https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Nathan Ridge from comment #6)
> Here is another test case that MSVC accepts but GCC rejects:
>
> struct A {};
> struct A* b = (1 == 1) ? new struct A : new struct A;
Is this really the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87639
Bug ID: 87639
Summary: GCC fails to consider end of automatic object lifetime
when determining sibcall eligibility
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #31 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 44851
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44851=edit
patch as per directions
Thanks. I also adjusted include/std/atomic, without which the struct X
test-case would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87127
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87638
Bug ID: 87638
Summary: [C++14] lambda init-capture fails for const references
still
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85534
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #44 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I'd be very hesitant to make the cost model target specific. It goes against
core design goals of gimple.
Conceptually I believe we should be optimizing as much as possible on gimple
and that issues such
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87637
--- Comment #2 from Hubert Tong ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Dup of PR 57510 ?
Looks like this could be the same as the return statement in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510#c9. The scope of PR 57510
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87637
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Dup of PR 57510 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87637
Bug ID: 87637
Summary: Unwinding does not destroy constructed subobject of
brace-initialized temporary
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87632
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Oct 17 19:58:58 2018
New Revision: 265248
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265248=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix select-type regression
PR fortran/87632
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87622
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87636
--- Comment #2 from Cheng Wen ---
This bug was discovered by NTU Cyber-Security-Lab, for fuzzing research work.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87635
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Riccardo from comment #0)
> The support for this is very useful for compiling larger software which
> still needs gcc 48, as is the case of TenFourFox!
GCC 4.8 is no longer supported or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87636
--- Comment #1 from Cheng Wen ---
I have summarized the different recursive stack frames problem in c++filt.
> This issue (In cp-demangle.c.c)
> recursive stack frames: cplus_demangle_type, d_bare_function_type,
> d_function_type
I find that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87636
Bug ID: 87636
Summary: Infinite Recursive Stack Frames in cp-demangle.c in
libiberty(function cplus_demangle_type,
d_bare_function_type, d_function_type)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87619
--- Comment #1 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Wed Oct 17 19:08:51 2018
New Revision: 265247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265247=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87619
* include/std/variant (__select_index): Fix an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87619
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86288
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think Jakub's patch does only allow __gnu__, using the same canonicalization
for attribute-namespaces as for attributes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87562
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87630
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87562
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86288
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87635
Bug ID: 87635
Summary: backport of cmath patches to gcc 48 for Darwin
incomplete cmath
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #50 from Rogério de Souza Moraes
---
Created attachment 44848
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44848=edit
GCC 6.3.0 consolidated patch based on Richard's patches
The patch attached is a backport based on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87623
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87623
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Oct 17 17:54:26 2018
New Revision: 265245
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265245=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/87623
* fold-const.c (fold_truth_andor_1): If the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87623
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Oct 17 17:53:02 2018
New Revision: 265244
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265244=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/87623
* fold-const.c (fold_truth_andor_1): If the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87623
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Oct 17 17:52:10 2018
New Revision: 265243
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265243=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/87623
* fold-const.c (fold_truth_andor_1): If the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87623
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Oct 17 17:49:28 2018
New Revision: 265242
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265242=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/87623
* fold-const.c (fold_truth_andor_1): If the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87632
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Untested patch:
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
@@ -8914,7 +8914,7 @@ resolve_select_type (gfc_code *code, gfc_namespace
*old_ns)
if (ref2)
{
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87634
Bug ID: 87634
Summary: CSE for dynamic_cast
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78127
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #6)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #3)
> > Author: vmakarov
> > Date: Thu Feb 16 19:47:15 2017
> > New Revision: 245514
> >
> > URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87619
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87627
--- Comment #4 from Rich Felker ---
Thanks, that's helpful!
For 64-bit what I mean is that it emits:
pushq %r12
movl %edx, %r12d
pushq %rbp
movl %esi, %ebp
pushq %rbx
movl %edi, %ebx
call bar
movl %r12d, %edx
movl %ebp, %esi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87632
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #0)
> There is a new ICE, most likely introduced by r265232, r265134 was still
> working. I will add a reproducer after lunch.
Why most likely :-) ?
