https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96054
Bug ID: 96054
Summary: RFE: __attribute__((fatal))
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96053
Bug ID: 96053
Summary: Miss optimization:Finding SLP sequences from
reductions sometimes is better than finding from
reduction chains
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96052
Bug ID: 96052
Summary: Unlike Clang, alignment specifier is ignored on empty
no_unique_address members
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
--- Comment #10 from Bill Seurer ---
I think this will work but haven't had a chance to try it except on the one
power 7 system.
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
index 817a14c9c..37eb31222 100644
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96051
Bug ID: 96051
Summary: alloca(0) triggers TCO for VLA
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96041
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #0)
> f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
> 0x10be671b crash_signal
> /home/seurer/gcc/git/gcc-test/gcc/toplev.c:328
> 0x103a6484
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96050
Bug ID: 96050
Summary: PDP-11: 32-bit MOV from offset(Rn) overrides Rn
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #31 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #28)
> > Bisected down to:
> >
> > $ git bisect good
> > 8c3785c43d490d4f234e21c9dee6bb1bb8d1dbdf is the first bad commit
> > commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044
Paul Zimmermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zimmerma+gcc at loria dot fr
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8)
> Yes, the conclusion of the discussion of the patch is that the fix needs to
> happen in the back end.
I still need the patch at comment #3 to bootstrap with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b9a15a8325ba89b926e3c437b7961829a6b2fa2b
commit r11-1809-gb9a15a8325ba89b926e3c437b7961829a6b2fa2b
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96043
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96049
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96049
Bug ID: 96049
Summary: basepoints/gcc-11-1649-gd2adb79eac66 crashes on
building 416.gamess with -O3 -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96047
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
At some compile-time cost we could also evaluate (but not actually optimize)
branches when not optimizing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96047
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95343
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61e4ee3f2c0e3d77602c87866cd5c0cfb81d5da2
commit r10-8421-g61e4ee3f2c0e3d77602c87866cd5c0cfb81d5da2
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96042
--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
I think this is too easy to say that this is not a "bug", we can also weaken
the terminology and say "potential-inconsistency".
Technically you are right, but only because there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
True. Richi expressed preference for avoiding the transform when there are type
mismatches, so I'm currently bootstrapping that. I guess we can always revisit
the decision if we ever discover it would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96048
Bug ID: 96048
Summary: ICE in get_local_decls, at cp/name-lookup.c:3591
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044
--- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Vincent, any guidance on that? I guess the actual runtime implementation in
> glibc may be "fast" because it's not accurate (evaluating takes 0.00s with
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok. Still, there can be problems in holding non-floating values in floating
point parameters, because not all bits are necessarily preserved (e.g. padding
bits inside of the floating point format).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96046
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96046
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c9e35a569f5a46fed7c8de6ac22545cb845a913
commit r11-1805-g6c9e35a569f5a46fed7c8de6ac22545cb845a913
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96047
Bug ID: 96047
Summary: Bogus unitialized warning for derived type with
allocatable components
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Yes, IPA-SRA identifies accesses by both offset and size, so the situation
would not have happened if the size was different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96046
Bug ID: 96046
Summary: [11 Regression] GCC failed to bootstrap on 32-bit
hosts by r11-1778
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
I left the updated version running for ~1 hour and it didn't finish compiling.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96045
Bug ID: 96045
Summary: Wrong line and column diagnostic message in a class
template instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96042
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96037
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59cc32acc8dde3b8719b9b4f90d33e8c3e3f17bb
commit r11-1804-g59cc32acc8dde3b8719b9b4f90d33e8c3e3f17bb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
V_C_Es could be only used if both types have the same size, is that checked
somewhere that the union e.g. doesn't have int and double members instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
IPA-split puts the double access to the union in the .part function
and keeps only the long int access in the "original" function.
IPA-SRA thinks it can work with that but the code in "transitive" call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
> I added Solaris to the list of targets that see the error on line 5. Add it
> wherever your target sees it.
This has almost certainly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
Ah, it appears I just wasn't being patient enough. It seems you can make the
constant folding take longer (arbitrarily long?) by adding another digit to the
arguments.
This code:
void f(void) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Could this be a bug in MPFR?
return do_mpfr_arg2 (result, mpfr_jn, arg0, arg1, format);
do_mpfr_arg2 does:
mpfr_inits2 (prec, m0, m1, NULL);
mpfr_from_real (m0, arg0, MPFR_RNDN);
mpfr_from_real
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93893
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I originally had a MIPS specific patch years ago but that was rejected and I
> cannot find it right now but you should be able to look for my patch on the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93893
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Paul Hua from comment #2)
> Hi Andrew, can you send the patch to gcc-patches mail list or add to
> attachment.
It is a huge patch set, and not ready yet. It does a few things and the rest
of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93893
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul.hua.gm at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044
Bug ID: 96044
Summary: GCC hangs in tight loop resolving __builtin_jn using
MPFR
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou ---
Not clear what the right fix is... The hot spot in relax_delay_slots:
/* If this is a jump insn, see if it now jumps to a jump, jumps to
the next insn, or jumps to a label that is not the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96043
Bug ID: 96043
Summary: BB vectorizer costing lumps everything together
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90932
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90932
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26b538cd81b9692eaf519fa1743ca8c282048793
commit r11-1800-g26b538cd81b9692eaf519fa1743ca8c282048793
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96037
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
val ~/BIG/bin/ppc64le/dev/shm/buildbot/install/gcc/bin/ppc64le-linux-gnu-gcc
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr33373b.c -O3 -c
==29096== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==29096==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96037
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Can't reproduce that either ...
obj-ppc64le-g/gcc> ./xgcc -B. -I include pr33373b.c -O3 -c
ah, but I have an idea what happens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #29 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's again __builtin_unreachable making a mess in the RTL stream:
(note 23 11 24 [bb 3] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(jump_insn:TI 24 23 15 (set (pc)
(if_then_else (leu (reg/v:SI 24 %r24 [orig:99 g ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77510
--- Comment #5 from Paul Hua ---
Created attachment 48830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48830=edit
testing patch
this patch reduce reservation of model do not more than 10 cycles. The memory
of genautomata down to 1GB.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #25)
> (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #22)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #17)
> > > For me tree optimized dump is correct, so likely a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96035
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96035
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-03
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96037
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #27 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
If it's of any help by slightly expanding case switch I reproduced very similar
problem on both hppa and sh4 (but not on sparc or mips) with:
"""
int b, c;
int a() __attribute__((noipa));
int a(int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Indeed in the IL I see long long actual arguments passed but the function
argument type is double. It looks like somehow argument modification
of the calls fails or is incomplete. Martin?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
I can not test at the moment, that will have to wait for a few days.
A general comment:
In Fortran, functions exist to return a value. C-style „return an error status“
fit rather badly to the language,
66 matches
Mail list logo
