https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108758
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108758
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33a44e3aa81f9fdf8f6b87018abd4c664e545b53
commit r14-240-g33a44e3aa81f9fdf8f6b87018abd4c664e545b53
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Wed Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109069
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd75f6ae5625f087980ff4a7e76cc6284cfe5a3e
commit r14-239-gfd75f6ae5625f087980ff4a7e76cc6284cfe5a3e
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Wed Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109272
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109272
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8d5e14f524283484c2a466353f92f7eaadae9f7
commit r14-235-ga8d5e14f524283484c2a466353f92f7eaadae9f7
Author: Pan Li
Date: Tue Apr 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109610
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
> 1 unit cost is aligned with what's did in recog_reg_class
>
> /* If the alternative actually allows memory, make
>things a bit cheaper since we won't need an extra
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100958
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 54923
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54923=edit
Patch which is under testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Linus from comment #18)
> By the way, same code didn't survive aarch64 gcc 9.3.1, but did survive X86
> gcc 9.3.1 -- devtoolset-9-gcc-9.3.1-2.el7.x86_64.
> Do you have any clue about it?
Yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #18 from Linus ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17)
> (In reply to Linus from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> > > Already fixed.
> > >
> > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Linus from comment #16)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> > Already fixed.
> >
> > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 98136 ***
>
> Thanks.
>
> 1. 98136 was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #16 from Linus ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> Already fixed.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 98136 ***
Thanks.
1. 98136 was fixed for gcc 9.2.0. So original gcc 10 includes the fix,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linus.zhu at mavenir dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #14 from Linus ---
devtoolset-9-gcc-9.3.1-2.2.el7.aarch64
devtoolset-9-gcc-9.3.1-2.el7.x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #13 from Linus ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> (In reply to Linus from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > > /* If we have a length attribute, this instruction should have
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Linus from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > /* If we have a length attribute, this instruction should have
> >been split in shorten_branches, to ensure that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #11 from Linus ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> (In reply to Linus from comment #8)
> > hi Andrew, thanks. And before raising another ticket for attaching the
> > second half of ccdNSTWA.out, I did try to add one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #10 from Linus ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> /* If we have a length attribute, this instruction should have
>been split in shorten_branches, to ensure that we would have
>valid length info for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108121
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68201409bc2867da45791331e385198826fa4576
commit r14-232-g68201409bc2867da45791331e385198826fa4576
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Linus from comment #8)
> hi Andrew, thanks. And before raising another ticket for attaching the
> second half of ccdNSTWA.out, I did try to add one more attachment to this
> bug, but it hinted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #8 from Linus ---
hi Andrew, thanks. And before raising another ticket for attaching the second
half of ccdNSTWA.out, I did try to add one more attachment to this bug, but it
hinted that previous one will be obsolete.
Anyway it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Linus from comment #4)
> due to 1M-attachment limit, I'll raise another bug and attach ccdNSTWA.out.2
The limit is just per-attachment, not per bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 109630 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109630
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* If we have a length attribute, this instruction should have
been split in shorten_branches, to ensure that we would have
valid length info for the splitees. */
gcc_assert (!HAVE_ATTR_length);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109630
Bug ID: 109630
Summary: internal compiler error: in final_scan_insn_1, at
final.c:3078 6480 | }, to attach another half
/tmp/ccdNSTWA.out
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #4 from Linus ---
due to 1M-attachment limit, I'll raise another bug and attach ccdNSTWA.out.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
--- Comment #3 from Linus ---
Created attachment 54921
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54921=edit
ccdNSTWA.out.1
ccdNSTWA.out.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108121
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Gaius
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109629
Bug ID: 109629
Summary: internal compiler error: in final_scan_insn_1, at
final.c:3078 6480 | }
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108121
--- Comment #6 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 54920
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54920=edit
Proposed fix for TestLong4.mod (ZTYPE fix)
