https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95456
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95490
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48664=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95490
Bug ID: 95490
Summary: [10/11 Regression] writing 1 byte into a region of
size 0 [-Wstringop-overflow=] since
r10-5451-gef29b12cfbb4979a89b3cbadbf485a77c8fd8fce
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
--- Comment #2 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
That commit added the feature I'm trying to use. I'd hope it's valid, or at
least with this other constructor added: `constexpr X(U) {}`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: verify_gimple failed |[10/11 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95483
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95489
Bug ID: 95489
Summary: Failure to optimize x && (x & y) to x & y
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95252
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Kito Cheng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95488
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
I think it's this TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (REG_EXPR (op1))).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53979
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95488
Bug ID: 95488
Summary: Suboptimal multiplication codegen for v16qi
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95058
--- Comment #10 from Bill Seurer ---
There is still one that is failing:
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=vect.exp=gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr68892.c
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr68892.c scan-tree-dump slp2 "not profitable"
XPASS:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95468
--- Comment #1 from kab at acm dot org ---
This was labeled as "ice-on-invalid-code". Am I missing something? I don't
see anything invalid here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
Bug ID: 95487
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: invalid vector types
in nop conversion) with -O3 -march=skylake-avx512
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
--- Comment #16 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
For -O3 it is okay, but for -O2 this is questionable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Dávid Bolvanský from comment #14)
> Since 10.1, gcc does crazy things with bloaty codegen for this case
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/Qb3yHZ
It is called recursive inlining. Not really bloated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86133
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949
Dávid Bolvanský changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71012
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57872
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51905
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49854
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The powerpcspe backend has been deprecated in GCC 8 and removed during GCC 9
development. See corresponding mailing list threads[1,2,3] for details.
[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47977
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47856
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37760
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37759
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The powerpcspe backend has been deprecated in GCC 8 and removed during GCC 9
development. See corresponding mailing list threads[1,2,3] for details.
[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30370
Bug 30370 depends on bug 30259, which changed state.
Bug 30259 Summary: ICE on valid code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30259
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30259
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19490
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
Bug ID: 95486
Summary: ICE for alias CTAD with non-dependent argument and
constrained constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95426
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95426
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44564c4c811f4751daf363ca019a9f9bed702f4f
commit r11-839-g44564c4c811f4751daf363ca019a9f9bed702f4f
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95236
--- Comment #1 from julian at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 20 May 2020 10:42:23 +
"tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95236
>
> Bug ID: 95236
>Summary: OMP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #29 from Andrew Downing ---
So I think this sort of equivalent example in C shows what's going wrong in the
C++ example. https://godbolt.org/z/ZMz4Cp
gcc knows that if the object mem points to is modified inside pun() its
effective
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84553
--- Comment #7 from Jim Wilson ---
I was ia64 maintainer when I wrote the patch, but couldn't test it. I'm not
the ia64 maintainer anymore. I suggest asking the current ia64 maintainer.
Though, oops, I see we don't have one listed in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
Bug ID: 95485
Summary: missing warning writing into function text
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95193
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b68cb38ddca37a14a6f2f43de3a6d396ee1bc79
commit r11-838-g4b68cb38ddca37a14a6f2f43de3a6d396ee1bc79
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #28 from Andrew Downing ---
Hey that's cheating, but yea the second part did it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95484
Bug ID: 95484
Summary: Friend declaration of member function template has no
effect
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95050
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:324276ff9b1aa5128e5cb9f5d43182d1ebab0752
commit r11-835-g324276ff9b1aa5128e5cb9f5d43182d1ebab0752
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On June 2, 2020 6:34:12 PM GMT+02:00, andrew2085 at gmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
>
>--- Comment #25 from Andrew Downing ---
>Do you know how to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On June 2, 2020 6:55:21 PM GMT+02:00, skpgkp2 at gmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
>
>--- Comment #14 from Sunil Pandey ---
>Created attachment 48662
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95471
--- Comment #2 from Evan Nemerson ---
In that case shouldn't the header be adjusted to not define the vrndvq_f32
function unless it is enabled?
