https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95297
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95277
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The question is whether those attributes shall change the ABI or whether it
is enough for GCC to apply this alignment to the incoming variable by
eventually
issueing a callee-copy. And what happens to C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95291
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95284
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95272
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95281
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95283
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95290
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95309
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95276
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
So, two bugs, as far as I can see: One in libgfortran, which was warned about.
I will check if this is actually valid, maybe the automated test case reduction
went too far.
The second one about the apparent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95284
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f73f8bab9f2474f175cc5ca5ba8ebb32808a4cae
commit r11-605-gf73f8bab9f2474f175cc5ca5ba8ebb32808a4cae
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> pointer-overflow is a cheap check without any context, for ptr + off
> it will do
> uintptr_t res = (uintptr_t) ptr + off;
> if (((intptr_t) res) < 0 ? res >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70053
--- Comment #6 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
"-O2 -ftree-slp-vectorize" could also generate the expected simple fmrs.
Reason is pass_cselim will transform conditional stores into unconditional ones
with PHI instructions when vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95275
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> There is nothing wrong on addition of -1, whether signed or cast to
> size_t/uintptr_t, to a pointer,
Looking at the standard (I am not a pro at that), one could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95311
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95308
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67bfbda18f4e6d0d30ad8f8790f1d0d4653131ed
commit r11-610-g67bfbda18f4e6d0d30ad8f8790f1d0d4653131ed
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frantisek at sumsal dot cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95297
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95290
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95297
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #7 from Frantisek Sumsal ---
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't detecting pointer overflows (even
in cases where it's apparently not an undefined behavior) the sole purpose of
-fsanitize=pointer-overflow (which, to my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase, so that there is no UB.
void bar (void);
void
foo (long int *x, int y, int *z, int v)
{
int a[y];
int b;
for (b = 0; b < 3; ++b)
z[b] = x[b] + 1.0f;
if (v)
return;
bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4acca1c0635dfa43cd8c4bfe2b22e17909fc23a3
commit r11-609-g4acca1c0635dfa43cd8c4bfe2b22e17909fc23a3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95276
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
The libgfortran bug is now PR 95313 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95311
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95311
Bug ID: 95311
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in
cp_ubsan_maybe_instrument_member_call at
gcc/cp/cp-ubsan.c:136 since r11-578-g72af65b91cc2a2eb
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95284
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95297
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so here we're using a scalar shift arg - this is also not reflected in the
SLP tree. Ideally we'd add a vect_scalar_def for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95312
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #0)
> All gcc since 4.6, where -Wformat was initially introduced
(Well, it of course was introduced much earlier, but since that release it
started emitting verbose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
How would you know if there is or isn't an object at that those addresses?
Sure, if you in #c4 change p + 1 into p, then it is undefined behavior, but as
I said, UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer has no way to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > There is nothing wrong on addition of -1, whether signed or cast to
> > size_t/uintptr_t, to a pointer,
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95163
--- Comment #2 from John Donners ---
hmm, indeed I found the applicable text in the standard (2.14) as well:
"The effect of the firstprivate clause is as if it is applied to one or more
constructs as follows: To the target construct if it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95283
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 95283 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95308
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0
Summary|ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95307
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70053
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95309
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
So SLP vectorization decides to vectorize the SImode stores with V1SImode
vector stores because the cited revision does not cost the constant as
SLP_TREE_NUMBER_OF_VEC_STMTS is zero for it. That's because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95271
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0e27f72358794692e367363940c6383e9ad1e45
commit r11-608-gc0e27f72358794692e367363940c6383e9ad1e45
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95297
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d31694544d2d805151899ab0a0bc654767035ad6
commit r11-607-gd31694544d2d805151899ab0a0bc654767035ad6
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95272
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
static void
vect_slp_rearrange_stmts (slp_tree node, unsigned int group_size,
vec permutation,
hash_set )
{
...
/* ??? Computation nodes are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95291
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95281
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 95281 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Assuming that there indeed is no object at address 0x406310, wouldn't 6.5.6.8
from the C11 standard apply?
> [...] If both the pointer operand and the result point to elements of the same
> array object, or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95297
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This testcase is fixed by [1]
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/546408.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95313
Bug ID: 95313
Summary: Possible overflow in itoa_buf
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95297
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
w/o C++ headers:
extern bool var_10;
extern int var_16;
extern short var_17;
extern long var_18;
extern int arr_3[][13];
int min(const int , const int )
{
return a < b ? a : b;
}
void test() {
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Known to fail|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95308
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0c623f58198d3c8f767a181574537720386b468
commit r11-606-ga0c623f58198d3c8f767a181574537720386b468
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95310
Bug ID: 95310
Summary: [concepts] Unrelated template parameters printed in
diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95292
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95273
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I'll first see what remains fixing the rest of the fallout from the rev.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95312
Bug ID: 95312
Summary: Missing quoting of format directives emitted by
-Wformat
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95307
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For - 0 it is diagnosed by:
/* Technically we should check this for all subexpressions, but that
runs into problems with our internal representation of pointer
subtraction and the 5.19 rules are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Frantisek Sumsal from comment #7)
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't detecting pointer overflows
> (even in cases where it's apparently not an undefined behavior) the sole
> purpose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
Bug ID: 95314
Summary: Sharing a local reference to a global variable in
multiple functions results in location references
block not in block tree
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95309
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95309
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc0c0196340f7ac58b10d0042d7cea776d6f7864
commit r11-615-gdc0c0196340f7ac58b10d0042d7cea776d6f7864
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95197
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For e.g.
void bar (I );
void
foo (I )
{
#pragma omp task //firstprivate (a)
bar (a);
}
with the same templates this is handled by omp_cxx_notice_variable, which will
1068 get_copy_ctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for reporting it; this sounds like a bug.
Please can you use attach a reproducer (e.g. using
gcc_jit_context_dump_reproducer_to_file).
Looking at the backtrace, it looks like a bad interaction with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95266
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #5 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
The reproducer generates a file where the function create_code only contains
this:
/* Replay of API calls for ctxt_0x7f8079128680. */
So, no code is actually generated and thus, does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95163
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Likewise crashing is:
!$omp target map(tofrom: i) map(i)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> 1 + (size_t) -1 give 0
It wasn't obvious to me that the operation was supposed to happen in some C/C++
type (they don't say which one) or in a mathematical,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95261
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95058
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks Jakub, that sounds like the problem: I'm creating a tree per
playback::rvalue (m_inner), and I need to unshare them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
unshare_expr can handle that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95197
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
// { dg-do link }
typedef __PTRDIFF_TYPE__ ptrdiff_t;
template
class I
{
public:
typedef ptrdiff_t difference_type;
I ();
~I ();
I (T *);
I (const I &);
T * ();
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95315
Bug ID: 95315
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
lookup_page_table_entry)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95058
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 95266 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Sorry about that; thanks for trying. I think I can figure out a reproducer,
and will try tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95316
Bug ID: 95316
Summary: [10 Regression] binary built with -fopenacc fails to
run when not all offload compilers are installed that
were configured
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95315
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92815
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95319
Bug ID: 95319
Summary: Regression from gcc9.3 when inserting into a vector
with an initializer list. Error: a GNU-style
designated initializer for class
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95320
Bug ID: 95320
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in odr_type_p, at ipa-utils.h:246,
during IPA pass: pure-const
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95197
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95321
Bug ID: 95321
Summary: Run-time crash on valid destructor code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Component|bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
--- Comment #3 from Brett Neumeier ---
Created attachment 48596
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48596=edit
result of compilation with -fno-align-loop specified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95322
Bug ID: 95322
Summary: std::list | take | transform, expression does not work
cbegin() == end()
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
--- Comment #2 from Brett Neumeier ---
Created attachment 48595
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48595=edit
result of compilation with default settings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
Bug ID: 95318
Summary: gcc 10.1 on x86_64 fails to build aarch64
cross-compiler when using default optimization
settings
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