Here is a proposed patch to allow testLong4.mod to compile without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109628
Bug ID: 109628
Summary: -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value false positive
on static storage
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109627
--- Comment #1 from keithp at keithp dot com ---
This patch was submitted to the mailing list here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-August/600452.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109627
Bug ID: 109627
Summary: [PATCH] driver: Extend 'getenv' function to allow
default value
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109625
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Folly should not use internal functions which is not designed for other than
libstdc++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109625
--- Comment #2 from Arsen Arsenović ---
almost certainly started with r14-92-g58b7dbf865b146, of course
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109625
--- Comment #1 from Arsen Arsenović ---
related code (folly/Traits.h)
#if FOLLY_HAS_BUILTIN(__type_pack_element)
template
using type_pack_element_t = __type_pack_element;
#else
template
using type_pack_element_t =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109626
Bug ID: 109626
Summary: forwprop introduces new signed multiplication UB
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109625
Bug ID: 109625
Summary: [14 regression] 'error: use of built-in trait
‘__type_pack_element’
in function signature; use library traits instead'
when building folly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108851
--- Comment #3 from Pali Rohár ---
Or do you have any other suggestions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108975
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d674e29d7f89bf93fcfcc963ff0248c6347586d
commit r14-228-g3d674e29d7f89bf93fcfcc963ff0248c6347586d
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #30 from Konrad Rosenbaum ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #28)
> (In reply to Wilhelm M from comment #26)
> > As you can see in my opening bug report, there is no nullptr reference nor
> > dereferencing a pointer with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here another invalid example which ICEs because the clash is not detected:
module AModule
implicit none
type, bind(C) :: c_ptr
private
integer(8) :: c_address
end type c_ptr
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #29 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #20)
> This is not an AVR backend issue - it is much wider than that. It is
> perhaps reasonable to test a patch just on the AVR, but this needs to be
> fixed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #21 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #19)
> C_PTR is an intrinsic DT and not a procedure;
> so we should not mark it as "generic".
Ok, that makes sense indeed.
>
> As long as a symbol from an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #55 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you could do it, that would be great. I'm now working on frange libm
functions and will need to switch to OpenMP work soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #54 from Tamar Christina ---
@Jakub, just to check to avoid doing duplicate work, did you intend to do the
remaining ifcvt changes or should we?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #18)
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
> index 221165d6dac..28ed1a32b9e 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
> +++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109624
Bug ID: 109624
Summary: dump-parse-tree prints attributes with unbalanced
braces
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109621
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Which makes it a regression in 4.3.0 and later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109621
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Possibly started with
re PR c++/31749 (ICE with invalid redeclaration of builtin)
PR c++/31749
gcc/cp/
* name-lookup.c (do_nonmember_using_decl): Shift implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109623
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109616
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #8 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #28 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Wilhelm M from comment #26)
> As you can see in my opening bug report, there is no nullptr reference nor
> dereferencing a pointer with value 0.
Yes but as I mentioned by the time the warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #27 from Wilhelm M ---
> I don't know if every embedded developer feels the same way. (Georg-Johann
> could chime in with his opinion.)
Indeed, limiting the warning on volatile-qualified ptr would help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #26 from Wilhelm M ---
As you can see in my opening bug report, there is no nullptr reference nor
dereferencing a pointer with value 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #25 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #24)
> (In reply to LIU Hao from comment #22)
> > Yes, GCC should be told to shut up about dereferencing artificial address
> > values.
>
> NO.
> Take:
> ```
> static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109622
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Bégou ---
Le 25/04/2023 à 14:49, pault at gcc dot gnu.org a écrit :
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109622
>
> --- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Confirmed on pre-release GNU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109623
Bug ID: 109623
Summary: constexpr restrictions are not relaxed enough
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #22)
> Yes, GCC should be told to shut up about dereferencing artificial address
> values.
NO.