There is also:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #43 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for duplications / formatting errors in previous comment. Is there a way
to edit posted comments ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #42 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
This is another simpler approach I tried to apply "cost-model" on hoisting
before approaching a more general solution:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87632
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 44847
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44847=edit
First (long) reproducer
This is a first "complete" reproducer. I will boil it down now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87633
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ code seems to be:
class a {
public:
double b() const;
};
class c {
public:
int m_fn2() const;
};
double a::b() const {
return 0 == 0 ? reinterpret_cast(this)->m_fn2() : 0;
}
bool d;
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86288
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86288
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87469
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In the loop here, the value defined in the loop (e) is used outside the loop
hence this should not be detected as popcount (AFIK). I will have a look at
fixing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87631
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz ---
My (current) use case is structures (nested) of builtin types and vector types.
These structures have a trivial copy constructor.
Generalization
---
I believe generalization of this approach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87622
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Klein ---
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87622
>
> --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
> Some more remarks: In a benchmark, it is best to
This Week’s Fuel Prices
if you can’t see the image below you can find it here
(https://gfcmedia.com/medco/)
https://gfcmedia.com/medco/
Energetically Yours, MEDCO
To Stop Receiving our Emails, Please Reply with: REMOVE
( Some emails are scheduled in advanced, remove may take up some time )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86288
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65174
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56386
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #10)
> Paul, I think this "bugfix" introduced an ICE in our code. I will open a new
> PR.
Seemingly, it's PR 87632
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87633
Bug ID: 87633
Summary: ice in compare_range_wit h_value, at vr-values.c:1702
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29164
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71867
--- Comment #12 from asmwarrior ---
Hi, (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> Does this code still get miscompiled with GCC 6 and newer?
Hi, I'm now using mingw-build i686-7.2.0-release-posix-dwarf-rt_v5-rev1, which
was downloaded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78127
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71779
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #27 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87632
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|[9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70903
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87632
Bug ID: 87632
Summary: [9.0 regression] ICE segmentation fault in f951
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56386
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Paul, I think this "bugfix" introduced an ICE in our code. I will open a new
PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87631
Bug ID: 87631
Summary: new attribute for passing structures with multiple
SIMD data members in registers
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/M-zEpR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87623
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67164
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jason at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #12 from Paolo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87622
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Klein ---
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> If "b" (and "a") are allocated in some slower memory part, it matters how one
> sums over the variables in the matmul loop.
I know that there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87630
Bug ID: 87630
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in
linemap_position_for_line_and_column, at
libcpp/line-map.c:842
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71867
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Does this code still get miscompiled with GCC 6 and newer?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #37 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Would this be a better approach?
Probably not much. So let's go with your kludge from comment #19 but with a
comment giving the rationale for putting it in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87623
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81055
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85667
Vinay Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vinay.m.engg at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84588
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87622
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #49 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 17 08:49:00 2018
New Revision: 265235
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265235=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-16 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2018-10-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87629
Bug ID: 87629
Summary: function template parameter deduction succeeds but
parameter and deduced arg does not match.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87622
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Some more remarks: In a benchmark, it is best to actually fill the values of
all read variables to something defined, for example with a call to
random_number. Also, if you generate values which you do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87469
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
It seems that kugan wrote the revision that broke it, but the bug is
unassigned.
I'd be interested to find the process to re-assign.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87623
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84705
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Note, the cp/ change in fact is in tree.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=265234
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87624
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87622
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84705
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87627
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87628
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84705
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 17 07:32:15 2018
New Revision: 265233
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265233=gcc=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-10-17 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/84705
* init.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58906
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 17 07:16:16 2018
New Revision: 265232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265232=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-17 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/56386
PR fortran/58906
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82077
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 17 07:16:16 2018
New Revision: 265232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265232=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-17 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/56386
PR fortran/58906
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80260
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 17 07:16:16 2018
New Revision: 265232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265232=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-17 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/56386
PR fortran/58906
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56386
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 17 07:16:16 2018
New Revision: 265232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265232=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-17 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/56386
PR fortran/58906
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77385
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 17 07:16:16 2018
New Revision: 265232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265232=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-17 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/56386
PR fortran/58906
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #48 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 17 07:01:28 2018
New Revision: 265231
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265231=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2018-10-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87627
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
92 matches
Mail list logo
