https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105134
--- Comment #2 from piliu at redhat dot com ---
More specific, the following directive beats out the bug.
diff --git a/util_lib/sha256.c b/util_lib/sha256.c
index 2e61a31..3b3e533 100644
--- a/util_lib/sha256.c
+++ b/util_lib/sha256.c
@@ -38,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105134
--- Comment #1 from piliu at redhat dot com ---
More description about the background.
There is a built file kexec-tools/purgatory/purgatory.ro, which is a tiny
bootload, compare and verify the sha256, if ok, then jump to the 2nd kernel.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105134
Bug ID: 105134
Summary: tree-vectorize produces error code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105133
Bug ID: 105133
Summary: lto/gold: lto failed to link --start-lib/--end-lib in
gold
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65347
Damian Rouson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at archaeologic dot
codes
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #38 from Segher Boessenkool ---
+ cat test.c
struct foo
{
int : 0;
double a;
int : 0;
double b;
int : 0;
};
extern void func(struct foo);
void
pass_foo(void)
{
struct foo test;
test.a = 114;
test.b = 514;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102824
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
make pdf is looking for the images in:
gcc/jit/docs/_build/texinfo/libgccjit-figures
but they're in the source tree in:
gcc/jit/docs/_build/texinfo
I just tried:
git mv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101894
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #39 from Eric Botcazou ---
> If SEH is the problem, can alignment be accounted for in cases where SEH is
> not in use (if there are any such cases)? I'm thinking of -fno-exceptions,
> and dwarf (on x86) or setjump/longjump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105131
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe something like the attached patch would work (but needs a new option,
maybe -Wenum-int-mismatch, possibly enabled by -Wall?). With it, the following
test
enum E { l = -1, z = 0, g = 1 };
int
acktrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
GCC version:
gcc version 12.0.1 20220401 (git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git:master
15d683d4f0b390b27c54a7c92c6e4f33195bdc93) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #38 from R Copley ---
(A patch to emit unaligned instructions should probably resolve bug 49001
instead of this one, 54412.)
Could dynamic alignment be achieved, not for automatic variables and function
parameters, but for registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #37 from Eric Botcazou ---
> If the Windows ABI doesn't align stack or not as much as gcc assumes, then a
> fix would ensure only automatic vars on Windows are accessed always using
> unaligned vector instructions provided dynamic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105131
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105130
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Bertalan ---
Created attachment 52740
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52740=edit
Proposed patch #2
Actually, my proposed patch was definitely incorrect. It didn't allow me to
circumvent the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105131
Bug ID: 105131
Summary: Warning for mismatched declaration/definition with
enum
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105130
Bug ID: 105130
Summary: gcc does not warn about unused return value of last
expression of statement expr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103852
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101677
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105110
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Gałecki ---
Awesome! Happy to be of use.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105110
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105110
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95533fe4f014c10dd18de649927668aba6117daf
commit r12-7966-g95533fe4f014c10dd18de649927668aba6117daf
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105129
Bug ID: 105129
Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow for %b and %B directives in
C2X standard
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104771
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105128
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 52738 [details]
> gcc12-pr105128.patch
>
> So like this untested patch?
> Can test it with gcc, but don't have a new enough clang around.
yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105128
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
Stephen Kitt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steve at sk2 dot org
--- Comment #35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105128
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 52736
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52736=edit
Modified source_location header that works on both gcc and clang
It looks like clang requires __impl to be defined before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105126
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #34 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It's unfortunate that the best and most common advice for using avx2 with
> gcc/mingw is to use a patched compiler. Might it be possible to accept
> Debian's patch upstream?
Sure, but they need to submit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105128
Bug ID: 105128
Summary: source_location compile error for clang
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105127
Bug ID: 105127
Summary: Search Path not working on Cygwin
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52735=edit
gcc12-pr105123.patch
Untested fix.
