https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89862
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Sat Mar 30 04:28:51 2019
New Revision: 270031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270031=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-03-29 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89862
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Sat Mar 30 04:24:22 2019
New Revision: 270030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270030=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-03-29 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70392
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887
--- Comment #6 from vfdff ---
Yes, I agree with your point, it is not a bug.
I doubt there is something prevent us finding the array not be touched with the
option -fno-toplevel-reorder -O2 (based on gcc 7.3), and we may get better
performance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to vfdff from comment #4)
> I check that base on gcc-431, and find the local array will be placed in
> read only section, i.e. gcc-431 can found the array not be touched with the
> option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887
--- Comment #4 from vfdff ---
I check that base on gcc-431, and find the local array will be placed in read
only section, i.e. gcc-431 can found the array not be touched with the option
-fno-toplevel-reorder. so is it a regression ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89890
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Wood ---
If I add the line "INTEGER, ALLOCATABLE :: i(:)" inside the definition of
'base', then valgrind reports the lost memory as having been allocated at the
second ALLOCATE statement in the function 'new' instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87127
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Paul, would be cool to get back to this one! ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85686
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Erik Schnetter from comment #16)
> The proper way to fix this via fixinclude is to replace declarations such as
>
> _Atomic u_long
>
> with
>
> _Atomic(u_long)
>
> which is still legal in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89861
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Grant ---
Excellent, amazing turnaround time Martin!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 29 20:51:15 2019
New Revision: 270025
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270025=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/89865
* gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c: Include in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86164
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I started working on a patch to replace the recursion with iteration, but
didn't get it working yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Known to fail|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89869
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 29 20:10:19 2019
New Revision: 270024
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270024=gcc=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/89869
* typeck.c: Include gimplify.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89872
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] GCC does |[7/8 Regression] GCC does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89872
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 29 19:32:20 2019
New Revision: 270023
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270023=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/89872
* gimplify.c (gimplify_compound_literal_expr): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89876
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89876
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Mar 29 18:40:31 2019
New Revision: 270021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270021=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89876 - ICE with deprecated conversion.
* call.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89881
--- Comment #2 from Lukas Mosimann ---
Yes you're right. But also GCC reports a warning, saying that the function is
only declared, but not defined.
This might be exactly what we want, if the function is only used at compile
time, as a kind of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89881
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #31 from Segher Boessenkool ---
If an asm makes a function non-pure, that asm should be volatile in the
first place? Or are there any cases where that is not true?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89889
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89890
Bug ID: 89890
Summary: Memory leak from a function returning a subtype
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89889
Bug ID: 89889
Summary: worse code compared to clang with alloca()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89838
--- Comment #1 from Claudiu Zissulescu ---
It is confirmed also in gcc mainline branch:
tst-tls1.c: In function ‘check_s’:
tst-tls1.c:65:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 36 35 37 6 (set (reg/f:SI 163)
(plus:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89888
--- Comment #1 from Pascal Cuoq ---
errata: “outside the range of an unsigned char”
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89882
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89888
Bug ID: 89888
Summary: When switch controlling expression is promoted from
type narrower than int, GCC does not diagnose
identical cases
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89882
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> So, is the PR about not being to understand it is a fix-it remove hint
> (which is obvious if you e.g. use -fdiagnostics-generate-patch or
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83033
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #20 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I'll be working on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89871
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Mar 29 15:24:00 2019
New Revision: 270019
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270019=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89871
* g++.dg/cpp2a/desig14.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46059
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46059=edit
gcc9-pr89865.patch
Peepholes (on top of the above testcase patch) that fix up f*minus on ia32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83033
--- Comment #2 from Andrea Corallo ---
Patch proposed
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg01402.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83033
Andrea Corallo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrea.corallo at arm dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77504
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89882
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
As Jakub notes, it's a deletion fix-it hint.
It's suggesting the deletion of the same range as that of the primary location
of the diagnostic, so arguably there's some redundancy there.
I wonder if there's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #16 from Erik Schnetter ---
The proper way to fix this via fixinclude is to replace declarations such as
_Atomic u_long
with
_Atomic(u_long)
which is still legal in C. In C++, one can then add
#include
#ifndef _Atomic
#define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887
--- Comment #2 from vfdff ---
Add option -fno-toplevel-reorder for O2, then aucSubFrmType.1820 will also be
placed in section data.
