https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85365
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #51 from W.H. Ding ---
(In reply to Sven from comment #49)
> This doesn't work. The aligned attribute is for providing additional
> alignment hints. The GCC documentation clearly states, that aligned can
> increase the alignment. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85387
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #83 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Fri Apr 13 08:02:15 2018
New Revision: 259364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259364&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gcc.dg/debug/pr41893-1.c with Solaris ld (PR lto/81968)
PR lto/81
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85389
Bug ID: 85389
Summary: posix_memalign() crash with address sanitizer when
passing invalid arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85390
Bug ID: 85390
Summary: possible missed optimisation / regression from 6.3
with conditional expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85230
--- Comment #21 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
I guess it just used my system binutils. Used to work before.
I now used an older distribution to build it. Seems to work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 13 08:35:32 2018
New Revision: 259366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259366&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81657
* expr.h (enum block_op_methods): Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We aim to do GCC 8 rc1 in the middle of next week, I'm afraid if powerpcspe is
still in this sorry state by then, then it is better to remove it and re-add
when/if it is in better shape. Or at least declare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85391
Bug ID: 85391
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in add_type_duplicate, at
ipa-devirt.c:1887
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Apr 13 08:51:47 2018
New Revision: 259367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/71991
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_can_inline_p): A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82965
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Apr 13 08:59:05 2018
New Revision: 259368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82965
PR tree-optimization/83991
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83991
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Apr 13 08:59:05 2018
New Revision: 259368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82965
PR tree-optimization/83991
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85363
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That implemented the rule that aggregates can't have NSDMIs.
It started working in C++14 mode with r216750, which implements the C++14 rule
that aggregates _can_ have NSDMIs.
So the problem seems to be wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85391
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-4-13
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85391
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
With following debug patch:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-devirt.c b/gcc/ipa-devirt.c
index fa9380cce80..7d14a923b4d 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-devirt.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-devirt.c
@@ -1869,7 +1869,7 @@ add_type_duplicate (odr_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82965
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85326
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Apr 13 09:14:32 2018
New Revision: 259369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
IBM Z: Get rid of target specific C++ testcase
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85389
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83852
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85388
--- Comment #2 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
You are fixing 64bit part. There is similar place for 32bit
movl-8(%ebp),%eax # Restore the last register.
call*-12(%ebp) # Call our call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85391
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Ok so I have 6 pre-processed source files having in total ~40MB. Hope I can
reduce that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85392
Bug ID: 85392
Summary: [7/8 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr82718-[12].c (internal compiler
error) on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85392
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81685
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 85392 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
There have been a bunch of commits for this bug; is it fixed yet?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
Bug ID: 85393
Summary: [8 Regression] Miscompilation with hot/cold
partitioning starting with r254832
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43925
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43925&action=edit
gcc8-pr85393-test.patch
Testcase in patch form.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83852
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Fri Apr 13 10:24:02 2018
New Revision: 259373
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259373&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/83852
* gcc.dg/pr83852.c: New test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85391
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84733
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I think assert (error_count || binding->type == decl) would be better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
I still can reproduce it as of r259224.
% powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-8.0.0-alpha20180408 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85388
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to igor.v.tsimbalist from comment #2)
> You are fixing 64bit part. There is similar place for 32bit
>
> movl-8(%ebp),%eax # Restore the last register.
>
> call*-12(%e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at cprop2 now, before that we have:
(insn 74 73 75 13 (parallel [
(set (reg/f:DI 108)
(plus:DI (reg/f:DI 20 frame)
(const_int -64 [0xffc0]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, it is the pre pass already, in the dump it dumps the function with (set
(reg:DI 108) (plus:DI (frame) (const_int -64))) and later on with (set (reg:DI
108) (reg:DI 123)), but the latter is incorrect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Index 6 (hash value 34; max distance 0)
(plus:DI (reg/f:DI 20 frame)
(const_int -64 [0xffc0]))
scanning new insn with uid = 160.
deleting insn with uid = 117.
