https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84710
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84281
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84719
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84721
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84722
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84723
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84724
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84727
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84727
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84722
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84729
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84719
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> So with 2 bytes we get
Try 3 bytes (the worst case).
> Are you sure performance isn't dominated by the
> first init loop (both GCC and clang vectorize it).
Rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84729
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84729
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Probably started with r175674.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84720
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84728
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-linux |x86_64-*-*
Last reconfirmed|2017-12-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84683
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 6 09:23:36 2018
New Revision: 258273
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258273&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/84683
* reg-stack.c (move_for_stack_reg): If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84710
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Well, yuck, I missed that part of rtl.texi (or somehow I thought this RTL would
be refused earlier).
Please use reg_or_subregno in the patch though?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84710
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The testcase does not crash for me; does it need more non-default options?
The testcase has UB of course (d is undefined).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84710
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> The testcase does not crash for me; does it need more non-default options?
>
> The testcase has UB of course (d is undefined).
The compiler needs to be con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84607
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 6 10:01:52 2018
New Revision: 258274
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258274&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84486
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 6 10:01:52 2018
New Revision: 258274
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258274&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84721
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84710
--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> The testcase has UB of course (d is undefined).
The original testcase had defined behavior. The uninitialized use is the result
of delta/creduce reduction. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84710
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 43573
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43573&action=edit
original testcase
Unreduced testcase; needs additional -fkeep-inline-functions:
$ aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84721
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84486
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84710
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah right, I had checking disabled. Need more coffee I guess.
The insns I see are different:
Trying 19, 20 -> 21:
19: r106:SI#0=0
20: r108:SI=zero_extend(r106:SI#0)
21: r109:SI=r108:SI 0>>0x8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84710
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> Ah right, I had checking disabled. Need more coffee I guess.
You don't really need to build the checking compiler for this though, it is
enough to put a br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83325
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Got distracted by analysis... we don't do anything "wrong" but hit the latent
issue that we're allowing x_1 -> y_3 lattice transitions. Those are
unfortunately required by the redundant IV removal testcases
fier_1
/home/vegard/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:22715
0xf231cb cp_parser_class_specifier
/home/vegard/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:22768
$ xgcc --version
xgcc (GCC) 8.0.1 20180306 (experimental)
Built from git 11a93d7a09b871b3b9a2eb108eb91ad83d94e070 (r258271).
7.3.0 gives:
:5:9: error: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84730
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71572
Vegard Nossum changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vegard.nossum at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84731
Bug ID: 84731
Summary: -Bsymbolic switch ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84731
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84683
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] internal |[6/7 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71832
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Skipping completely the body works for this testcase, isn't that difficult to
do, but goes too far, the template completely disappears and we end up with bad
error recovery for anything referring to it afterw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84719
--- Comment #11 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
Yes it's not the init loop the problem. Just to make sure, with the following
code :
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84724
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84732
Bug ID: 84732
Summary: false-positive -Wstringop-truncation warning with
-fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84732
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84720
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71832
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Another idea - which appears to work great! - is skipping the bodies of the
member function definitions. If everything goes well I'll send soon a draft
patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84659
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84659
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[8 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
--- Comment #8 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #6)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #4)
> > > While teaching the reassociation pass about fma's seems like the right
> > > answe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Current trunk gives:
cv.cc: In member function ‘void Foo::bar2(const Foo&)’:
cv.cc:4:26: error: passing ‘const Foo’ as ‘this’ argument discards qualifiers
[-fpermissive]
foo.bar1();
/parser.c:21778
0xf9283b cp_parser_ctor_initializer_opt_and_function_body
/home/vegard/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:21813
$ xgcc --version
xgcc (GCC) 8.0.1 20180306 (experimental)
Built from git 11a93d7a09b871b3b9a2eb108eb91ad83d94e070 (r258271).
5.5.0 says:
: In function 'void f()':
:12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68523
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW Clang says:
cv.cc:4:17: error: member function 'bar1' not viable: 'this' argument has type
'const Foo', but function is not marked const
foo.bar1();
^~~
cv.cc:2:14: not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84734
Bug ID: 84734
Summary: [8 Regression] Compiling
gfortran.dg/size_kind_(2|3).f90 with
-fdefault-integer-8 gives an ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84734
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84734
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The following variant
integer(4) :: B(huge(1_4)+3_8,2_8)
integer(8) :: var1(2), var2, var3
print *, kind(B), size(B)
var1 = shape(B) ! { dg-error "SHAPE overflows its kind" }
print *, var1
var2 = siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
A further improvement might be to stop talking about "passing '...' as 'this'
argument" since that's a leaky abstraction: although member functions are
implemented with a hidden 'this' parameter, that's not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84735
Bug ID: 84735
Summary: [8 Regression] Describe recent gcov data file format
changes in gcov-io.h
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84732
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat ~/Programming/testcases/ice.i
char *arg;
struct buffer{
char a[16];
};
struct buffer a, b;
void e(void) {
if (__builtin_strlen(arg) > 1)
__builtin_strncpy(a.a, arg, sizeof(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84735
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43577
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43577&action=edit
gcc8-pr79937.patch
My #c8 patch doesn't work at all, but this one at least fixes the two testcases
(but indeed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28364
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That said, I've tried:
--- gcc/cp/semantics.c.jj 2018-03-06 08:01:37.851883447 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/semantics.c 2018-03-06 15:19:27.685013764 +0100
@@ -2814,6 +2814,11 @@ finish_compound_literal (tree typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63572
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The CONSTRUCTORS in TARGET_EXPR in the pr79937-{1,2,3}.C testcases have all
CONSTRUCTOR_IS_DIRECT_INIT and TREE_HAS_CONSTRUCTOR set, while nsdmi13.C
doesn't.
Does any of those matter?
In the nsdmi13.C case,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80598
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83268
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83911
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84034
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84394
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84611
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84588
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84241
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84719
Manuel Lauss changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manuel.lauss at googlemail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84251
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84301
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84345
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84456
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |testsuite
--- Comment #3 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84565
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84610
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84650
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84729
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80511
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43578
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43578&action=edit
gcc8-pr79937.patch
Actually, seems TREE_HAS_CONSTRUCTOR is set on a CONSTRUCTOR only by
finish_compound_litera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81572
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Tue Mar 6 15:54:30 2018
New Revision: 258280
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258280&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2018-02-22 Vladimir Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81572
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84550
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
My limited understanding is this is a GDB bug and that it basically never
worked properly with -freorder-blocks-and-partition. So not really sure how we
could work around it in GCC. Pedro, do you agree?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84736
Bug ID: 84736
Summary: When compiling with -g -O2 internal compiler error: in
force_type_die, at dwarf2out.c:25111
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
