https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100866
--- Comment #5 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> This PR is specifically about the vec_revb builtin. But yes, we should
> look at what is generated for all other code (having only the builtin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92249
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
I've been considering nominating this PR as a blocker for PR101057, but cannot
reproduce the ICE w/ gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210613 snapshot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101088
Bug ID: 101088
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in sm_seq_valid_bb, at
tree-ssa-loop-im.c:2383
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82376
José Rui Faustino de Sousa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101020
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101082
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec3fafa9ec7d16b9d89076efd3bac1d1af0502b8
commit r12-1491-gec3fafa9ec7d16b9d89076efd3bac1d1af0502b8
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101082
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec3fafa9ec7d16b9d89076efd3bac1d1af0502b8
commit r12-1491-gec3fafa9ec7d16b9d89076efd3bac1d1af0502b8
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Nadav Har'El changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nyh at math dot technion.ac.il
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087
Bug ID: 101087
Summary: Unevaluated operand of sizeof affects noexcept
operator
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk --enable-languages=c,c++
--disable-werror --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210615 (experimenta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101084
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101082
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, crud. I picked the wrong test case to look at. If I'd searched on
gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c I would have seen that other PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #8 from Fangrui Song ---
I am thinking of __attribute__((no_profile)).
In Clang,
-fprofile-generate(-fcs-profile-generate)/-fprofile-instr-generate/-fprofile-arcs
are all different. It will make sense to have a attribute disabling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100940
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to TC from comment #7)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #6)
> >
> > For the other adaptors, we still unconditionally disable perfect forwarding
> > call wrapper semantics. I'm not sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101082
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101084
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71790f398e119c7fed867b0cfce60a7500629dff
commit r12-1490-g71790f398e119c7fed867b0cfce60a7500629dff
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101066
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101085
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101085
Bug ID: 101085
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_intrinsic_to_class, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:1039
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101084
Bug ID: 101084
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at
fortran/trans-types.c:1124
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101083
Bug ID: 101083
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast in
TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS, at tree.h:3929
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101082
Bug ID: 101082
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c from
r12-1303 fails on BE
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The bisect ended up giving commit e7a3e0c653be4bd32f116dae06438896b7dc915b.
> Reverting it for test purposes in gcc-7/gcc-8 just confirmed it is the
> right trigger.
>
> There's obviously nothing wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101081
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101081
Bug ID: 101081
Summary: analyzer testsuite failures seen with new glibc due to
malloc attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On June 15, 2021 4:27:37 PM GMT+02:00, "alexander.gr...@tu-dresden.de"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
>
>--- Comment #6 from Alexander Grund ---
>Oh and for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On June 15, 2021 4:21:12 PM GMT+02:00, "alexander.gr...@tu-dresden.de"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
>
>--- Comment #5 from Alexander Grund ---
>So am I right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
--- Comment #9 from George Thopas ---
Created attachment 51025
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51025=edit
avoid eliminating fields with different endianess as equal
Short story :
Ran a bisect to find why this always works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101022
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:913b13fcb1dceea0e57a04cb77b11097b132cbf6
commit r12-1483-g913b13fcb1dceea0e57a04cb77b11097b132cbf6
Author: Carl Love
Date: Thu Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Another attempt to fix this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572814.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101078
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Macleod ---
I would imagine there is some check I should be making that i was unaware of..
but since I'm unaware of it, I don't know what it is :-)
This wouldn't be a "dont use -O2" issue, this would be an "Andrew,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #18 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus from comment #17)
> The new testcases introduced by commit d3b1ef7a83c fail on IBM Z as well as
> some older data-model tests:
Sorry about this; it sounds similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Grund ---
Oh and for completeness: The same applies to the following union, doesn't it?
I.e. given this:
struct TF_TString_Raw {
uint8_t raw[24];
};
struct TF_TString_Small {
uint8_t size;
char str[23];
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494
--- Comment #9 from J.M. Eubank ---
> I am unfamiliar with what mitigations/flags the compiler has for trying to
> control this. It would certainly be possible to monitor the call depth and
> cease at a certain point, but Im not sure what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Grund ---
So am I right assuming that the following is basically UB as per GCC (although
it should work as per the standard)?
template
union slot_type {
map_slot_type() {}
~map_slot_type() = delete;
using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101080
Bug ID: 101080
Summary: wrong code with "-O3"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod ---
ah. So this is an issue with excessive stack consumption. yeah, we don't really
try to reign that in, so certain patterns can get quite deep.
