https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964
Bug ID: 97964
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Chris Clayton from comment #4)
> I've done a few more builds of snapshot releases of gcc-11. Using with
> gcc-10-20201122, I get the ICE building 11-2020115, but 11-20201108 and
> 20201101 both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #13 from Arseny Solokha ---
The testcase in comment 6 still ICEs when compiled w/ -m32:
% powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-11.0.0 -m32 -c wqugxu8a.c
wqugxu8a.c: In function 'test0':
wqugxu8a.c:8:1: error: insn does not satisfy its
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #12 from Arseny Solokha ---
*** Bug 97963 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97963
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97963
Bug ID: 97963
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached,
at recog.c:2228 (error: insn does not satisfy its
constraints)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97849
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97849
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Prathamesh Kulkarni
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5700973f4a30762b4fc21687bb5f7843e55da2e4
commit r11-5268-g5700973f4a30762b4fc21687bb5f7843e55da2e4
Author: Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 97840, which changed state.
Bug 97840 Summary: [11 regression] Bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97931
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97867
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The backtrace from test-combination.c.exe shows the SEGV does happen in
thunk_info::release (). Ditto for test-functions.c.exe.
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x75d74153 in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95630
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95630
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed431431e069b59a1cfdd877134873248d8c93a6
commit r11-5265-ged431431e069b59a1cfdd877134873248d8c93a6
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #4 from Chris Clayton ---
I've done a few more builds of snapshot releases of gcc-11. Using with
gcc-10-20201122, I get the ICE building 11-2020115, but 11-20201108 and
20201101 both build successfully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
--- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to SRINATH PARVATHANENI from comment #15)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #14)
> > fixed on trunk.
>
> Thanks Bernd for fixing this on trunk, would you mind backporting this to
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97943
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
I think we should reject trying to clear the padding of a flexible/zero-length
array, with error rather than sorry. And handle an array at the end of a
struct like any other array. Nobody should be using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97951
David Tellenbach changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh, and I think the cout calls just slow things down and introduce some
serialization (in stdio) so that the threads run concurrently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97962
Bug ID: 97962
Summary: [10/11] ICE in build_over_call, at cp/call.c:8976
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This isn't specific to mingw, it's a bug in the std::call_once implementation
for non-TLS targets. t2 runs outerDoOnce() and tries to acquire a mutex lock
before running innerDoOnce(), but that mutex is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49613|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Comment on attachment 49613
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49613
gcc11-pr97950.patch
>+(define_insn_and_split "*setcc_hi_1"
>+ [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand" "=q")
>+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97927
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't reproduce with 20201005 10 branch or current trunk.
The 10 branch changed tree-nested.c e.g. in r10-8663, but I don't really see
any linear, lastprivate or reduction clauses in this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97954
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97947
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
We crash here
1143 /* Come here only for aggregates: records, arrays, unions, complex
numbers
1144 and vectors. */
1145 gcc_assert (code == ARRAY_TYPE
1146 || VECTOR_TYPE_P (type)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97955
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97956
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0
Summary|[11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97947
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97957
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-23
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
--- Comment #2 from denis.campredon at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for your fast patch. I've opened PR97961 for the __int128 problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97961
Bug ID: 97961
Summary: unnecessary moves with __builtin_{add,sub}_overflow_p
and __int128
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
C testcase:
const int *c(const int *p, const int *q)
{
if (*p < *q)
return q;
return p;
}
short a[575];
unsigned b[25];
unsigned char g;
int main()
{
for (int e = 0; e < 23; ++e)
a[e * 23] =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97958
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
Bug ID: 97960
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] Wrong code at -O3 since
r8-6511-g3ae129323d
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97959
Bug ID: 97959
Summary: Random FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/save-temps
c_lto_save-temps_0.o-c_lto_save-temps_0.o link, -O
-flto -save-temps
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96272
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It shouldn't be added to match.pd, the check as written in the source is
certainly better for other optimization passes.
