https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96193
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96315
Bug ID: 96315
Summary: internal compiler error with variable size struct and
openmp
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95907
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96314
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reedjosh2626 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95590
--- Comment #1 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In discussion:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/548679.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/550623.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96314
Bug ID: 96314
Summary: ICE in verify_ctor_sanity, at cp/constexpr.c:3870
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
Bug 95237 depends on bug 96192, which changed state.
Bug 96192 Summary: tree-inline.c(copy_decl_for_dup_finish) should preserve decl
alignment in copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96192
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96192
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95645
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07c70c29affe7c6d01ab37cc7bc725fd1351f668
commit r11-2315-g07c70c29affe7c6d01ab37cc7bc725fd1351f668
Author: Sunil K Pandey
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07c70c29affe7c6d01ab37cc7bc725fd1351f668
commit r11-2315-g07c70c29affe7c6d01ab37cc7bc725fd1351f668
Author: Sunil K Pandey
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96192
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07c70c29affe7c6d01ab37cc7bc725fd1351f668
commit r11-2315-g07c70c29affe7c6d01ab37cc7bc725fd1351f668
Author: Sunil K Pandey
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92876
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
And: The ICE occurs for
.data_dep.1_7 = .UNIQUE (OACC_HEAD_MARK, 0, 1, 132);
And then one runs inside expand_UNIQUE into:
switch (kind)
{
default:
gcc_unreachable ();
This one is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96313
Bug ID: 96313
Summary: [AArch64] vqmovun* return types should be unsigned
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92876
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
I believe this code is invalid as "s" is a device routine but it call outside
of 'acc kernels'/'acc parallel' construct. – If one adds either around "call
s()" it no longer ICEs.
Still, even invalid code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96230
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95720
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94867
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
I see this warning with GCC 10.2 and with trunk when using the flags -O
-std=c++14 -Wnull-dereference as well. Should this be marked as a 9/10/11
regression then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95720
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5fa1767aa45e1a927e832ccc09e959d4c8a9548c
commit r11-2311-g5fa1767aa45e1a927e832ccc09e959d4c8a9548c
Author: Alexandre Oliva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96230
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c1b9cb1a83b0d6485d9922ecef097d250a22d830
commit r11-2312-gc1b9cb1a83b0d6485d9922ecef097d250a22d830
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93567
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa7e7eff5ec165dc8463a0e74309801b15d1feda
commit r11-2310-gaa7e7eff5ec165dc8463a0e74309801b15d1feda
Author: Dominique d'Humieres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93592
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05e0971bcf94a481cbfa2731484f024a67dbd4a5
commit r11-2309-g05e0971bcf94a481cbfa2731484f024a67dbd4a5
Author: Dominique d'Humieres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81339
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81339
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:048ba9c02db7ee461abe86a37544fcd4e0cf8858
commit r11-2308-g048ba9c02db7ee461abe86a37544fcd4e0cf8858
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57943
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:048ba9c02db7ee461abe86a37544fcd4e0cf8858
commit r11-2308-g048ba9c02db7ee461abe86a37544fcd4e0cf8858
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96312
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96291
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Peeking at the crash:
"""
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x01ca0fed in has_undead_caller_from_outside_scc_p
(node=0x77670438, data=0x0) at ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-cp.c:5670
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96312
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Let's see what bisection brings.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96312
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96312
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Reallocation on assignment |[10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
--- Comment #22 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #20)
> (In reply to Tiziano Müller from comment #19)
>
> >
> > *** snip: modb.f90 ***
> > module modb
> > use moda, only: funca
> > contains
> >PURE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93733
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
There are two issues:
(1) The standard is not diagnosed at run time.