It is already guarded by a check for __ARM_ARCH >= 8 (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #24 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
with the patch added to gcc11, I tested it with the small testing case, and got
the following data:
**without the patch:
qinzhao@gcc14:~/Bugs/profile/small_gcc/gcc_prof_dir/13248$ ls -l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95483
Bug ID: 95483
Summary: [i386] Missing SIMD functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95459
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90102
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95459
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2672dd630c81513e08829adc63294ffeedf5693
commit r11-833-gb2672dd630c81513e08829adc63294ffeedf5693
Author: Fei Yang
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90102
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eca833b81289438ec5ae3ed4c77ffb49cfb65f34
commit r11-832-geca833b81289438ec5ae3ed4c77ffb49cfb65f34
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95347
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-02
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49854
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please *NEVER* close bugs for things you are not the maintainer for.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95481
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
That the issue goes away when templates are not involved seems an useful hint:
are we trying to optimize too early?
Sorry, for the time being I don't feel like assigning the bug to me, I'm in the
middle of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95482
Bug ID: 95482
Summary: Feature request: add -gsplit-dwarf=single
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95481
Bug ID: 95481
Summary: Failure to optimize infinite recursion for struct
types
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #14 from Sunil Pandey ---
Created attachment 48662
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48662=edit
Add target hook to skip alignment check for long long on x86 with -m32 and
-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2
Bootstrap and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Downing ---
I mean without modifying the definition of start_lifetime_as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Downing ---
Do you know how to change that example so that gcc's knowledge is incomplete
and it not longer does the correct thing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95347
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aaron Sawdey :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85bce484d37fdda9c7eadb9bdcdb1ded891462bb
commit r11-830-g85bce484d37fdda9c7eadb9bdcdb1ded891462bb
Author: Aaron Sawdey
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, andrew2085 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
>
> --- Comment #23 from Andrew Downing ---
> But gcc already can implement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95461
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 95473 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95473
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Downing ---
But gcc already can implement std::start_lifetime_as with no overhead.
https://godbolt.org/z/YdoEcH
My intent wasn't to draw attention to std::start_lifetime_as in this bug
report, I only mentioned it as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95469
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
AIX build is happier with the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95426
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
Looks like the way libgccjit sets up attributes (such as "noreturn") on
builtins has somehow become a no-op. Am investigating.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48661
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48661=edit
Patch candidate
@David: Can you please test the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95474
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Hopefully this year. What you can do in the meantime is
auto *mydata = data;
and use mydata instead of data.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
I have a patch candidate and I know the root cause of the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95474
--- Comment #4 from Ye Luo ---
Thanks. Hopefully this part of 5.0 feature will be implemented in the near
future.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
The references only occur when compiling without optimization during stage1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
Demangling the function names in the assembly output
gcov_counter_add(long long*, long long, int)
...
bl .__atomic_fetch_add_8
gcov_counter_set_if_null(long long*, gcov_kvp*, int)
...
bl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
$ nm -BCpg libgcov-merge-tool.o | grep _8
- U .__atomic_fetch_add_8
- U .__sync_val_compare_and_swap_8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95480
Bug ID: 95480
Summary: GCOV change breaks AIX build
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49854
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95474
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
4.0 had a clear
"A variable that is part of another variable (such as a field of a structure)
but is not an array element or an array section cannot appear in a map clause."
restriction, this has been lifted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95474
--- Comment #2 from Ye Luo ---
@jakub could you mention which page and line in 4.5 spec this code violates?
https://www.openmp.org/wp-content/uploads/OpenMP-API-Specification-5.0.pdf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95467
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95467
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Applencorut ---
Yes, it's indeed working. It's because I made a typo in the reproducer. I
Didn't copy the version who produce the ICE (should have been !$OMP END TARGET
PARALLEL and not !$OMP END PARALLEL). Sorry about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95479
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95479
Bug ID: 95479
Summary: ICE in convert_move, at expr.c:271
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95478
Bug ID: 95478
Summary: CPP stack pointer SP is 0x5d but assembly shows
__SP_L_ at 0x3d (target AVR MEGA2560)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
>
> --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> > (In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95477
Bug ID: 95477
Summary: [coroutines] coroutine result object not properly
freed
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
>
> > > The i386 psABI specifies 4 byte alignment for long long. But we want to
> > > use 8 byte alignment if there is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93154
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92633
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
*** Bug 93154 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92633
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||db0451 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93152
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
