[Bug tree-optimization/100609] bool - 1 is not simplified to -a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100609 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Wait, I did this wrong. a - 1 is - (~a). Never mind.
[Bug tree-optimization/25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 Bug 25290 depends on bug 100609, which changed state. Bug 100609 Summary: bool - 1 is not simplified to -a https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100609 What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID
[Bug tree-optimization/100609] New: bool - 1 is not simplified to -a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100609
Bug ID: 100609
Summary: bool - 1 is not simplified to -a
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 25290
Target Milestone: ---
Take:
int f(_Bool a)
{
int t = a;
return t - 1;
}
int g(_Bool a)
{
int t = a;
return -t;
}
CUT
Both of these are the same and should produce the same code gen.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290
[Bug 25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match
[Bug fortran/93963] Select rank mishandling allocatable and pointer arguments with bind(c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93963 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to sandra from comment #2) > Fiddling with the test case a bit, I observe that the RANK() intrinsic > returns the correct result even in the functions where SELECT RANK fails. > Seems odd that SELECT RANK uses different logic. Why? The code for SELECT RANK was added in 2019 and code for RANK() was added sometime around 2011. It seems the individuals, who committed each feature, are different people. At least, one of the two took a very long hiatus from working on gfortran, and the other seems not to be omniscient.
[Bug fortran/93963] Select rank mishandling allocatable and pointer arguments with bind(c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93963 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fiddling with the test case a bit, I observe that the RANK() intrinsic returns the correct result even in the functions where SELECT RANK fails. Seems odd that SELECT RANK uses different logic.
[Bug c++/100608] New: [10/11/12 Regression] -Wshadow=compatible-local false positive: function local type declaration shadows variable of different type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100608
Bug ID: 100608
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] -Wshadow=compatible-local false
positive: function local type declaration shadows
variable of different type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nok.raven at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
template class X {};
void foo()
{
auto a = X{};
}
: In function 'void foo()':
:5:22: warning: declaration of 'struct foo()::a' shadows a previous
local [-Wshadow=compatible-local]
5 | auto a = X{};
| ^
:5:10: note: shadowed declaration is here
5 | auto a = X{};
| ^
https://godbolt.org/z/hzoro9v3Y
[Bug middle-end/100604] GCC generates invalid LO_SYM for unaligned global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100604 --- Comment #2 from dragan.mladjenovic at syrmia dot com --- It seems so. Something like this helps in this case: diff --git a/gcc/emit-rtl.c b/gcc/emit-rtl.c index 07e908624a0..a102a9288c5 100644 --- a/gcc/emit-rtl.c +++ b/gcc/emit-rtl.c @@ -2385,7 +2385,7 @@ adjust_address_1 (rtx memref, machine_mode mode, poly_int64 offset, if (GET_MODE (memref) != BLKmode && GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM && known_in_range_p (offset, - 0, (GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (GET_MODE (memref)) + 0, (MIN (GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (GET_MODE (memref)), attrs.align) / BITS_PER_UNIT))) addr = gen_rtx_LO_SUM (address_mode, XEXP (addr, 0), plus_constant (address_mode, Don't know which one to trust. The memref has SImode. Caller wants to create HImode one. The attrs.align matches that of HImode.
[Bug other/100598] [12 Regression] MinGW Canadian cross toolchain fails to build due to missing BASEVER in genversion.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100598 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Target||x86_64-w64-mingw32,powerpc6 ||4le-gnu-linux Keywords||build Summary|MinGW Canadian cross|[12 Regression] MinGW |toolchain fails to build|Canadian cross toolchain |due to missing BASEVER in |fails to build due to |genversion.c|missing BASEVER in ||genversion.c Host||x86_64-w64-mingw32,powerpc6 ||4le-gnu-linux Build||x86_64-gnu-linux
[Bug fortran/100607] New: ICE with SELECT RANK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
Bug ID: 100607
Summary: ICE with SELECT RANK
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 50815
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50815=edit
Fortran testcase
The following program works, if the invalid code is commented.
The invalid part violates (quote from F202x but same in F2018):
"C1158 A SELECT RANK construct shall not have aselect-rank-case-stmtthat is
RANK ( * )
if the selector23has the ALLOCATABLE or POINTER attribute."
Hence, the code is invalid. Output is the following
Notes:
- '__tmp_INTEGER_4_rank_m1' error is bogus
- 'cannot be used' error is valid, but should only be printed once
- An ICE is always wrong, of course.
24 | rank(*) ! { dg-error "cannot be used with the pointer or allocatable
selector" }
Error: Allocatable array ‘__tmp_INTEGER_4_rank_m1’ at (1) must have a deferred
shape or assumed rank
24 | rank(*) ! { dg-error "cannot be used with the pointer or allocatable
selector" }
Error: RANK (*) at (1) cannot be used with the pointer or allocatable selector
at (2)
24 | rank(*) ! { dg-error "cannot be used with the pointer or allocatable
selector" }
Error: RANK (*) at (1) cannot be used with the pointer or allocatable selector
at (2)
f951: internal compiler error: in simplify_bound, at fortran/simplify.c:4266
0x619680 simplify_bound
../../repos/gcc/gcc/fortran/simplify.c:4266
[Bug tree-optimization/100494] [11/12 Regression] Unterminated recursion in gimple-range.cc (x86_64-w64-mingw32)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494 --- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez --- I cannot reproduce on a cross configured with: ~/src/gcc/configure --target=x86_64-w64-mingw32 --enable-languages=c --disable-bootstrap I tried: ./cc1 sha1.i -quiet -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -g -O2 -Wextra -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wc++-compat -Wstrict-prototypes -Wshadow=local -Wpedantic -w It works in both the GCC 11 branch and trunk.
