: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: qrzhang at gatech dot edu
Target Milestone: ---
It affects the trunk at "-O3". The expected output is "105487". However, at
-O3, it prints "40369".
Bisect points to r270902.
$ gcc-trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90917
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to zhonghao from comment #2)
> A related code sample:
> gcc also accepts it, although x->value is private.
No that is not related at all. In fact it is only rejected when D::verify
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57868
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925
--- Comment #2 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
A related code sample:
class A
{
virtual int String ();
};
class F: public A { };
template < typename V > class G
{
private: V value;
};
class D
{
template < int N > void Verify() {
G* x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90943
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
What if we did something like (using pretty names for a sec):
template
struct _Extra_visit_slot_needed
{
template
static bool_constant<__never_valueless<_Types...>()>
__impl(const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64235
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90943
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77632
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90920
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 19 22:57:02 2019
New Revision: 272489
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272489=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90920 restore previous checks for empty ranges
The change in r263433
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90945
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 19 22:57:06 2019
New Revision: 272490
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272490=gcc=rev
Log:
Have std::vector printer's iterator return bool for vector
Have the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90626
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jun 19 21:46:09 2019
New Revision: 272487
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272487=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90626
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-ssa-strlen.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64235
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60364
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60364
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jun 19 21:27:45 2019
New Revision: 272486
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272486=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/60364 - noreturn after first decl not diagnosed.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 90626, which changed state.
Bug 90626 Summary: fold strcmp(a, b) == 0 to zero when one string length is
exact and the other is unequal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90626
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90626
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90626
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jun 19 20:37:41 2019
New Revision: 272485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272485=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90626 - fold strcmp(a, b) == 0 to zero when one string
length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 46505
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46505=edit
open62541.i.xz preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90157
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90152
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90156
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90156
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jun 19 19:08:24 2019
New Revision: 272483
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272483=gcc=rev
Log:
PR translation/90156 - add linter check suggesting to replace %<%s%> with %qs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90945
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69499
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69499
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jun 19 18:18:40 2019
New Revision: 272482
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272482=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/69499
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69398
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jun 19 18:04:46 2019
New Revision: 272481
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272481=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/69398
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90941
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87907
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jun 19 17:58:54 2019
New Revision: 272480
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272480=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/87907
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90941
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80667
--- Comment #3 from Ed Catmur ---
Agreed, gcc is OK since 7.2, selecting the latter partial specialization (as
with -std=c++14). OK to mark as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90945
Bug ID: 90945
Summary: Enhancement: Have pretty printer for std::vector
return bool values for elements
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90944
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90921
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90944
Bug ID: 90944
Summary: combine debug file created when it shouldn't be
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>The file also compiles well if –O2 is removed and all optimization flags
>described in
>https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.4.0/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#Optimize-Options
You did not read that fully:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90941
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90943
Bug ID: 90943
Summary: Visiting inherited variants no longer works in 9.1
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90942
Bug ID: 90942
Summary: Attributes
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90905
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Right. The warning pass sees this:
[local count: 1073612976]:
__dnew ={v} {CLOBBER};
D.29156 ={v} {CLOBBER};
D.29152 ={v} {CLOBBER};
if (_M_local_buf != _23)
goto ; [53.47%]
else
goto ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> Reduced testcase with whitespace and easy on the eyes lowercase font.
>
> subroutine lfidiff
>
>implicit none
>
>contains
>
> subroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937
--- Comment #1 from Toon Moene ---
It compiles with gfortran 7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90932
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90940
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90393
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||moritz.klammler at cetitec dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #76 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And our best guess is still that Apple's new filesystem has a bug.
