https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
--- Comment #15 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm. I've gone over this code 2 or 3 times now, and I'm still convinced the
problem is in the alias analysis, not the scheduler.
I've stepped deeper into the code in the debugger, and here is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94488
--- Comment #3 from Evan Nemerson ---
Thanks for looking into this.
Left shift instead of right also seems to be a problem. The backtrace is a bit
different, but I figure it's probably the same issue; if not I can open up a
new report.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #30 from David Edelsohn ---
Yes, I can reproduce the error, but it only occurs when -bsvr4 is used. Have
you looked at what -bsvr4 enables in the ld man page? Not just the -R comment.
-brtl -brtllib -bexpfull
-R, instead of being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87252
--- Comment #8 from Abrahm Scully ---
I don't think anything is wrong with gcc-10-20200329. The code looks fine.
I realized later that the versions of gcc I mentioned where I don't see this
problem are all from release branches. As described in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93597
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93597
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6db837a5288ee3ca5ec504fbd5a765817e556ac2
commit r9-8456-g6db837a5288ee3ca5ec504fbd5a765817e556ac2
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94419
Uriy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48205|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94419
--- Comment #3 from Uriy ---
Created attachment 48205
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48205=edit
example code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94419
--- Comment #2 from Uriy ---
Thank you for reply.
Recently I test gcc 9.3.0 and it report some errors in the example code. But I
modify it slightly and it works with no errors.
I think the code is enough clear to see what exact clauses RM are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
Evan Nemerson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48193|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35968
Anders Kaseorg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andersk at mit dot edu
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #7 from Evan Nemerson ---
Created attachment 48203
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48203=edit
Non-reduced test case
Thanks for looking into this.
ASan didn't have any issues with the original, non-reduced test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94493
--- Comment #4 from Kurt Jaeger ---
Created attachment 48202
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48202=edit
The source code
As described, it crashes very early in the compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94493
--- Comment #3 from Kurt Jaeger ---
g++9 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++9
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc9/gcc/x86_64-portbld-freebsd13.0/9.3.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-portbld-freebsd13.0
Configured with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94493
--- Comment #2 from Kurt Jaeger ---
An attempt to produce a reduced test case failed.
Even commenting the first line of of the first include in engine_context.cpp
cause a crash.
FreeBSD version:
FreeBSD fc.opsec.eu 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94493
--- Comment #1 from Kurt Jaeger ---
Created attachment 48201
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48201=edit
the compile script
The compile script
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94493
Bug ID: 94493
Summary: FreeBSD-ports lang/gcc9 (9.3.0) on FreeBSD 13 crash if
building ftp/filezilla
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94492
Bug ID: 94492
Summary: no way to silence -Wdeprecated-copy for aggregates
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87252
--- Comment #7 from Abrahm Scully ---
I hit an ICE today that looks like this bug. I attempted to build
gcc-10-20200329 on 32-bit CentOS 6 using g++ 4.4.7-23.el6. I don't see this bug
building gcc-6.3, gcc-7.3, gcc-8.3, or gcc-9-20200118 on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94141
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Ah, maybe the friend function is not quite a template, so the generated swapped
function is not a template either, and thus it has priority over a template if
both are exact matches?
This is going to break a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
But I bet it's invalid code:
$ gcc -fsanitize=undefined pr94482.c -O2 && ./a.out
pr94482.c:14:11: runtime error: index 2 out of bounds for type 'long int [2]'
pr94482.c:14:15: runtime error: store to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94141
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
It looks like clang-10+ also generates an infinite loop on this code. Does the
standard really give priority to some implicit function over a user-defined one
that is an exact match?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94491
Bug ID: 94491
Summary: -g2 debugging level is not documented
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92989
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
25 matches
Mail list logo