/opt/buildtools/gcc-7.3.0/bin/gcc dd.c -O2 -S -fno-toplevel-reorder
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887
vfdff changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhongyunde at huawei dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887
Bug ID: 89887
Summary: the local array data will be laid in different section
by different optimization level
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89886
Bug ID: 89886
Summary: the local array data will be laid in different section
by different optimization level
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89871
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I'll add the test to trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89876
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89885
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89885
Bug ID: 89885
Summary: --help=warning prints wrongly default values for
options set via e.g. -Wall or -Wextra
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86164
Giuliano Belinassi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giuliano.belinassi at usp dot
br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84707
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |rejects-valid
Priority|P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81800
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.4 |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The test adjustment so that it only checks what the PR85683 change really meant
to check for would be:
2019-03-29 Jakub Jelinek
PR rtl-optimization/89865
* gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #13 from Jiangning Liu
---
Feng already sent out the 1st patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg00541.html .
But the 2nd one is related to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89713 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89725
--- Comment #9 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> (In reply to bin cheng from comment #7)
> > I am testing below simple fix, it bypass access functions doesn't belong to
> > analyzing loop_nest:
> >
> > diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
--- Comment #6 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Actually it comes from the shell.
>
> e.g. from bash:
> if ((WIFSTOPPED (show->status) == 0) &&
> (WIFCONTINUED (show->status) ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 29 11:42:51 2019
New Revision: 270013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270013=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/87485
* function.c (expand_function_end): Move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89851
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89722
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89292
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
>
> --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #12 from joey.ye.cc at gmail dot com ---
Feng,
Have you made any progress on these problems? If advice is still
needed, I would suggest you share more details about these problems,
and people like Bin and Richi and Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89882
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #25 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24)
> IIRC we used to say sth like "unable to find a register to spill" for
> -fschedule-insns introduced issues. Even the ICE with max. number of
> LRA passes is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #15 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Sorry for the spam, now I got it, there was something old (i.e. new) lingering
around still. Now, back to XCode 10.1 and command line tools from October 2018
with a different include/sys. Started
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89882
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #14 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Unfortunately, the downgrade to XCode 10.1 didn't work, I still get the
buggy/problematic headers. That is really annoying, because now I am stuck with
my development.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #28)
> Any comments?
> --- gcc/gimple.c(revision 270012)
> +++ gcc/gimple.c(working copy)
> @@ -2727,11 +2738,16 @@ gimple_asm_clobbers_memory_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89861
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
I am considering the following as a fix for the GIMPLE issue, does that
look acceptable? I think a binary flag as suggested by Jakub results
in somewhat unpredictable behavior with regard to inlining I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89400
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89871
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89869
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46056=edit
gcc9-pr89869.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89869
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is that for the COND_EXPR as lvalue, cp_build_modify_expr does:
/* Handle (a ? b : c) used as an "lvalue". */
case COND_EXPR:
{
/* Produce (a ? (b = rhs) : (c = rhs))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89884
Bug ID: 89884
Summary: g++.dg/lto/pr89335 FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89884
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89883
Bug ID: 89883
Summary: Excessive candidates for ambiguous overload in error
message
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89858
--- Comment #10 from Hans Buchmann ---
Thank you.
Hans Buchmann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89882
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89858
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89869
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If there is a SAVE_EXPR used in both arms of the conditional and not used
before that, then it is a bug in the generic code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89869
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89869
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89876
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89871
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89882
Bug ID: 89882
Summary: [8/9 Regression] Extra caret marker when issuing
diagnostics for the "'friend' used outside of class"
error
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89872
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46055
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46055=edit
gcc9-pr89872.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89872
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
Summary|GCC does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I see. For the moment, I will be downgrading to XCode 10.1 with its command
line tools, but I really hope that either you or them will be able to fix it.
If you were following the progress from Apple, maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89858
--- Comment #8 from Hans Buchmann ---
Created attachment 46054
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46054=edit
/proc/cpuinfo
Sincerely
Hans Buchmann
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