The problem was expansion of a (dead) statement
_1 = {u.0_3, u.0_3, u.0_3,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
Cory Fields changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lists at coryfields dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #37 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:413187b0b3c87253838e4afbf8463b288b59
commit r12-7962-g413187b0b3c87253838e4afbf8463b288b59
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Thu Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #36 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d4b97f1ee5213dffce107bc9f260a22fb23b4b1
commit r12-7961-g0d4b97f1ee5213dffce107bc9f260a22fb23b4b1
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f587c81bc558942d2988f5e2965a72471f5c202
commit r11-9754-g5f587c81bc558942d2988f5e2965a72471f5c202
Author: Vladimir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
--- Comment #26 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 52734
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52734=edit
patch for tentative early DMI parsing
This patch series (for GCC 13) adds a mode that tries to parse nested class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105121
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Note that we don't bump LTO bytecode version during the development of a GCC
release (stage1-4). Once we do a release, we keep eye on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|13.0
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86d8e0c0652ef5236a460b75c25e4f7093cc0651
commit r12-7960-g86d8e0c0652ef5236a460b75c25e4f7093cc0651
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105126
Bug ID: 105126
Summary: Optimization regression gcc inserts not needed movsx
when using switch statement
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105125
Kimon.Hoffmann at lawo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.1.0, 11.2.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105125
Bug ID: 105125
Summary: Bogus and Misleading Warning: Packed attribute is
unnecessary.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105041
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105121
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Are you sure you have object files compiled with the same compiler as you
> link with?
I just compiled it again. Yes, I have the same compiler.
It looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105124
--- Comment #1 from Cristian Assaiante ---
We suspect this may be related to bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 but this time the behaviors
at -O1 and -Og are different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105124
Bug ID: 105124
Summary: -Og loses DWARF value for a reassigned variable that
is kept instead by other optimization levels
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, I'll bisect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, in GCC 11 we had
/* Max number of bytes we can move from memory to memory
in one reasonably fast instruction. */
#define MOVE_MAX 16
while in GCC 12 it is now
/* Max number of bytes we can move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
Bug ID: 105123
Summary: wrong code with -m32 -mtune=i686 and
__builtin_shuffle()
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105121
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105118
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104049
--- Comment #14 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
FWIW, I agree with Vlad that this isn't an RA problem. Some aarch64
instruction patterns are accepting operands that will inevitably
require a reload.
In principle we could tighten the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, while in the abstract machine sense for the testcase 'i' is never actually
read the SSA GIMPLE already exposes an uninitialized read of it:
void k ()
{
...
:
a.9_3 = a;
if (a.9_3 >= 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
Bug ID: 105122
Summary: [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on
i686-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105121
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Are you sure you have object files compiled with the same compiler as you link
with?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104645
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104645
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d9c03fc27d8147a9401a29739694b214df48a9a2
commit r12-7952-gd9c03fc27d8147a9401a29739694b214df48a9a2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #35 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e0ce885851dfd926c0cfe6f23a2debc87ea2bb9d
commit r12-7951-ge0ce885851dfd926c0cfe6f23a2debc87ea2bb9d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100052
--- Comment #10 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
While would we keep this open for a while to see if this issue occurs again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105121
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 52732
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52732=edit
x86 object module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105121
Bug ID: 105121
Summary: ice in bp_unpack_string
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105120
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Turkin ---
Personally I don't care much about implications of bug 48026; the issue that
affects me is pop_options leaking some state changed by pragmas inside
push_options/pop_options, namely macros. That sample was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105118
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105120
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
c_cpp_builtins_optimize_pragma does the macro adjustment, but in
handle_pragma_pop_options it doesn't get called because the guarding condition
if (p->optimize_binary != optimization_current_node)
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105120
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105120
Bug ID: 105120
Summary: __OPTIMIZE__ macro incorrectly defined when using
pragma(optimize) with push_options/pop_options
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105119
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90448
--- Comment #16 from Kewen Lin ---
*** Bug 90226 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90226
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
78 matches
Mail list logo