PRE: redundant insn 117 (expre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84733
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
Indeed, Nathan, at some point I had that too. Or even seen_error () which we
often use lately in such cases. If nobody objects I'll send a patchlet +
testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
Here's another one:
long long int
xa (long long int ae, int yr)
{
long long int b3 = ae / (!ae + 2);
long long int mx = yr + 1.0;
long long int em = 1 / mx / (yr + 2.0);
return b3 + em;
}
% powerp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85388
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
This works:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 03e5c433574..324e2ec60fc 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -15242,7 +15242,13 @@ ix86_expand_split_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85388
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85388
--- Comment #5 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
I think it's the right place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, PRE does the right thing; the ~S () call is in bb3 and there is EH
edge from there to bb23, which has another EH predecessor, and PRE inserts the
initialization of pseudo 123 in that bb23. Then com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43926
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43926&action=edit
gcc8-pr85393.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85394
Bug ID: 85394
Summary: Unable to run sanitized executables on ppc64le Ubuntu
and SLES
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85394
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85394
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85394
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fedora too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85394
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- libsanitizer/asan/asan_allocator.h 2017-10-19 13:20:58.926958939 +0200
+++ libsanitizer/asan/asan_allocator.h 2018-04-13 00:24:53.331985820 +0200
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ const uptr kAllocatorSpace = ~(uptr)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85395
Bug ID: 85395
Summary: [7/8] F03 private clause contained in derived type
acquires spurious scope
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85365
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85395
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85395
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|private clause contained in |[F03] private clause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85364
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85391
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Let's just back out my couple of patches to ipa-devirt.c. Nobody seems to care
about PR ipa/83983 so I guess I no longer do either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amonakov at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85365
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
--- Comment #12 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This function is called from cp/semantics.c maybe_cleanup_point_expr()
tree
fold_build_cleanup_point_expr (tree type, tree expr)
{
/* If the expression does not have side effects then we don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to acsawdey from comment #12)
> This function is called from cp/semantics.c maybe_cleanup_point_expr()
>
> tree
> fold_build_cleanup_point_expr (tree type, tree expr)
> {
> /* If the expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85396
Bug ID: 85396
Summary: _M_t._M_emplace_hint_unique
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82099
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-09-04 00:00:00 |2018-4-13
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85397
Bug ID: 85397
Summary: -mcet -fcf-protection doesn't work with label in
nested function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85398
Bug ID: 85398
Summary: g++ reports "array subscript is above array bounds"
when it cannot be sure
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85376
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 13 19:39:11 2018
New Revision: 259377
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259377&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/85376
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85376
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 13 19:55:15 2018
New Revision: 259378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/85393
* except.h (expand_dw2_landing_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85393
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85397
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85398
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85399
Bug ID: 85399
Summary: Redundant SSP clearing before rdssp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #4)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #3)
> > More worrying is that this code compiles without error when it should error
> > out:
> >
> > void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85360
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79916
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Apr 13 22:55:16 2018
New Revision: 259379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-13 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/79916
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85397
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Please take a look at hjl/cet/master branch at
https://github.com/hjl-tools/gcc/tree/hjl/cet/master
I replaced builtin_setjmp_setup and builtin_longjmp with save_stack_nonlocal
and restore_stack_nonlocal to save
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83402
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Apr 13 23:13:40 2018
New Revision: 259380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Fix _mm_slli_epi{32,64} for shift values 16 through 31 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84737
--- Comment #14 from Pat Haugen ---
Created attachment 43928
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43928&action=edit
r256888 pcom dump
So the difference appears to be occurring in predictive commoning. In the
ipa-cp clone, resid.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
Bug ID: 85400
Summary: R_SPARC_TLS_*: invalid relocations generated for
optimized builds on sparc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85397
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
builtin_longjmp has also the same issue as PR 85025. I fixed it on
hjl/cet/master branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401
Bug ID: 85401
Summary: segfault building code for VAX
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85391
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #4)
> Let's just back out my couple of patches to ipa-devirt.c. Nobody seems to
> care about PR ipa/83983 so I guess I no longer do either.
Sorry for overlooking the P
87 matches
Mail list logo
