.c to fail
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That IMHO just made a latent issue no longer latent.
I'd say it is either a LRA issue or some backend issue related to RA, on a
relatively short function LRA shouldn't take hours.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, I'll test a patch with abs_hwi in both spots then. There will be an
assertion in there that it is not INT64_MIN.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
> So I think we instead should use abs_hwi (or absu_hwi, depending on if the
> most negative value can appear or not) instead of std::abs or abs in
> value-prof.c.
No, the counter can never be INT64_MIN.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Umm, the issue was bisected to a sccvn change, so I'm not sure why is landing
on Vlad. Richi or someone familiar with SCCVN needs to take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94120
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 48012
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48012=edit
Draft patch for C and Fortran, C++ is missing!
NOTE: A similar Fortran test case currently fails with:
Error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
--- Comment #12 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
Created attachment 48011
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48011=edit
Preprocessed value-prof.c for the failure case on FreeBSD 11/i386
(I've been struggling to create the preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
Alexander Cherepanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94122
Bug ID: 94122
Summary: Wrong optimization: reading value of a decimal FP
variable changes its representation for optimizer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94121
--- Comment #1 from Zekun Li ---
Created attachment 48010
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48010=edit
[PATCH PR94121] fix ICE on aarch64 in abs_hwi, at hwint.h:324
This is a fix tring to solve the problem.
With this fix,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94121
Bug ID: 94121
Summary: ICE on aarch64-linux-gnu: in abs_hwi, at hwint.h:324
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92096
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94120
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94106
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh we have more occurrences of it in libstdc++, e.g. in split_view
friend constexpr decltype(auto)
iter_move(const _InnerIter& __i) noexcept(noexcept(__iter_move()))
{ return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94111
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48009=edit
gcc10-pr94111.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94120
Bug ID: 94120
Summary: [OpenACC] ICE in gimplify_adjust_omp_clauses_1 for
'declare' for variable outside scope
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #0)
> filing a separate issue to fix libstdc++
Fixed in r10-7103-gc222eabcf8be0e3f644e4bd4c3316b40dba4b514
libstdc++: Fix invalid noexcept-specifier (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93781
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, 7.x is not supported anymore. If this is going to be changed, it would
be for GCC 11, different source file, different routine...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93781
--- Comment #5 from vfdff ---
Created attachment 48008
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48008=edit
patch base on gcc 7.3, additional for 1st testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe not, as it doesn't seem to be a regression, it has never been rejected
(at least not in anything since r20 I've tried).
clang++ rejects with
exception specification is not available until end of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94119
Bug ID: 94119
Summary: MIPS: Invalid use of branch delay slots leading to
corrupt jump
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94118
Bug ID: 94118
Summary: Undocumented inline assembly [target] operand
modifiers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94117
Bug ID: 94117
Summary: non-dependent expr treated as-if dependent
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Status|NEW
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
