https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104310
Bug ID: 104310
Summary: ice in forwprop
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92479
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
While there are no occurrences of this problem in the gcc source code,
I count six of them in the current Linux kernel source code (v5.16).
Which is more than I would have thought. So this problem does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92479
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103378
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #9)
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #7)
> > The warning control falls into the C++ trap of using a reference
> > to old hashtable contents for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104082
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
I just tried compiling a recent linux kernel with the new gcc trunk
and the warning appeared seven times.
Only one of them was a proper bug, which I have reported.
The rest were false positives.
So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087
--- Comment #20 from David Binderman ---
This code still seems broken:
**Gif_ClipImage_gfi_0;
Gif_ClipImage_gfi_1, Gif_ClipImage_y, Gif_ClipImage_shift;
Gif_ClipImage() {
Gif_ClipImage_y = Gif_ClipImage_gfi_1 - 1;
for (; Gif_ClipImage_y >=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104082
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >I've no idea why the warning is generated, the code looks legal to me
>
> The warning is generated even though the code is valid, if someone
> deferences
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104082
Bug ID: 104082
Summary: Wdangling-pointer: 2 * false positive ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104023
Bug ID: 104023
Summary: Bulk rename of C++ test files to one filename
extension ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104014
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> That makes no sense.
Surprising.
bootstrap-O3 tests more of the compiler than the ordinary bootstrap-O2 does.
That has to be a good thing for any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104014
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104001
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103987
Bug ID: 103987
Summary: ice in ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_range, at
tree-ssa-alias.c:840
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99131
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Interestingly, I compiled fedora rawhide with clang and found
a whopping 247 cases of this warning across 11 packages.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79049
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103983
Bug ID: 103983
Summary: -Wswitch-bool seems to do nothing ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65253
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #3)
> > Also happens in fedora rawhide, package gshutdown.
>
> Also package openbox.
And package wise2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103977
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C source code is
int *freelist_randomize_list;
int cache_random_seq_create_count_i;
void cache_random_seq_create_count() {
for (; cache_random_seq_create_count_i;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103977
Bug ID: 103977
Summary: ice in try_vectorize_loop_1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99674
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> Interestingly, there are about 125 cases of this in the gcc source code,
> so this warning would be of immediate use for gcc itself.
Now up to 161 cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65253
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #3)
> Also happens in fedora rawhide, package gshutdown.
Also package openbox.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103946
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ code is:
class UnicodeSet {
virtual UnicodeSet complement();
};
enum { URX_GC_T, URX_LAST_SET };
class RegexStaticSets {
RegexStaticSets();
UnicodeSet fPropSets[URX_LAST_SET]{};
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103946
Bug ID: 103946
Summary: ice in build_vec_init_expr, at cp/tree.c:791
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65253
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103939
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> The fedora package has:
>
> dvdisaster-0.79.5/read-linear.c: memset(rc, sizeof(read_closure), 0xff);
>
> The chance of false positives still seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103945
Bug ID: 103945
Summary: No warning for ordered comparison of function pointers
?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103939
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Has anybody ever written such code?
Yes, it is part of Fedora rawhide right now.
>From packages with names starting 0-9a-d, package dvdisaster has it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103939
Bug ID: 103939
Summary: memset with sizeof in wrong place not detected ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #91 from David Binderman ---
I confirm that the problem seems fixed to me in today's trunk.
Thanks to everyone for what has been an unusually difficult bug to find.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103920
Bug ID: 103920
Summary: No warning for large structs passed by value ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103917
Bug ID: 103917
Summary: libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/fs_path.cc:74: struct passed by
value ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94669
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
Could this bug be marked as fixed, then ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #82 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #79)
> OK, so can you - in a -march=bdver2 built tree (that then fails) - produce
> options-save.ii (preprocessed source) and attach that?
Done.
> Can you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #81 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 52118
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52118=edit
preprocessed source code
Bug seems to have moved to unwind-dw2.c. Preprocessed source code attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #78 from David Binderman ---
-mxop adds 124 functions. I am not sure how to find out which ones are broken.
Is there some way to add only some of the 124 into the machine description ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #77 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #76)
> Maybe the issue reproduces with only -mtune=bdver2 or with -march=bdver2
> -mno-xop (XOP is what's removed from znver2 for example, not 100% sure
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/583045.html
Weeks have rolled by and this patch doesn't seem to have made it into trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #74 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #72)
> You will manage, it's not rocket science.