For PR95853 I've added recently a widening_mul (i.e. very late pass, almost
before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97958
Bug ID: 97958
Summary: ICE in build2, at tree.c:4868
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67791
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Crash using std::thread and |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97957
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Another similar situation :
$ cat z2.c
typedef long __gcc_host_wide_int__;
typedef long __gcc_host_wide_int__;
__attribute__ ((__format__ (__asm_fprintf__, 1, 2)))
void f () {}
$ gcc-11-20201122 -c z2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97957
Bug ID: 97957
Summary: ICE in init_dynamic_diag_info, at
c-family/c-format.c:5024
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97956
Bug ID: 97956
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in build2, at tree.c:4872
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97955
Bug ID: 97955
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in build_array_type_1, at
tree.c:8264
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97954
Bug ID: 97954
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at
dwarf2cfi.c:2360
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97948
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97948
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd62daea40e09c1e6d599a6171db6b298d6c362e
commit r11-5255-gfd62daea40e09c1e6d599a6171db6b298d6c362e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60662
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> I'm not sure why this_thread::sleep_for (which just calls nanosleep) causes
> libpthread.so to get linked in, but ldd shows that there is a libpthread.so
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97948
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95038
--- Comment #5 from Bill Long ---
Original submitter asking for a fixed-in version number.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89714
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That wouldn't help when people link directly with -lpthread rather than
-pthread. _REENTRANT is not required for pthreads, so I don't think we should
depend on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97928
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97951
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #2 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 49612
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49612=edit
Full build log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #1 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 49611
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49611=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97933
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Started with r11-5034-g253c415a1acba50711c82693426391743ac18040
Sorry for causing this error. It is clearly my mistake. I've started to work
on this. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
Bug ID: 97953
Summary: ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling
libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97928
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97952
--- Comment #1 from eric-gcc at omnifarious dot org ---
Because you might not like Godbolt links, here is the C code:
//---cut here---
/*** core string search routine ***/
typedef char *String;
typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97952
Bug ID: 97952
Summary: Poor optimization of closure-like construct in C++ as
compared to C
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96607
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
Sorry for dropping the ball, I'll get back to it momentarily.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96607
--- Comment #7 from Petr Sumbera ---
Just to confirm that '-fno-delayed-branch' as workaround seems to work (at
least based on provided test case).
Probably better is to modify the code like this:
--- gcc-10.2.0/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97951
Bug ID: 97951
Summary: Template specialization of function template fails for
fixed-sized SVE vector types.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67791
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60662
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
Bug ID: 97950
Summary: Unoptimal code generation with
__builtin_*_overflow{,_p} for short and __int128
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97943
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> value and the expected argument, which while it is passed by value is also
Sorry, meant passed by reference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97943
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, for all the 3 cases __builtin_clear_padding will be called on, i.e. the
constructor of std::atomic for the type, the desired argument passed by value
and the expected argument, which while it is passed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63829
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94996
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97948
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
See also PR81358.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87679
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97941
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Malcomson ---
Hi Akhilesh,
No that's certainly not a known issue -- thanks for reporting it!
I'm having trouble reproducing your issue, do you mind giving a little more
information on your command line and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89714
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Neumann ---
Perhaps the header files could be changed to react to _REENTRANT, as that seems
to be the define that is set by gcc when requesting threading support.
The redundant checks within the shared library are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80992
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think crossconfig.m4 for mingw32* should use GCC_CHECK_TLS too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80992
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96734
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
All right, I have a reduced test-case (with the failing stage1 compiler):
$ cat method.ii
typedef union tree_node *tree;
struct tree_typed {
tree type;
};
struct tree_type_non_common {
tree lang_1;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97944
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|10.2.1
--- Comment #1 from Christophe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
Bug ID: 97949
Summary: Recursive calls of std::call_once together with cout
leads to deadlock under mingw64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97948
Bug ID: 97948
Summary: C++2a synchronization tests fail to link on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97947
Bug ID: 97947
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in digest_init_r, at
cp/typeck2.c:1145
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326
>
> --- Comment #10 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Even we could optimize fabs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89714
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
-D_GLIBCXX_GTHREAD_USE_WEAK=0 appears to work, but is not officially supported.
It also only affects the code in the libstdc++ headers, not the code inside
libstdc++.so that checks __gthread_active_p.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97946
Bug ID: 97946
Summary: passing templated function without template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97362
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97944
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Victor Mataré from comment #10)
> OK, thanks for the clarification. But I feel I need to point out that that's
> just a huge WTF. How is a C++ dev supposed to know from the standard docs
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97945
Bug ID: 97945
Summary: undefined reference err when a function defined inline
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97943
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
