https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99017
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So while this crashes in the new BB costing part the issue this uncovers is
that
graph partitioning does not merge two partitions that share a vect_external_def
SLP node. But the SLP costing performed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99014
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nikita.shulga at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99012
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99008
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99005
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at doublewise dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98987
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at doublewise dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #10 from Jan Smets ---
I have a couple of changes in my own tree. I had a couple of different issues
and I don't recall exactly what change was for what specifically.
I locally have a revert of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99018
Bug ID: 99018
Summary: Comparing address of array element not considered a
constant expression in certain contexts
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98944
Steven Sun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98983
--- Comment #4 from Alison Chaiken ---
The folly source referred to below comes from
https://github.com/facebook/folly.git
I do not work for F**k and am simply trying to make use of their tracing
functionality in their StaticTracepoint.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95647
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Oops, that what I get for doing 16 things at once. sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99017
Bug ID: 99017
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in
vect_bb_vectorization_profitable_p)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99016
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Internal compiler error |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99016
Bug ID: 99016
Summary: Internal compiler error from decltype of binary
operator when one operand is a prvalue function call
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96905
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57d705da0b98f5d398c4b8f9bd76fe8ad98e13bc
commit r11-7143-g57d705da0b98f5d398c4b8f9bd76fe8ad98e13bc
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98326
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bdbca69e0720fa9062fe71782235141f629ae006
commit r11-7142-gbdbca69e0720fa9062fe71782235141f629ae006
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bdbca69e0720fa9062fe71782235141f629ae006
commit r11-7142-gbdbca69e0720fa9062fe71782235141f629ae006
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97566
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8dd2b3e96590ceccead63d28fc91c956a5f1a73
commit r11-7141-ga8dd2b3e96590ceccead63d28fc91c956a5f1a73
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98994
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8dd2b3e96590ceccead63d28fc91c956a5f1a73
commit r11-7141-ga8dd2b3e96590ceccead63d28fc91c956a5f1a73
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99015
Bug ID: 99015
Summary: ICE: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is
achieved (90)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99014
Bug ID: 99014
Summary: -Werror -Wno-foo with foo unrecognized results in an
error if another warning is emitted
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98984
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Failure to optimize out |Failure to optimize out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98984
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Under Annex F, conversion of an out-of-range floating-point value to an
integer type other than _Bool produces an unspecified value with the
"invalid" exception raised. Losing that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88197
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99013
Bug ID: 99013
Summary: std::source_location::function_name should return same
result in constexpr mode and non-constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98983
--- Comment #3 from Alison Chaiken ---
The folly source referred to below comes from
https://github.com/facebook/folly.git
I do not work for F**k and am simply trying to make use of their tracing
functionality in their StaticTracepoint.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98983
--- Comment #2 from Alison Chaiken ---
Created attachment 50147
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50147=edit
compressed preprocessor output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99012
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Pop ---
I do not see the bug with today's cc1plus from origin/releases/gcc-8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98692
--- Comment #11 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #10)
> (In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > > Have you tried a new valgrind?
> > >
> > > Either this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99012
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99005
--- Comment #2 from Kiril Dichev ---
Yes, I can confirm that there seems to be an underlying issue with permissions,
similar to the link you posted (rocminfo gives me the same error).
Indeed, I was referring to compilation with PGI on an Nvidia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98860
--- Comment #30 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Patch has been posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/564990.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98692
--- Comment #10 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #9)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > Have you tried a new valgrind?
> >
> > Either this is (or was) a known problem in valgrind, or it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99012
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98692
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98990
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98326
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98990
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99011
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98990
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98979
--- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For completeness, the new test case added for this in
g:b2d84e9f9cccbe4ee662f7002b83105629d09939, r11-7113 also fails:
make -k check-gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98994
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98995
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99012
Bug ID: 99012
Summary: gcc-8.4.0 on aarch64 hits internal error during RTL
pass: expand if `std::copysign` is used
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99000
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99005
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Kiril Dichev from comment #0)
> Code runs fine without GPU offloading, or with offloading with PGI compiler.
