https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89108
Bug ID: 89108
Summary: variable tracking size limit exceeded
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89108
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Could gcc even support a dynamic size? to avoid a hard coded limit?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104
Bug ID: 89104
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in tree_int_cst_elt_check)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88865
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 29 15:39:40 2019
New Revision: 268368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268368=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89089 - ICE with [[no_unique_address]].
In 89089, we were never
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89089
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 29 15:39:40 2019
New Revision: 268368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268368=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89089 - ICE with [[no_unique_address]].
In 89089, we were never
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #15)
> Created attachment 45552 [details]
> new patch.
>
> Testing this and would be grateful for a test run.
Is this hunk needed as well, or will the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35608
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #8 from Damian Rouson ---
(In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #7)
> I actually opted to use multiprocessing with shared memory (shm_open() & co)
> instead of multithreading, since it will be much easier and faster with
> static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
One more issue, shouldn't the #pragma GCC target be added before all include
files? Various define many inline functions, e.g. unwind-pe.h or unwind-cxx.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 29 21:09:41 2019
New Revision: 268370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268370=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/66676
PR ipa/89104
* omp-simd-clone.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 29 21:09:41 2019
New Revision: 268370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268370=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/66676
PR ipa/89104
* omp-simd-clone.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89110
Bug ID: 89110
Summary: r268343 breaks several tests in c++2a
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89110
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89109
Bug ID: 89109
Summary: Duplicates in COMPILER_PATH and LIBRARY_PATH and not
canonicalized absolute paths
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|GCC 9 introduces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88865
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89089
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89098
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > We ICE on the fact that _ZTV1aIN12_GLOBAL__N_11fEE which is vtable for
> > anonymous namespace type but it has EXTERNAL flag set.
> >
> > Jason, why this happens? I am changing type to C++: if there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61073
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Bug ID: 89105
Summary: -Wabi warns for functions with internal linkage
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86740
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89089
--- Comment #10 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Thanks for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66708
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27436
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89086
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > > I don't think this is realistic unless someone steps on with at least a
> > > draft.
> >
> > Well, yes. Howewer, I would prefer if you did not close
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
Andrey Drobyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a.drobyshev at samsung dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #20 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #15)
> Created attachment 45552 [details]
> new patch.
>
> Testing this and would be grateful for a test run.
I can confirm that this patch fixes the glibc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking again what ICC does here: ICC 16 emits a1 (i.e. like aligned(i_x:1)),
ICC 17 emits a8 (i.e. like aligned(i_x:8)), ICC 18 and 19 don't emit anything
(i.e. ignore the aligned clause that doesn't tell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51637
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89107
Bug ID: 89107
Summary: -Wconversion warning is not appropriate since
conversion doesn't alter value, because of mask
entered before.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #28 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-01-29 4:53 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Done - do you want to keep this open?
Could the change be backported? I will test in coming days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
Bug ID: 89106
Summary: cast-to-union documentation incorrect w.r.t.
lvalueness
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This PR is probably related to/duplicate of pr54618.
These two PRs are so mangled that it very difficult to tell what has been fixed
and what remains to be fixed.
IMO it would be better to open a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54618
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #22 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
The following patch fixes the testcase and seems to pass regression testing.
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/decl.c (revision
/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190129 (experimental) [trunk revision 268359] (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88752
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57048
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Jan 29 22:40:26 2019
New Revision: 268372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268372=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-29 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/57048
* interface.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89110
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89110
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 30 02:32:33 2019
New Revision: 268376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268376=gcc=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/89110
* g++.dg/other/nontype-1.C: Expect error in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89110
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86943
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 30 02:43:04 2019
New Revision: 268377
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268377=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86943 - wrong code converting lambda to function pointer.
In this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86218
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #5)
It does not fix the issue in comment #3. In fact, the simpler testcase
program pr89077_3
implicit none
character(20), parameter :: input = 'Forward'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80864
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87996
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88761
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86943
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Can someone please test the patch in Comment #9 on powerpc? It should fix all
failures, modulo ieee_10.f90 which is fixed by [1].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01685.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39985
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at magfr dot
user.lysator.liu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79010
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
>
>
> Alloca and VLA sizes are controlled by the -Walloca-larger-than= and
> -Wvla-larger-than= options (new in GCC 7). If it's thought to be useful to
> exclude
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89113
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
That seems already fixed in gcc-9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This PR is probably fixed by [1]. It looks that on powerpc feenableexcept fires
exception on stalled exception flags (these were raised when certain exception
was disabled).
Other than that, exception may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 30 07:49:58 2019
New Revision: 268381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268381=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/89061
* c-tree.h (C_DECL_COMPOUND_LITERAL_P): Define.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89112
Bug ID: 89112
Summary: Incorrect code generated by rs6000 memcmp expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89112
--- Comment #1 from Samuel Holland ---
Created attachment 45563
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45563=edit
Output of gcc -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89113
Bug ID: 89113
Summary: Missed stack reuse opportunity when using compound
literals
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 30 07:51:24 2019
New Revision: 268382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268382=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89105
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88956
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jan 30 03:04:14 2019
New Revision: 268378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268378=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/88956 - ICE: Floating point exception on a memcpy from
a zero-length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89113
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The question becomes what is the scope for the compound literal?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 45564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45564=edit
Proposed patch
This patch fixes all ieee.exp failures in x86 when configured with fpu-glibc.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89098
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87295
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 29 08:12:02 2019
New Revision: 268361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268361=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-29 Richard Biener
PR debug/87295
* dwarf2out.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88593
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88593
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> And isn't it latent on all older branches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89071
--- Comment #10 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9)
> There was similar patch for sqrt [1], I think that the approach is
> straightforward, and could be applied to other reg->reg scalar insns as
> well, independently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.3.0
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89095
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89095
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Stubbs ---
There's a patch on pr88920, but no review yet. I was planning to chase it
today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If the EABI has such requirements, then libgcc/config/arm/t-arm (or whatever
else) needs to pass down -msoft-float (or whatever else disables the VFP
registers), rather than relying on that the compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56174
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35040
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48655
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See also pr56937 comment 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52119
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r225998
PR c++/55095
* c-common.c (c_fully_fold_internal): Warn about left shift
overflows.
Use EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC.
(maybe_warn_shift_overflow): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88298
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The same bogus conversion warning appears for EOSHIFT.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Done - do you want to keep this open?
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo