https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91874
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #7 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
@Jonathan Wakely I think you accidentally closed the report, would you mind to
reopen it (I'm not seeing why would it be "invalid", people even confirmed that
more support for std containers is being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91863
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91877
Bug ID: 91877
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in convert_like_real, at
cp/call.c:7385 since r276058
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91872
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
Dup of PR91831, then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91866
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I meant something like:
--- gcc/match.pd.jj 2019-09-21 23:53:52.108385196 +0200
+++ gcc/match.pd2019-09-24 10:18:58.804114496 +0200
@@ -2265,8 +2265,9 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
Bug ID: 91878
Summary: No sanitizer report for past-end access of std∷set
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
>
> > No, that's not how undefined behaviour works. You are wrong to expect a
> > crash
>
> No, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91871
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Sep 24 10:09:18 2019
New Revision: 276091
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276091=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/91871 fix Clang warnings in testsuite
PR libstdc++/91871
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91877
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #6 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> No, that's not how undefined behaviour works. You are wrong to expect a crash
No, in context of the report I'm not. You're correct this is not how UB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91860
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91875
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91862
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91866
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I meant something like:
> --- gcc/match.pd.jj 2019-09-21 23:53:52.108385196 +0200
> +++ gcc/match.pd 2019-09-24 10:18:58.804114496 +0200
> @@ -2265,8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91872
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91871
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91869
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91870
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 91870 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91872
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
And indeed the RTL expansion ICE points to the very same issue via
context = decl_function_context (exp);
gcc_assert (!exp
...
|| context == current_function_decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #1 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
Btw, worth noting that clang 8.0.1 does not handle it either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is the current way to add many checks to libstdc++, and it
detects this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
--- Comment #4 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is the current way to add many checks to libstdc++, and it
> detects this.
Oh, cool, I'll make use of it, thanks for the hint!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91878
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91871
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
Bug ID: 91879
Summary: DESTDIR support seems incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91883
Bug ID: 91883
Summary: Division by a constant could be optimized for known
variables value range
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882
--- Comment #1 from SztfG at yandex dot ru ---
Similar problem with other tautology:
unsigned int impl_bit(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) // bitwise implication
{
return (~a | b);
}
unsigned int eq_bit(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) //
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91845
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Sep 24 14:38:53 2019
New Revision: 276102
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276102=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/91845 - ICE with invalid pointer-to-member.
* expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91845
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80773
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91884
Bug ID: 91884
Summary: libgomp testsuite: (not) using a specific driver for
C++, Fortran
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91871
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78752
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91866
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 24 12:45:13 2019
New Revision: 276096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276096=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/91866
* match.pd (((T)(A)) + CST -> (T)(A + CST)):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91881
Bug ID: 91881
Summary: Value range knowledge of higher bits not used in
optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91882
Bug ID: 91882
Summary: boolean XOR tautology missed optimisation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91884
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82507
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91816
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
I would like to see this also fixed. But I know Honza has some comments about
the patch. Honza?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91868
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Sep 24 14:40:24 2019
New Revision: 276103
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276103=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/91868 - improve -Wshadow location.
* name-lookup.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91868
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80746
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68858
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91880
Bug ID: 91880
Summary: ICE: segfault in hwloop_optimize
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #0)
> Hello.
>
> I tried to build gcc with non-empty DESTDIR.
What exact commands did you run?
I don't see why DESTDIR should matter until the 'make install' step.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91832
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Sep 24 11:16:57 2019
New Revision: 276093
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276093=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR 91832] Do not ICE on negative offsets in ipa-sra
Hi,
IPA-SRA asserts that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91877
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #3 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #1)
> archive from the DESTDIR directory and extracting it elsewhere. It is not
> supposed to be used at configure time to pick up other software, only at
> install
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91866
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91831
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Sep 24 11:20:57 2019
New Revision: 276094
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276094=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR 91831] Copy PARM_DECLs of artificial thunks
Hi,
I am quite surprised I did
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69235
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91874
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79759
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91877
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced:
template class b {
public:
b(const a &);
};
struct {
int *c;
} d;
void e() { b(d.c); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91872
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91831
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90825
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qux at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91877
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Candidate fix:
--- a/gcc/cp/call.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/call.c
@@ -7382,8 +7382,7 @@ convert_like_real (conversion *convs, tree expr, tree fn,
int argnum,
tree type = TREE_TYPE (ref_type);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91885
Bug ID: 91885
Summary: ICE when compiling SPEC 2017 blender benchmark with
-O3 -fprofile-generate
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82794
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86269
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82740
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #1)
> The ways to handle libc being installed in non-standard locations depend on
> your specific use case. GCC provides the --with-sysroot and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85808
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86000
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91871
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49974
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84140
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85241
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
r266816 is already present gcc-9-branch but it didn't fix the ICE. I'm afraid
it's r272125, but alas that doesn't seem to be backportable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Perhaps we should just remove the assert:
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -1085,7 +1085,6 @@ constexpr_call_hasher::equal (constexpr_call *lhs,
constexpr_call *rhs)
{
tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78752
Andrew Sutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91887
Bug ID: 91887
Summary: -fdebug-types-section ICE building chromium
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91887
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91570
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Sep 24 19:04:54 2019
New Revision: 276105
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276105=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91570 - ICE in get_range_strlen_dynamic on a conditional
of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91570
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91887
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Target Milestone|---
x) : "ws"(x), "ws"(y));
return x;
}
compiled to
fmax:
xsmaxdp 1, 1, 2
blr
now (gcc version 10.0.0 20190924) i get
fmax.c: In function 'fmax':
fmax.c:3:2: error: impossible constraint in 'asm'
3 | __asm__ ("xsmaxdp %x0, %x1, %x2" : "=ws"(x) : "ws"(x), "ws"(y));
| ^~~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91865
--- Comment #3 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Created attachment 46936
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46936=edit
msp430-extendhipsi2.diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607
--- Comment #8 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Anything I can do to help resolve this? We have library code that breaks
because of the issue and since 9.2 is deployed everywhere that 9.1 was used,
this is very disruptive...
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #6 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Which makes sense, since the system headers are not part of GCC itself, so
> why would it expect them in the temporary staging area for GCC's own files?
OK, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87441
Jeff Chapman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.chapman.bugs at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91865
--- Comment #2 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
A related issue can be observed if "char i" is made global instead of an
argument to func.
const int table[2] = {1, 2};
int foo;
char i;
void func(void)
{
foo = table[i];
}
Combine combines the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91729
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91870
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-9-24
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91862
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91863
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91864
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
