https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
--- Comment #18 from Keith Thompson ---
Something I probably should have noticed earlier:
Why was this bug closed as a duplicate of bug 11234?
Bug 11234 complains that conversions between function pointer and void*
are accepted. This bug is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90769
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90737
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90737
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jun 6 02:53:01 2019
New Revision: 271985
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271985=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/90737 - [8/9/10 Regression] inconsistent address of a local converted to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90769
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90769
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Sorry, more reduced:
#include
enum E {A, B};
struct X
{
template = 0>
constexpr X(int v);
template = 0>
operator OUT() const;
};
#ifdef WORKS
bool operator!=(X const& lhs, int) {
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90769
Bug ID: 90769
Summary: Template instantiation recursion when trying to do a
conversion template
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89803
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88918
Bug 88918 depends on bug 89803, which changed state.
Bug 89803 Summary: Missing AVX512 intrinsics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89803
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90662
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90768
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90768
Shawn Landden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #3 from Shawn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90768
Shawn Landden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90768
--- Comment #1 from Shawn Landden ---
Whoops I got that backwards, converting the bit test to a
greater-than-or-equal-to is better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90768
Bug ID: 90768
Summary: better range analysis for converting lt/gt into bit
tests
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90767
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Regressed with r264250.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90673
--- Comment #6 from Yaro Slav ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #5)
> From the linked code:
>
> missing = copy_from_user(dbg_buff, buf, sizeof(buf));
>
> dbg_buff is a global variable -- is writing to it thread safe?
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90767
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90767
Bug ID: 90767
Summary: jumbled error message with this and const
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90673
Kees Cook changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kees at outflux dot net
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90766
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90766
Bug ID: 90766
Summary: strlen(a + i) missing range for arrays of unknown
bound with strings of known length and variable i
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90751
--- Comment #5 from Sven Schnelle ---
I can confirm that the patch from Dave fixes the issue for me.
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movq%rsp, %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_register 6
andq$-64, %rsp
movq16(%rbp), %rax
vmovdqa64 %zmm0, (%rax)
leave
.cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size foo, .-foo
.ide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90449
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> The testcase in the godbolt link even ICEs with current trunk. I'll open a
> separate PR.
PR90764
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90764
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r270765.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90764
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90764
Bug ID: 90764
Summary: [10 Regression] internal compiler error in
build_deduction_guide, at cp/pt.c:27162
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88483
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90449
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
The testcase in the godbolt link even ICEs with current trunk. I'll open a
separate PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90760
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63149
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 5 18:12:53 2019
New Revision: 271969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271969=gcc=rev
Log:
ChangeLog for PR c++/63149
Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63149
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 5 18:11:20 2019
New Revision: 271968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271968=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/63149 - wrong auto deduction from braced-init-list
2019-06-04 Nina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22568
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> > I have a patch to tree-ssa-phiopt.c to fix comment #1 though it needs
> > another patch to expr.c to produce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90758
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
Bug ID: 90763
Summary: vec_xl_len should take constnan
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90762
Bug ID: 90762
Summary: ICE in resolvePropertiesX, at d/dmd/expression.c:251
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90761
Bug ID: 90761
Summary: ICE in visit, at d/dmd/dcast.c:883
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90760
Bug ID: 90760
Summary: ICE in set_section, at symtab.c:1573
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #13 from Alex Henrie ---
I filled out all the forms and was approved to contribute code to GCC, but the
patches have still not been reviewed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg00971.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90744
--- Comment #3 from Tomáš Trnka ---
I think the issue stems from this code in gfc_conv_procedure_call():
/* Deferred length dummies pass the character length by reference
so that the value can be returned. */
if
tmp/ccYGabNR.s
GNU C11 (GCC) version 7.4.1 20190605 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 8.2.1 20181127, GMP version 6.1.2, MPFR
version 4.0.2, MPC version 1.1.0, isl version none
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
GNU C11 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to MCCCS from comment #6)
> After reading your comment, I noticed that
> there were two things I forgot to mention:
>
> 1 - availability.h is the file where
> "API_AVAILABLE" is defined for Clang.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24551
--- Comment #4 from Thomas De Schampheleire
---
Could it not be that #14167 is now fixed after fixing #86964 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24551
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> But this meta-bug is about -feliminate-unused-debug-types, not -decls.