Take:
```
static inline int f(int *a)
{
return a[10];
}
int g()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109609
--- Comment #17 from Gabriel Burca ---
Speaking of the size parameter, my workaround for the original issue was to
pre-compute the size argument a different way. This however resulted in a
warning that's both right and wrong. Here's the sample
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109608
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109608
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52c451e6ef67d428304be3299bb67195177f6759
commit r10-11312-g52c451e6ef67d428304be3299bb67195177f6759
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109608
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109621
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC accepts invalid program |[10/11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103528
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109609
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] tail |[12/13 Regression] tail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109609
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8d00353017f895d03a9eabae3506fd126ce1a2d
commit r14-225-ge8d00353017f895d03a9eabae3506fd126ce1a2d
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109566
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.0|12.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109566
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12 Regression] powerpc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109622
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jules at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99195
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e9503e7b2c1517e8c46ea4d2e8805cc20301f34
commit r14-222-g9e9503e7b2c1517e8c46ea4d2e8805cc20301f34
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109608
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 regression] net test|[10 regression] net test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109609
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, looking at the user modref_access_analysis::get_access_for_fnspec it
interprets the size as upper bound (also for 't'). Likewise for
get_access_for_fnspec. Just the check_fnspec use in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109622
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109622
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi Patrick,
Confirmed on pre-release GNU Fortran (GCC) 13.0.1 20230414.
The compiler is objecting to the dereferencing in the pragma call:
while (1)
{
if (done) goto L.4;
copy_transform (,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109278
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:784e03f378bb2c330b96459928d0472d38748970
commit r14-220-g784e03f378bb2c330b96459928d0472d38748970
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109566
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb4e50a7c1cdd14e8f06421c642837292c9d8dee
commit r13-7240-gfb4e50a7c1cdd14e8f06421c642837292c9d8dee
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109585
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13/14 regression] |[10/11/12/13 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109622
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Bégou ---
Following Harald Anlauf idea, I have built the compilers from the
devel/omp/gcc-12 branch for testing:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 12.2.1 20230302 [OG12]
The "internal error" shown with this small test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109566
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So, apparently powerpc-rtems uses -mpowerpc64 by default?! That is
problematic,
it changes the ABI, might not actually work at all (it requires your
setjmp/longjmp
and getcontext/setcontext to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109585
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d4bd27a60447c7505cb4783e675e98a191a8904
commit r14-219-g6d4bd27a60447c7505cb4783e675e98a191a8904
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109566
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97f8f2d0a0384d377ca46da88495f9a3d18d4415
commit r14-218-g97f8f2d0a0384d377ca46da88495f9a3d18d4415
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109622
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Bégou ---
Sorry, exact branch is: releases/gcc-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109622
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Bégou ---
OS: CentOS8
Compiler 13 built with native CentOS8 compiler: GNU Fortran (GCC) 8.3.1
20191121 (Red Hat 8.3.1-5)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109622
Bug ID: 109622
Summary: internal compiler error: in omp_group_base, at
gimplify.cc:9412 if -fopenacc is set.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109621
Bug ID: 109621
Summary: GCC accepts invalid program with multiple using
declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109610
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
>
> And after my commit, RA take best scenario when preferred reg_class is
> unkown, which make cost of MEM:0,0 of r117 same as VSX_REGS:0,0, and
> allocate r117 as VSX_REGS, which create an extra move and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109610
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
testcase:
#ifndef TYPE
#define TYPE vector double
#endif
struct foo {
TYPE a, b, c, d;
};
/* Make sure we don't use direct moves to get stuff into GPR registers. */
void
gpr (struct foo *p)
{
TYPE x =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109620
Bug ID: 109620
Summary: [OpenMP][Offloading] OMP_CANCELLATION ICV not mapped
to device
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #23 from David Brown ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #22)
> Yes, GCC should be told to shut up about dereferencing artificial address
> values.
One possibility is to have the warnings disabled whenever you are using a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109609
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
strncpy second argument is an array rather than necessarily a string and
characters after '\0' are not copied, so if n is non-zero, it reads between 1
and n characters from the source array (not sure if a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109609
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #22 from LIU Hao ---
Yes, GCC should be told to shut up about dereferencing artificial address
values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #21 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> --param=min-pagesize= should be set to 0 for avr as zero is a valid address.
Is there any convenient description of "min-pagesize" ? The user manual is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #20 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #19)
> Created attachment 54912 [details]
> pr105532.diff: Proposed patch for the AVR backend
>
> Here is a proposed, untested patch.
>
> gcc/
> PR
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