I am unfamiliar with what mitigations/flags the compiler has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92568
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92568
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1de31913d20a467b78904c0e96efd5fbd6facd2c
commit r12-1482-g1de31913d20a467b78904c0e96efd5fbd6facd2c
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494
--- Comment #7 from J.M. Eubank ---
Created attachment 51024
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51024=edit
sha1.c.038t.evrp.gz
> Does the compilation not finish? or just take ma very long time? On the
> other targets it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100866
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This PR is specifically about the vec_revb builtin. But yes, we should
look at what is generated for all other code (having only the builtin
generate good code is suboptimal for a generic thing like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
WE collided making comments :-)
--- or maybe not.. that traceback doesn't look like it would be affected :-(.
The traceback also doesn't look like its in an infinite loop?.. there can be
long chains of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494
--- Comment #5 from J.M. Eubank ---
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have made a difference in this case.
x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -O2 -g -D__USE_MINGW_ACCESS -I.
-I/crossdev/src/binutils-git-2_36_1/libiberty/../include -W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101068
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:954c9235297f2e63acacefd448bc5dabe039ea7c
commit r12-1479-g954c9235297f2e63acacefd448bc5dabe039ea7c
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101079
Bug ID: 101079
Summary: [OPENMP] The value of list-item in linear clause in
loop construct is not calculated on each iteration
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 15 Jun 2021, alexander.gr...@tu-dresden.de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
>
> --- Comment #3 from Alexander Grund ---
> You are right, it actually seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101014
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Grund ---
You are right, it actually seems to be the combination of those to, so -O2
-fno-strict-aliasing and -O2 -fno-tree-vrp both make it work.
The layout-compatible refers to the "common initial sequence" that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101078
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101077
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100796
--- Comment #6 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Hi,
Wow, that was quick!
I can't really judge the merit of the patch, but I've picked it on top of the
GCC 11.1.0 tarball and can confirm that it seems to fix all the warnings for
us. Thank you very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101078
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101078
Bug ID: 101078
Summary: [11/12 Regression] Rejected code since
r12-1272-gf07edb5d7f3e7721
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101077
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
OK, xz compressed preprocessed source is too large to attach. Will reduce
later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ceph build fails with |[11/12 Regression] ceph
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101077
Bug ID: 101077
Summary: ceph build fails with access error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100866
--- Comment #3 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/altivec.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/altivec.md
index 097a127be07..35b3f1a0e1a 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/altivec.md
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/altivec.md
@@ -1932,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101046
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:008153c8435ca3bf587e11654c31f05c0f99b43a
commit r12-1448-g008153c8435ca3bf587e11654c31f05c0f99b43a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100866
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101062
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Created attachment 51023 [details]
> gcc12-pr101062.patch
>
> Untested fix for this in stor-layout.c.
LGTM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101062
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101062
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 15 Jun 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101062
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83129
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51022
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51022=edit
other ineffective prototype
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83129
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101074
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51021
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51021=edit
prototype patch for VN
ineffective prototype patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101074
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101062
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Now, it looks to me this is rather an issue that the access is larger than
> the object and thus a general bug - at least I don't see how it should only
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefansf at linux dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101073
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101072
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101066
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101062
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6)
> > Does Ada allow bitfields in unions and if yes, what does it want for those?
>
> Yes, it does, and I don't think there is any specific need so the default
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
If it is related to those union accesses then it should have nothing to do with
-ftree-vrp but it should vanish with -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing at least.
Note we do not implement any of "layout compatible"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101072
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101066
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong code after fixup_cfg3 |[10/11/12 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101076
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101065
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101076
--- Comment #4 from Coco Wang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This sounds like a rsicv backend issue really ...
I think the key is the subreg, the reason why x86_64 and aarch64 have no
problems is that subreg does not appear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101014
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Should be fixed with:
commit ecc5644fa3bc7f37eada2a3e9c627cd1918922e0
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date: Mon Jun 14 15:33:59 2021 -0400
Limit new value calculations to first order effects.
When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101076
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101076
--- Comment #2 from Coco Wang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> What target is this for?
> For both x86_64 and aarch64 we have both shifts in SI mode so we don't end
> up with problem.
> We get the following RTL for aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3507
Ivan Sorokin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101076
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-15
Ever confirmed|0
90 matches
Mail list logo
