https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91537
Bug ID: 91537
Summary: Memory leak involving nested allocatable derived types
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91521
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91521
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Aug 23 23:26:17 2019
New Revision: 274892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274892=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/91521 - wrong error with operator->.
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91536
Bug ID: 91536
Summary: gcc generates invalid DW_OP_GNU_parameter_ref
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91521
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Aug 23 23:24:46 2019
New Revision: 274891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274891=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/91521 - wrong error with operator->.
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91481
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Aug 23 22:19:40 2019
New Revision: 274889
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274889=gcc=rev
Log:
rs6000: New darn testcase (PR91481)
We used to implement darn with unspecs,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79817
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79817
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Aug 23 22:04:32 2019
New Revision: 274888
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274888=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/79817 - attribute deprecated on namespace.
* cp-tree.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91535
Bug ID: 91535
Summary: missing warning on strchr reading from an empty
constant array
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #15 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 46747
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46747=edit
ld symbol resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-08-23 3:40 p.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> readelf shows:
>
> Symbol table '.symtab' contains 31 entries:
> Num: Value Size Type Bind Vis Ndx Name
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91534
Bug ID: 91534
Summary: some defined builtins are not usable
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91533
Bug ID: 91533
Summary: abs pattern generates MMX instructions but fails to
call EMMS
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-08-23 10:09 a.m., marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Ok, now I'm more understanding the code in
> simple_object_elf_copy_lto_debug_sections and I implemented the suggested
> approach.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91206
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91361
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91526
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
There's more or less the same ABI question as in bug 91398 about whether
there is any constraint on the called function writing to the return value
slot in cases where it does not return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #16 from Sunil Pandey ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, skpgkp2 at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from Sunil Pandey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81810
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80576
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 81810 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #23 from Martin Sebor ---
I get the same failure with -m32 -mtune=generic:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /ssd/build/gcc-svn/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++
-B/ssd/buil
d/gcc-svn/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The test is somewhat sensitive to target bits that select between various
strategies for implementing mem* routines.
Can you try with -mtune=generic? If that works, I can adjust the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91530
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46746
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46746=edit
gcc10-pr91530.patch
Does the following patch fix it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46745
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46745=edit
Patch candidate
Ok, now I'm more understanding the code in
simple_object_elf_copy_lto_debug_sections and I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91518
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
r8 should be the base address, for what it's worth. For a version of GCC where
this is working, a data address is loaded there. For the failing version, we
see a value of 1 loaded instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91517
--- Comment #5 from Peter Boyle ---
Hi Jakub,
The difference between these two cases (one maintaining the pragma in right
place,
the other note) suggested a viable work around in the code.
I can eliminate the extra naked_for macro and (with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91517
--- Comment #4 from Peter Boyle ---
Hi Jakob,
thanks for looking at this.
I'm trying to cut down a fail in 100k line of code package to the minimal thing
that I can submit.
www.github.com/paboyle/Grid
Is the original package;
WITH -fopenmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
>
> --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91486
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah yes, of course. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #26 from Iain Sandoe ---
so, should be fixed on trunk, so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91532
Bug ID: 91532
Summary: [SVE] Redundant predicated store in
gcc.target/aarch64/fmla_2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Fri Aug 23 12:41:39 2019
New Revision: 274856
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274856=gcc=rev
Log:
[PATCH, c-family] Fix a PCH thinko (and thus PR61250).
When we are parsing a source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91486
--- Comment #5 from John Salmon ---
C++17 already has the needed helper function: ceil(duration).
So just change all instances of:
__clock_t::now() + __reltime
to
using __dur = typename __clock_t::duration;
__clock_t::now() +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91531
Bug ID: 91531
Summary: _Rb_tree's copy assignment should respect to POCCA
regardless of is_always_equal
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91530
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Forgot to mention: there are many other reports of the same failures on
gcc-testresults for all sorts of different x86 targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91530
Bug ID: 91530
Summary: Several libgomp.*/scan-* tests FAIL without
avx_runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91530
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91517
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> Yeah, we went though this back in time when I struggled to find a solution
> working in all environments we support (HP ld, Solaris ld, AIX ld).