oh sorry, I misread, nvm then...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24551
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
But this meta-bug is about -feliminate-unused-debug-types, not -decls.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22568
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> I have a patch to tree-ssa-phiopt.c to fix comment #1 though it needs
> another patch to expr.c to produce the cmov directly from COND_EXPR. I hope
> to post
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24551
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrickdepinguin at gmail dot
com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90681
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 90681, which changed state.
Bug 90681 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in vect_slp_analyze_node_operations_1,
at tree-vect-slp.c:2513 since r271704
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90681
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66505
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|easyhack|
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38711
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #10)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #9)
>
> Not much has changed. There's LRA now, so for targets using LRA
> things may now work.
That's most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Alex Henrie from comment #11)
> Created attachment 45889 [details]
> Proposed patches
>
> I fixed up the patch from comment 4 and added a second patch with tests. Now
> I'm just waiting to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90757
Bug ID: 90757
Summary: inlining skips function parameter initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90744
--- Comment #2 from Tomáš Trnka ---
Looks like the issue appears if a particular external procedure is called for
the second time. Replacing the seemingly useless "if" with just two calls leads
to one correct and one miscompiled call:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90744
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90733
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90598
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90756
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regressions] g++ ICE |g++ ICE in convert_move, at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90756
Bug ID: 90756
Summary: [8/9 Regressions] g++ ICE in convert_move, at
expr.c:218 on i686 and s390x
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90733
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 5 12:22:22 2019
New Revision: 271960
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271960=gcc=rev
Log:
PR debug/90733
* var-tracking.c (vt_expand_loc_callback): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90598
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 5 12:21:27 2019
New Revision: 271959
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271959=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-05-29 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90641
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 5 12:19:00 2019
New Revision: 271958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271958=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-05-27 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90585
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 5 12:18:23 2019
New Revision: 271957
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271957=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-05-24 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #24 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
actually it won't help since C has only one bool type and not bools in
different sizes (why would one need that?).
I guess it would be easiest to turn Fortran frontend to use integers here.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90743
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #2)
> Thanks for your comment; I wasn't aware of the (default) '-frealloc-lhs'
> behavior (PR90741), and indeed that's supported inside offloading regions,
> too.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|msebor at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90743
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Device-side 'malloc' for|Fortran 'allocatable' in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80018
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87954
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90733
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 5 09:41:13 2019
New Revision: 271952
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271952=gcc=rev
Log:
PR debug/90733
* var-tracking.c (vt_expand_loc_callback): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90746
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
PR66826 is another bug asking for a similar attribute.
Of course, for a builtin we can check that manually in tree-tailcall.c, but for
user provided functions we need an attribute if we want to support that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87933
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2019-03-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90726
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90726
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 5 08:26:36 2019
New Revision: 271950
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271950=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-05 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/90726
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90754
Bug ID: 90754
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that
contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘tree_list’ in
lookup_type_scope_1, at cp/name-lookup.c:6492 since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90754
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
>
> --- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #20)
> > OK, the mismatched declaration types are:
> > void (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90753
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The reason is simple -- only PRE will rewrite i into SSA form, so this is
a pass ordering issue (VRP doesn't track ranges of "memory" - in theory
EVRP could, but of course aliasing makes derived ranges not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90741
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90745
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90744
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90746
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
There isn't. It would probably useful to have __attribute__((notailcall))
which the sanitizers then could stick on the function types. We could
also make noinline imply no tailcalls, noinline is already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90748
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90750
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
>
> --- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89531
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89803
--- Comment #7 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Jun 5 06:04:22 2019
New Revision: 271946
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271946=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
2019-06-05 Hongtao Liu
PR target/89803
*
92 matches
Mail list logo