Does it work if you use this? make LN_S="cp -pR"
If that works, we can change the makefiles to copy files on darwin, instead of
using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90941
Bug ID: 90941
Summary: [rfe] attribute to specify write-once static variable
for early-initialized values
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #75 from Damien Merenne ---
Indeed in my previous comment the bug seemed to be something else, but I just
reproduced the original bug:
In file included from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not a dup, because turning {0, 0} into {} is still wrong even for trivial
classes:
struct X {
X() = default;
X(int n) : n(n+1) { }
int n;
};
static_assert(__is_trivial(X), "");
int main()
{
X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90940
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90940
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh, and for completeness, the ICE case reduced:
extern "C" void* malloc(decltype(sizeof(0)));
extern "C" void free(void*);
struct string {
string(int) : s(malloc(1)) { }
~string() { free(s); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90940
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced example showing double free, which started with the same revision as
the ICE:
extern "C" void* malloc(decltype(sizeof(0)));
extern "C" void free(void*);
struct string {
string(int) :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90940
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90940
Bug ID: 90940
Summary: Miscompilation of ternary operator with throw
expression in return statement
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||85723
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90939
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90939
Bug ID: 90939
Summary: ICE in meet_with, at ipa-cp.c:1073
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90934
--- Comment #4 from Nick Krempel ---
Thanks, accepted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90936
--- Comment #2 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Hmm, if it is expected, shouldn't gcc also report ambiguous call for f1
construction and assignment as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> (write_expression): Trim trailing zero-initializers from arrays
> of trivial type.
I assume this is the problem. {} will default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
Bug ID: 90938
Summary: [9/10 Regression] Initializing array with {1} works,
but not {0}
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937
Bug ID: 90937
Summary: internal compiler error: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:1538
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90934
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90936
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90936
Bug ID: 90936
Summary: [9 Regression] Ambiguous call with ref-qualified
conversion operators
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521
--- Comment #29 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Wed Jun 19 12:52:43 2019
New Revision: 272473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272473=gcc=rev
Log:
Simplify setjmp and non-local goto implementation (PR84521)
This fixes and simplifies the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90934
--- Comment #2 from Nick Krempel ---
I believe the same issue afflicts libc++, but not MSVC's implementation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90935
Bug ID: 90935
Summary: [nvptx] internal compiler error: in
get_personality_function, at expr.c:12497
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90934
--- Comment #1 from Nick Krempel ---
(The same buggy behavior is seen with "emplace" instead of "insert".)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90934
Bug ID: 90934
Summary: std::vector self-move-insert bug
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90933
Bug ID: 90933
Summary: [nvptx] internal compiler error: RTL check: expected
code 'const_int', have 'reg' in rtx_to_poly_int64, at
rtl.h:2367
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90932
Bug ID: 90932
Summary: [nvptx] internal compiler error: in tree_to_shwi, at
tree.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 46504
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46504=edit
testcase open62541.c and open62541.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90931
Bug ID: 90931
Summary: [nvptx] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr78675.c -O1
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930
Bug ID: 90930
Summary: Excessive memory consumption
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90924
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I also see the ICE with '-cpp -M'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90929
coypu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mips64-linux-gnuabi64 |mips64-linux-gnuabi64,
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
--- Comment #4 from Antony Lewis ---
Not sure why that rather than other dependency options, been like that for ages
(guessing: maybe because of mpif.h?).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Question: why do you use -MMD?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90929
Bug ID: 90929
Summary: libgcc MIPS __clear_cache shouldn't be a no-op
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90928
Bug ID: 90928
Summary: [nvptx] internal compiler error: in
instantiate_virtual_regs_in_insn, at function.c:1737
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 46503
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46503=edit
Compile the test with -cpp -MMD to get the ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90914
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90926
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90927
Bug ID: 90927
Summary: [10 Regression] f951: internal compiler error: in
deps_add_target, at libcpp/mkdeps.c:241
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90926
Bug ID: 90926
Summary: member char array with string literal initializer
causes = {} to fail
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925
Bug ID: 90925
Summary: gcc allows calling private overridden operators
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90909
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88529
--- Comment #5 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #1)
> Created attachment 45899 [details]
> Fix
Is it enough to test only for `scan-assembler-not mov`? Probably a
`scan-assembler-not xor` should be also added?
99 matches
Mail list logo