Hm, does it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, we went though this back in time when I struggled to find a solution
working in all environments we support (HP ld, Solaris ld, AIX ld).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-08-23 7:20 a.m., marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Which GCC version are you testing? Do you have following trunk commit:
I am testing trunk. The error in Comment #1 was for r274539.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91525
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91508
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91508
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Aug 23 11:42:19 2019
New Revision: 274853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274853=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r274504
2019-08-23 Martin Liska
PR ipa/91508
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91438
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Aug 23 11:42:19 2019
New Revision: 274853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274853=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r274504
2019-08-23 Martin Liska
PR ipa/91508
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91404
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Aug 23 11:41:16 2019
New Revision: 274851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274851=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r274502
2019-08-23 Martin Liska
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91283
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 23 11:37:29 2019
New Revision: 274850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274850=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/91283
* common.opt (fexcess-precision=): Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91508
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91480
--- Comment #4 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #0)
> > Also, in , `__cpp_lib_allocator_traits_is_always_equal` is
> > wrongly spelled as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529
Bug ID: 91529
Summary: -fmerge-all-constants leads to corrupt output without
inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
@John:
Which GCC version are you testing? Do you have following trunk commit:
Fix off-by-one in simple-object-elf.c (PR lto/91228).
2019-07-24 Martin Liska
PR lto/91228
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91067
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafael at espindo dot la
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91516
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91508
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
@Richard:
For the proper fix, I would like to backport following 3 commits from trunk:
commit a413f183a85bc9a08e3dcd9e9d617086fce86460 (HEAD -> backport-9-v6,
origin/backport-9-v6)
Author: marxin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91526
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, and then, since we vectorized things, we do not NRV because
|| DECL_ALIGN (found) > DECL_ALIGN (result)
thus we adjusted the VAR_DECLs alignment but the ABI says the return slot
isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91526
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > so the C++ FE already elides the return copy by placing 'result' in the
> > return slot while the C FE doesn't do this.
>
> That's because in C++ the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91528
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91527
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91306
--- Comment #5 from jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jozefl
Date: Fri Aug 23 09:21:26 2019
New Revision: 274846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274846=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-23 Jozef Lawrynowicz
PR target/91306
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91526
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Interestingly, even if the __restrict__ attribute is removed, it still gets
>vectorized. Is this correct behavior?
Yes as v1->v[0] cannot be the same as v2->v[1] or result->v[1], etc. due to the
full
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91526
Joel Yliluoma changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki dot fi
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91519
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91528
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91528
Bug ID: 91528
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in ix86_expand_prologue at
i386.c:7844 since r274481
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91527
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91527
Bug ID: 91527
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in update_equiv_regs, at
ira.c:3473 since r274694
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91273
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
@Honza: Is there any progress?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91508
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Can you please debug the internal compiler error?
> I'm interested in how 'hist' struct looks like?
The gcc compile farm has a fast sparc64 porterbox
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
ase build with
> > debug
> > info and see where exactly and why it segfaults.
>
> Yes. It still fails on both power8 and power9 even on GCC 10 (gcc version
> 10.0.0 20190823 (experimental) (GCC)).
> Reset to r263875, the register content shown as below, Wrong address fille
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Can you please debug the internal compiler error?
I'm interested in how 'hist' struct looks like?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91504
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kamlesh Kumar from comment #3)
> diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
> index 93dcef9..b62ef36 100644
> --- a/gcc/match.pd
> +++ b/gcc/match.pd
> @@ -137,6 +137,11 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, skpgkp2 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
>
> --- Comment #14 from Sunil Pandey ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91526
Bug ID: 91526
Summary: Unnecessary SSE and other instructions generated when
compiling in C mode (vs. C++ mode)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90552
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
85 matches
Mail list logo
