https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97848
Bug ID: 97848
Summary: [missed optimization] tls init function check emitted
for consinit thread_local variables (C++20)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
I forgot to attach the PR number, but I commited the quick fix (to prevent
wrong code) as g:26285af40f98dfdb809b98b08386073c63b65db1
I will discuss the EAF_UNUSED flag today after teaching.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97847
Bug ID: 97847
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in insert_insn_on_edge, at
cfgrtl.c:1976
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97847
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
I remember that first_field was returning non-NULL (perhaps it is derived from
empty base)?
My patch touched nothing on the condition: it just improved the alias analysis.
So while previously we tought that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97845
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97830
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97835
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97845
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97834
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97822
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Koković ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Please specify the exact target
inxi --machine --graphics --cpu --system
System:Host: vlada-kuci Kernel: 5.8.18-1-MANJARO x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop:
KDE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97835
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97834
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97831
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97830
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97827
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||gcn
Version|10.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97825
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Can you please make sure you do not run out of stack space on the host? What's
your host?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97824
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
please specify host and target.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97823
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.2.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |target
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97846
Bug ID: 97846
Summary: No diagnostic for identifier label in constexpr
gunction
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #37 from Kito Cheng ---
Maybe we could add a parameter to indicate the type of memory access,
plain_mem, zext_mem or sext_mem for pass_shorten_memrefs::get_si_mem_base_reg.
e.g.
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97845
Bug ID: 97845
Summary: [11 regression] ICE at gcc/toplev.c:330 after r11-4982
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97844
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97844
Bug ID: 97844
Summary: Unsigned Integer Overflow when comparing strings
(|s1|<|s2|)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning code considers more that just TYPE_EMPTY_P():
/* Avoid warning about empty types such as structs with no members.
The first_field() test is important for C++ where the predicate
alone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #36 from Levy ---
It seems get_si_mem_base_reg() were called repeatly FOR_BB_INSNS from both
pass_shorten_memrefs::analyze and pass_shorten_memrefs::transform
Correct me if I'm wrong:
It seems we need some data structure (a linked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97843
Bug ID: 97843
Summary: Bad code gen when concatenating to array
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97842
Bug ID: 97842
Summary: ice compiling dxml
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
--- Comment #9 from Michael_S ---
Despite what I wrote above, I did took a look at the trunk on godbolt with same
old code from a year ago. Because it was so easy. And indeed a trunk looks ALOT
better.
But until it's released I wouldn't know if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
--- Comment #8 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Michael_S from comment #5)
> > I agree with regard to "other targets", first of all, aarch64, but x86_64
> > variant of gcc already provides requested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
--- Comment #6 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> We could start with the simpler:
>
> void f(unsigned*__restrict__ r,unsigned*__restrict__ s,unsigned a,unsigned
> b,unsigned c, unsigned d){
> *r=a+b;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
Michael_S changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||already5chosen at yahoo dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88101
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49565
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49565=edit
gcc11-pr88101-wip.patch
Fixed/updated patch that includes first testcase and passes it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97589
--- Comment #11 from Toon Moene ---
Created attachment 49564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49564=edit
The full program I am testing.
This is the full program I am testing.
I have compiled it as follows (after building
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
And to explain why warning does not trigger without modref, it is because we
are not able to disambiguate the variable with another function call (since we
think it escapes)
(gdb) p debug_gimple_stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #15 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
I built the tools by hand so I knew what I had...
Dunno about gcc/buildbot policies concerning avr. As avr as a 3ary target, that
BE's quality is of no consideration when releasing the compiler. Again,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Ok, so the warning is triggering when uninitialized memory is passed to
function argument declared as const. This happens here but is false positive
since the parameter is not used at all. This may have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88101
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86252
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 86252, which changed state.
Bug 86252 Summary: Abstract class in function return type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86252
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97841
Bug ID: 97841
Summary: [C++17] is_invocable handling of incomplete return
type is wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
Bug ID: 97840
Summary: [11 regression] Bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97839
Bug ID: 97839
Summary: Template lambda incorrectly requiring the optional
lambda-declarator
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97838
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE at -O3 on |[11 Regression] ICE at -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #14 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #12)
> [...]you'll have to resolve conflicts.
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #13)
> FYI, avrtest is here:
>
gcc version 11.0.0 20201115 (experimental) [master revision
406b452dc0e:d88ff5a679d:faab61b585a8b4a42454f085dd6b7815992a98f5] (GCC)
[531] %
[531] % gcctk -O2 -c small.c
[532] %
[532] % gcctk -O3 -c small.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
small.c: In function ‘f’:
small.c:3:6: internal compiler error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
FYI, avrtest is here:
https://sourceforge.net/p/winavr/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/avrtest/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code at -O1 on|[11 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
Another related test that triggers the miscompilation at -Os, but not -O1:
[621] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[622] %
[622] % gcctk -Os small.c; ./a.out
Aborted
[623] %
[623] % cat small.c
int a;
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97589
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #10 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97837
--- Comment #2 from Björn Fahller ---
Should maybe mention that the code is terribly wrong in so many ways, but the
compiler should still not crash because of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97837
--- Comment #1 from Björn Fahller ---
Created attachment 49561
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49561=edit
Source of failing program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97837
Bug ID: 97837
Summary: ICE on requires with *this in destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
11.0.0 20201115 (experimental) [master revision
406b452dc0e:d88ff5a679d:faab61b585a8b4a42454f085dd6b7815992a98f5] (GCC)
[511] %
[511] % gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
[512] %
[512] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
Aborted
[513] %
[513] % cat small.c
int *a, b;
int *f(int *c) {
b = 0;
return c;
}
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97830
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is:
a;
b() {
((void (*)())b)(a);
b(a);
}
Interestingly, this similar code
int a;
void b() {
((void (*)())b)(a);
b(a);
}
compiles fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97830
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97835
Bug ID: 97835
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
incorrect type of vector CONSTRUCTOR elements)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
66 matches
Mail list logo
