https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103360
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-22
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103360
Bug ID: 103360
Summary: [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Waddress
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
GCC 12 (and prior, down to 10) warns for the test case:
$ cat pr78989.ii && gcc -S -Wall pr78989.ii
int
asan_poison_variables ()
{
return (asan_poison_variables &&
# 6 "gimplify.cpp" 3 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103355
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Mine, but I'll just use Jon's patch.
That's a reasonable solution for me ;)
%eax
callfoo
xorl%eax, %eax
popq%rdx
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
gcc-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211122 (experime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103355
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103238
--- Comment #4 from Will Wray ---
First cut implementation in two patches, submitted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/585105.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103168
--- Comment #12 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> unsigned p;
> unsigned __attribute__((noinline)) test (void)
> {
> return p;
> }
>
> modref analyzing 'test' (ipa=0) (pure)
> - Analyzing load: p
>- Recording base_set=0 ref_set=0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103168
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
And interestingly for
unsigned p;
unsigned __attribute__((noinline)) test (void)
{
return p;
}
I do not get any modref summary!?
;; Function test (test, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1979, cgraph_uid=1,
symb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103168
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51847
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51847&action=edit
patch
Looks like I have to exclude summary->global_memory_read since otherwise a
trivial testcase like the f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103335
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||103282
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100937
--- Comment #10 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #7)
> The toolchain might not be ELF-specific, but
> on targets that *do* use ELF, of course the ELF speci
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103168
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> so indeed that's an issue. So it's a bug fixed, not an optimization
> regression.
I know, but the bug was fixed in unnecesarily generous way preventing a
lot of valid tranforms (esnetiall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103168
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103358
Bug ID: 103358
Summary: what is the first constructor argument of lambda
coroutine promise_type?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103357
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Oh, got it, thanks for the explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103357
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103357
--- Comment #2 from Arnaud Charlet ---
If you mean that you are building version X of gcc version version Y (newer
than X) of gcc/gnat, then this is as expected and documented: this combination
will not always work and isn't supported. You need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103357
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103357
Bug ID: 103357
Summary: GCC 11 branch can't be built with the current master
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For the "NULL hiding pedwarn about invalid C++11 code in C++98" case from PR
103347
#include
struct test {
void *x = NULL; //invalid in C++03 mode
};
int main() {}
The missing warning regression sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103351
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f456eaf2e0fb3ceb51c641fd348429bf59d215a9
commit r12-5447-gf456eaf2e0fb3ceb51c641fd348429bf59d215a9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102872
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
ifcombine makes
optimizing two comparisons to _13
Merging blocks 3 and 4
to
[local count: 955630225]:
d_10 = (short unsigned int) a.3_5;
_9 = a.3_5 & 65535;
_2 = d_10 != 0;
_1 = _9 == 0;
_13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103356
Bug ID: 103356
Summary: bool0 == ~bool1 should simplify to bool1 ^ bool0
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhanceme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> So, do we want instead some pragma to temporarily do the
> opposite of #pragma GCC system_header and another one to undo it?
Something like PR 80472?
That w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103349
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103282
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
So the problem is that dse is giving up on determining if partial stores was
killed. This is completely unnecesary: one can kill partial store by a full
store.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103350
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103350
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Summary|wrong code with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95448
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Simplified testcase:
int f(int a)
{
if ((a&7) != 1) __builtin_unreachable();
a &= ~7;
a |= 1;
return a;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103351
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is that iterative_hash_expr of &__str._M_local_buf is not the
same for -g vs. -g0 which results in different ordering of the vector of
PHI arguments in sorted form. First there's missing order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95230
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If it weren't for those *_MIN macros or NULL in C, we could have a hack that we
ignore system headers flag from macro locus if a macro in system headers
expands to a single token (e.g. in C++ NULL expands to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> GCC 5 warned, but we lost the warning with r230365
That was "Merge C++ delayed folding branch."
> GCC 8 warned, but we lost the warning with r267272
And t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For the INT64_MIN case:
# 1 "unused.C"
int main()
{
# 5 "unused.C" 3 4
(-9223372036854775807L -1)
# 5 "unused.C"
;
}
GCC 5 warned, but we lost the warning with r230365
For the INT64_MAX case:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This has regression repeatedly.
GCC 5 warned about all the unused statements:
unused.C: In function 'int main()':
unused.C:5:12: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
INT64_MIN; // no warni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|No warning for unused |[9/10/11/12 Regression] No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101818
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
Bug 78989 depends on bug 77513, which changed state.
Bug 77513 Summary: -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant vs 0, nullptr, NULL and
__null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.1.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101859
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Let's mark this as a dup of bug 77299.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 77299 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101818
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103282
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the difference seems to be that on x86_64 even with -m32 we vectorize
kill_me:
__attribute__((noinline))
void kill_me (struct a * a)
{
int * vectp.6;
vector(2) int * vectp_a.5;
[local count: 10737
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57201
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually this is a dup of bug 57201.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 57201 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matt Godbolt from comment #2)
> Thanks: I was confused (as I think will many folks be).
Approximately everybody is confused by -Wmissing-field-initializers which is
why people probably shouldn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57201
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wipedout at yandex dot ru
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually a dup of bug 57201.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 57201 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88158
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93044
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> An intereting case from PR 103347 where the pedwarn about the NSDMI is
> suppressed because GCC thinks the initializer is in a system header:
>
> #include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103350
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I'm going to bisect that..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103351
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=103341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-22
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103349
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b1e14346a08554dc33f71fca980578a7a3e38a2
commit r12-5446-g4b1e14346a08554dc33f71fca980578a7a3e38a2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103355
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103351
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103346
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103355
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The question becomes unknown attributes don't do anything right? If so the
warning on an attribute like this seems over the top.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103355
Bug ID: 103355
Summary: libcpp/lex.c:1289:9: warning: use of the 'likely'
attribute is a C++20 extension [-Wc++20-extensions]
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98953
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103171
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I have one more single file test-case (though one needs s390x cross compiler):
$ s390x-linux-gnu-gcc
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_result_7.f90
-fno-ipa-modref --param=max-inli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103345
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100923
Bug 100923 depends on bug 103204, which changed state.
Bug 103204 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: in vn_reference_insert_pieces, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:3842 (on -O2 and above) since r12-1295-g7a56d3d3e99cc77a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102970
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103237
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb1bc2c0865f2b15a219e11270b5c5fca565e169
commit r11-9261-gfb1bc2c0865f2b15a219e11270b5c5fca565e169
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103204
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5571c2719269687ad518d5aadf248a7500f11f85
commit r11-9260-g5571c2719269687ad518d5aadf248a7500f11f85
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103248
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f0c8f74daef93c0c7b33294213e7db6df58c4d1
commit r11-9259-g2f0c8f74daef93c0c7b33294213e7db6df58c4d1
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103181
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f0c8f74daef93c0c7b33294213e7db6df58c4d1
commit r11-9259-g2f0c8f74daef93c0c7b33294213e7db6df58c4d1
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102970
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2936f551adec1d8f8c731d013e1b0d9d3f1e824a
commit r11-9258-g2936f551adec1d8f8c731d013e1b0d9d3f1e824a
Author: Richard Biener
101 - 186 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