>
> So please, add break point at the place it triggers the ICE and do:
>
> (gdb) p >x_help_flag
> (gdb) p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #71 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #57)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #56)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #55)
> > > >
> > > > with line numbers please :)
> > >
> > > cat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #69 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #68)
> > Righto. This is proving unexpectedly hard to reproduce.
>
> Ok, so please tell me exact steps how to reproduce it.
First of all, get a -march=bdver2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #65 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #63)
> OR: I do a fishing trip for revisions some unknown time before
> 2020-06-11 (the known bad date), to find a known good date, then
> run git bisect from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #64 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #63)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #62)
> > Can't reproduce with the current master:
>
> Righto. This is proving unexpectedly hard to reproduce.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #63 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #62)
> Can't reproduce with the current master:
Righto. This is proving unexpectedly hard to reproduce.
EITHER: I search various values of march= to find out which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #61 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 51964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51964=edit
C source code
Command line used to compile file:
/home/dcb/gcc/working.2/./gcc/xgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #60 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #59)
> Most of the issues were fixed in GCC 12 stage1.
> There are still corner cases, but the current situation should be much
> better.
Not for me, they aren't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087
--- Comment #18 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #17)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #13)
> > The code in comment 8 still seems to fail:
>
> It might make sense to file a new PR for that, I guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103492
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> All right! Is there any Clang bug report for this, or should I create it?
Option 2, I think.
I have a 0.0 % success rate at getting any response to any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103513
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103494
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
$ more bug777.cc
void glFinish();
struct _Vector_base {
struct {
unsigned _M_start;
} _M_impl;
};
class vector : _Vector_base {
public:
vector(long) {}
unsigned *data() { return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103494
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
I have a cvise reduction running right now. The code is
C++, so it will take some time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103494
Bug ID: 103494
Summary: ice in vect_get_vec_defs_for_operand, at
tree-vect-stmts.c:1476
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103492
Bug ID: 103492
Summary: 2 * new warnings in clang build
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103451
Bug ID: 103451
Summary: crash at gcc/range-op.cc:1836
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
--- Comment #53 from David Binderman ---
I am not sure if this belongs here or in a separate bug report,
but given this code:
class AllocatorWithCleanup {
public:
int *allocate(int, void *);
};
class SecBlock {
SecBlock() :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
--- Comment #52 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #51)
> At last, implemented.
Marvellous.
I will test it by compiling Fedora rawhide and report back
with any errors.
Nearly 17 years is quite a wait for a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Most likely caused by r12-5300-gf98f373dd822b35c .
Strange. That git commit doesn't seem to be in the range of
git hashes I specified.
The one commit that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code seems to be
int ui_5;
long func_14_uli_8;
void func_14() {
ui_5 &= (func_14_uli_8 ? 60 : ui_5) ? 5 : 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103288
Bug ID: 103288
Summary: ice during GIMPLE pass: phiopt
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103175
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 51773
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51773=edit
gzipped C++ source code
Another test case. Flag -O1 required.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
Bug ID: 103194
Summary: ice in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and, at
tree-ssa-ccp.c:3626
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103132
Bug ID: 103132
Summary: ice: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103099
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103093
Bug ID: 103093
Summary: ice in get_imports, at gimple-range-gori.cc:221
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103007
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ code seems to be:
template class MushMeshVector {
public:
MushMeshVector(float, float, float, float);
float Z() {
float __trans_tmp_3;
int inIndex = 2;
__trans_tmp_3 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103007
Bug ID: 103007
Summary: ice in vect_normalize_conj_loc, at
tree-vect-slp-patterns.c:722
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103003
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I am not sure why the #include is in there.
Further reduced code is
typedef char int8_t;
int8_t c_4, uli_5;
unsigned short us_6;
func_1() {
int uli_9;
short ptr_16ptr_11 = _9;
for (; us_6 <= 6;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103003
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code seems to be
#include
int8_t c_4, uli_5;
uint16_t us_6;
func_1() {
int uli_9 = 0;
uint64_t ptr_11 = uli_9 |= uli_5 != 0;
uint16_t ptr_16ptr_11 = _9;
for (; us_6 <= 6;)
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103003
Bug ID: 103003
Summary: ice in set_relation, at value-relation.cc:592
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102988
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ code is:
inline namespace __cxx11 {}
template _Tp *__addressof(_Tp);
namespace __cxx11 {
class basic_string {
void _M_set_length();
public:
~basic_string();
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102988
Bug ID: 102988
Summary: ice during GIMPLE pass: hardcbr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87656
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> I'd like to vote for -Wduplicated-cond being in either -Wextra or -Wall.