With PGI + offloading: that's for that AMD Vega machine or for some Nvidia
system?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99011
Piotr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.2.1 |10.2.0
--- Comment #1 from Piotr ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99011
Bug ID: 99011
Summary: Potentially missed optimization. Arrays are created
without need
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37475
Kristian Spangsege changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kristian.spangsege at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50145
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50145=edit
gcc11-pr98465.patch
Yet another libstdc++ change that makes the warning go away, but doesn't
actually change the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99009
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Not a duplicate of bug 97034 but they might be related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #4)
> I should add: on brief inspection, that patch looks like an ABI break for
> -fcf-protection=none
True if __builtin_longjmp and __builtin_setjmp are compiled by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99009
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #3)
> What is -fcf-protection=stack actually supposed to do as compared to
It is -fcf-protection=return.
> -fcf-protection=none? Is it valid to run code compiled with
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99010
Bug ID: 99010
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in gfc_dep_resolver, at
fortran/dependency.c:2322
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99009
Bug ID: 99009
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in type_dependent_expression_p, at
cp/pt.c:27265
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99008
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99008
Bug ID: 99008
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in set_constraints, at
cp/constraint.cc:1256
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99007
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99007
Bug ID: 99007
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in dominated_by_p, at
dominance.c:1124
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
--- Comment #4 from Andy Lutomirski ---
I should add: on brief inspection, that patch looks like an ABI break for
-fcf-protection=none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
--- Comment #3 from Andy Lutomirski ---
What is -fcf-protection=stack actually supposed to do as compared to
-fcf-protection=none? Is it valid to run code compiled with
-fcf-protection=none with SHSTK enabled? If so, then I wonder why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #12 from Nathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57b17858a1b3719507ccad926fb57b05f26935f8
commit r11-7138-g57b17858a1b3719507ccad926fb57b05f26935f8
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93115
--- Comment #8 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Slightly better example without warnings (used `__builtin_trap();` to work
around use of uninitialized value):
```c++
struct a {
char ac1;
char ac2;
int d() { return av() + ac1 + ac2; }
virtual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99006
Bug ID: 99006
Summary: make_shared silently works
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99004
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99003
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99002
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-08
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 98974, which changed state.
Bug 98974 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in vectorizable_condition after
STMT_VINFO_VEC_STMTS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98974
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98974
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98974
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40c92180df970143249f3cd5056f8fb48a4d9333
commit r11-7135-g40c92180df970143249f3cd5056f8fb48a4d9333
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99005
Bug ID: 99005
Summary: libgomp runtime does not support AMD GPU offloading
for OpenACC directives
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98991
--- Comment #4 from zhan3299 at purdue dot edu ---
Seems '-fpermissive' is useless. I can reproduce the ICE simply via 'gcc
poc.cc'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98991
--- Comment #3 from zhan3299 at purdue dot edu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Is it a valid or invalid code, please?
Hi, sorry for the confusion. I used a simple delta debugging to reduce the
test-case, and it seems very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98988
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some sanitizers imply -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks and this testcase fails
with fno-delete-null-pointer-checks too - the _magic_var_decl != NULL
comparison in that case which is done on delete is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98856
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50142
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50142=edit
gcc11-pr98856.patch
Full patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97346
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99004
Bug ID: 99004
Summary: memory leak in maybe_warn_rdwr_sizes
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99003
Bug ID: 99003
Summary: memory leak in IPA ICF
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93115
--- Comment #7 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Looks like original test does not trigger the bug as is (probably due to tets
fragility). Here is something shorter (but with warnings):
```c++
struct a {
char at;
char au;
int d() { return av()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97638
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98987
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97346
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ping. This is annoying and pops up with each and every valgrind
--leak-check=full ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99002
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99002
Bug ID: 99002
Summary: [11 Regression] memory leak in if-to-switch
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98863
--- Comment #43 from Richard Biener ---
So module_configure.fppized.f90 is one of the interesting ones (IIRC lot of
small init loops), module_first_rk_step_part1.fppized.f90 is the one with most
obvious DF and fwprop participation, that one also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99001
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98995
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99001
Bug ID: 99001
Summary: indirect modification of function parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