(2) The standard is not diagnosed at compile time when possible. This is
pr28397.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96312
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Tiziano Müller from comment #19)
> I have yet another (more complicated) case, but this time not reproducible
> with gcc-7.5, only with 9 and 10:
This is a different issue. I have opened PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96312
Bug ID: 96312
Summary: Reallocation on assignment uses undefined variables
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Stubbs ---
I'm loath to enable TImode if it's going to ICE all over the place, and I can't
just drop everything else and implement working TImode unless there's an easy
solution. It's always been on the nice-to-have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96311
Bug ID: 96311
Summary: false positive for -Wunused-but-set-variable
(const/constexpr identifier used in generic lambda)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96310
Bug ID: 96310
Summary: Ignoring Wnonnull via pragma gcc diagnostics still
produces a unwanted note
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #5)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> > The patch in PR 95025 fixes this issue.
>
> PR 96025, I assume.
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95730
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Therefore int128_t does not exist, as far as users are concerned. I'm not
> sure how that translates to the GCC internals, but trying to use TImode for
> anything other than moves is not going to work on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93733
jvdelisle at charter dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at charter dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
Tiziano Müller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dev-zero at gentoo dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96309
Bug ID: 96309
Summary: Substitution failure doesn't propagate through the
typename of a template value parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95750
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c7bb540803e8bff9998bc86806e8a83acc75370
commit r11-2306-g8c7bb540803e8bff9998bc86806e8a83acc75370
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
At least as in-between solution, one could change libgfortran to disable
HAVE_GFC_INTEGER_16 for gcn. — libgfortran exercises a lot of the integer
arithmetics, which we do not need here.
One just needs to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Only by slowing down all 64-bit targets in OpenMP for Fortran by using the
indirection (and make it incompatible with C/C++ too, which is even worse).
I wasn't aware that gcn is BITS_PER_WORD 32 target, that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96291
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95730
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Stubbs ---
In fact default_scalar_mode_supported_p does return *false* for TImode (because
LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE == 64, and BITS_PER_WORD == 32).
Therefore int128_t does not exist, as far as users are concerned. I'm not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Stubbs ---
GCC will automatically generate libgcc calls for types up to 2*BITS_PER_WORD,
but no further. Since BITS_PER_WORD is 32 on GCN this means no automatic TImode
support for anything that would go that route
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93733
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Henlich ---
I think this standard conformity check is only performed at compile-time, and
can only work if the format is defined in a constant.
So, changing the definition to:
character(4), parameter :: fmt="(g0)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95889
Tiziano Müller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.1.0 |10.2.0
Summary|corrupt size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96307
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-24
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96308
Bug ID: 96308
Summary: ICE in s390_cannot_force_const_mem, at
config/s390/s390.c:4153
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96307
Bug ID: 96307
Summary: ICE in sanopt on riscv64 since
r11-2283-g2ca1b6d009b194286c3ec91f9c51cc6b0a475458
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Most targets don't have 128-bit GPR instructions, either none at all, or most
of them. That doesn't mean it isn't easy to support it, for the simpler
operations like basic arithmetics, if there is no optab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96305
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96304
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Stubbs ---
TImode was added for use by a few instructions that take two 64-bit values in
consecutive registers. It's also useful for the SLP fake vectorization stuff.
It wasn't intended for use with user types; I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96304
--- Comment #5 from D. Richard Hipp ---
((In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > But, are we violating aliasing rules here? What am I missing?
>
> Likely you are, but I must admit it's sometimes quite difficult to find that.
> From
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96285
--- Comment #2 from Göran Uddeborg ---
Sure, I'll put it together shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Just as background: While OpenMP uses for C/C++ a typedef for 'omp_depend_t',
which maps to a struct with "char[2*sizeof(*void)]", for Fortran an integer
kind is required by the OpenMP spec.
At least with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unlike non-offloading targets where there is always an option to just use
smaller omp_depend_kind and instead treat it as pointer to malloced struct and
free at the end, like done on some targets for locks,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
Bug ID: 96306
Summary: gcn libgomp build broken after "libomp: Add
omp_depend_kind to omp_lib.{f90,h}"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96304
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > But, are we violating aliasing rules here? What am I missing?
>
> Likely you are, but I must admit it's sometimes quite difficult to find that.
> From
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96302
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96304
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
69 matches
Mail list logo