>
> I only just found it last week (thanks to Weverything discussion)
> and it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102896
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Then, please file it here: https://github.com/libffi/libffi/issues.
Done.
https://github.com/libffi/libffi/issues/666
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102896
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> Does it happen in libffi upstream?
>
> https://github.com/libffi/libffi
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102896
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102896
Bug ID: 102896
Summary: src/moxie/ffi.c:239:arrayIndexOutOfBounds
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Range currently seems to be (a10794eafb151b92, 730f52e05a1fb5c8).
Trying 1ba7adabf29eb671. Only 7 revisions left to go.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> I am trying a git bisect. I frequently get this wrong ;-<
>
> commit a10794eafb151b92 is being built.
Seems fine, trying 730f52e05a1fb5c8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
I am trying a git bisect. I frequently get this wrong ;-<
commit a10794eafb151b92 is being built.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is
glib_autoptr_cleanup_GdkPaintable(struct _GdkPaintable **_ptr) {
glib_autoptr_clear_GdkPaintable(*_ptr);
}
glib_autoptr_clear_GdkRGBA(struct _GdkRGBA *_ptr) {
if (_ptr)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
Bug ID: 102797
Summary: ice in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:87
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
I tried out the C++ testsuite and there are dozens of duplicates.
First four are
./g++.dg/abi/mangle36.C
./g++.dg/abi/mangle40.C
./g++.dg/asan/asan_test.cc
./g++.dg/asan/pr81021.C
It looks like only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102281
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 51593
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51593=edit
C++ source code
Third test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102281
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 51587
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51587=edit
C++ source code
Another test case derived from compiling fedora source code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102081
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> I believe that this should be fixed. Is it still reproducing for you? (the
> testcase in comment #2 compiles for me)
Code in comment 2 compiles fine for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102581
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ source code, after a pretty hefty four hours of reduction, is
enum VkStructureType {
VK_STRUCTURE_TYPE_PHYSICAL_DEVICE_BUFFER_DEVICE_ADDRESS_FEATURES_EXT,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102581
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
git blame says:
f5ff3a8ed4ca (Jan Hubicka 2021-08-28 20:57:08 +0200 349) /* We assume
that containment and lossless merging
f5ff3a8ed4ca (Jan Hubicka 2021-08-28 20:57:08 +0200 350) was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102581
Bug ID: 102581
Summary: ice in forced_merge, at ipa-modref-tree.h:352 with
-fno-strict-aliasing and -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102563
Bug ID: 102563
Summary: ice during GIMPLE pass: vrp-thread
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102285
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #10)
> 2734 /* The heuristic of fold_builtin_alloca_with_align differs
git blame says:
13e49da934e9 (Tom de Vries 2011-10-07 12:49:49 + 2732)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
--- Comment #25 from David Binderman ---
This C source code:
$ more bug761.c
long a;
int b, c, e;
signed char d;
void f() {
long long g = 105230154306549745590;
b = (c ?: (d %= 11 * g)) + (e &= g += c);
a = 5;
for (; a <= 8;) {
g =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087
--- Comment #15 from David Binderman ---
Since this bug depends on the setting of -march,
I tried out all the possible legal settings of that value.
alderlake
amdfam10
during GIMPLE pass: aprefetch
athlon-fx
during GIMPLE pass: aprefetch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
The code in comment 8 still seems to fail:
$ /home/dcb/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c -O3 -w -march=bdver2 bug760.c
bug760.c: In function ‘Gif_ClipImage’:
bug760.c:3:1: error: type mismatch in binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102463
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #3)
> Could you provide a preprocessed source?
? It already is. It might need a few "int" and "void" to keep
modern C compilers happy.
I forgot to add the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102463
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> 142 revisions in the gap, trying 24f99147b9264f8f.
Revision looks good, trying f6ccb788f29ce79a, although Aldy seems
to be in the frame for this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102463
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
142 revisions in the gap, trying 24f99147b9264f8f.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102463
Bug ID: 102463
Summary: ice in fold_using_range::relation_fold_and_or
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102327
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
---
701 - 800 of 1078 matches
Mail list logo