[Bug tree-optimization/100349] [11/12 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault during GIMPLE pass: evrp (under -O2 to -Os)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100349 --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez --- Yes, it's a duplicate. There's a patch awaiting review here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570301.html
[Bug middle-end/100604] GCC generates invalid LO_SYM for unaligned global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100604 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target|riscv,mips |riscv-*-*,mips64r6-*-* Keywords||wrong-code --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this comes from emit-rtl.c: /* If MEMREF is a LO_SUM and the offset is within the alignment of the object, we can merge it into the LO_SUM. */ if (GET_MODE (memref) != BLKmode && GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM && known_in_range_p (offset, 0, (GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (GET_MODE (memref)) / BITS_PER_UNIT))) addr = gen_rtx_LO_SUM (address_mode, XEXP (addr, 0), plus_constant (address_mode, XEXP (addr, 1), offset));
[Bug fortran/100602] Erroneous "pointer argument is not associated" runtime error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100602 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-05-14 CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Confirmed. The error message is bogus.
[Bug bootstrap/100597] [12 Regression] Ada bootstrap fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100597 --- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab --- Reverting ca9bb74a5f8 fixes bootstrap for me.
[Bug libstdc++/100606] New: Please complete LWG3490: ranges::drop_while_view::begin() is missing a precondition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100606 Bug ID: 100606 Summary: Please complete LWG3490: ranges::drop_while_view::begin() is missing a precondition. Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: hewillk at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Hi, libstdc++ has not yet completed LWG3490 which is very simple and only needs to add an assertion. Since msvc-STL has added it (https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/main/stl/inc/ranges#L2529) and it also appears in the latest [range.drop.while#view-3], I think it is appropriate to complete it now. thanks.
[Bug other/100598] MinGW Canadian cross toolchain fails to build due to missing BASEVER in genversion.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100598 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus --- Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570371.html
[Bug c++/100596] [12 Regression] error: attribute appertains to a friend declaration that is not a definition since r12-786-g149061188c7c6ddf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100596 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- On it.
[Bug bootstrap/100597] [12 Regression] Ada bootstrap fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100597 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- > I have to correct myself, it only fails on ia64 and riscv64 with plain > bootstrap. OK, thanks, the bootstrap indeed succeeds on x86-64 but the resulting Ada compiler is broken, see PR tree-optimization/100453.
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- Martin, did you test Ada with your patch? It appears that it either causes bootstrap to fail (PR bootstrap/100597) or miscompiles the Ada compiler: === acats tests === FAIL: c41325a FAIL: c45347d FAIL: c74402a FAIL: c95085m FAIL: cc3601a === acats Summary === # of expected passes2323 # of unexpected failures5 Native configuration is x86_64-suse-linux-gnu === gnat tests === Running target unix FAIL: gnat.dg/addr12.adb (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: gnat.dg/addr12.adb compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: gnat.dg/addr12_a.adb (test for excess errors) FAIL: gnat.dg/bip_overlay.adb (test for excess errors) FAIL: gnat.dg/global.adb (test for excess errors) FAIL: gnat.dg/spark1.adb (test for errors, line 8) FAIL: gnat.dg/spark1.adb (test for excess errors) FAIL: gnat.dg/sync2.adb (test for excess errors) FAIL: gnat.dg/synchronized1.adb (test for excess errors) === gnat Summary === # of expected passes3360 # of unexpected failures8 # of expected failures 23 # of unresolved testcases 1 # of unsupported tests 3 Most parameters are read-only in Ada so it's quite a good testbed...
[Bug c++/99576] [coroutines] destructor of a temporary called too early within co_await expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99576 Nils Gladitz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nilsgladitz at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from Nils Gladitz --- I am seeing issues with lambdas and coroutines that I can't quite explain yet. Specifically reference counting objects capture copied (e.g. std::shared_ptr) seemed to decrease their reference count more often than they should. Found this issue which didn't quite seem to match but trying Paweł Wegner's test case I see something that may explain some weirdness (haven't fully digested the test case or disregarded the possibility that it is my fault though). With vanilla gcc 10.2.0 I am seeing what Paweł observed: START TASK Foo() ~Foo() IN LAMBDA With vanilla 10.3.0 and 11.1.0 I however see the following: START TASK Foo() IN LAMBDA ~Foo() ~Foo() i.e. the Foo destructor now gets called later but apparently twice
[Bug fortran/93308] bind(c) subroutine changes lower bound of array argument in caller
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93308 José Rui Faustino de Sousa changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org CC||jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa --- Hi Sandra! Hi I have a patch for this, which also seems to work for PR93 I expect to post it in the next week, if all goes well. Best regards, José Rui
[Bug fortran/94331] Bind(C) corrupts array descriptors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94331 --- Comment #5 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa --- Hi Sandra! I have a patch for this problem, which also seems to work for PR93308, I expect to post it in the next week, if all goes well. Best regards, José Rui
[Bug c++/95870] [9/10 Regression] ICE (segmentation fault) in most_general_template(), in gcc/cp/pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95870 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f1bb00ba340e53663651be7874011fd54e1d085 commit r12-804-g2f1bb00ba340e53663651be7874011fd54e1d085 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Mon Apr 5 11:47:50 2021 -0400 c++: simplify enclosing_instantiation_of [PR95870] Comparing DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION like the GCC 11 patch for PR 95870 will also work for user-defined functions, if we update their location when instantiating. Another option would be to use LAMBDA_EXPR_REGEN_INFO for lambdas, but this way is even simpler. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/95870 * pt.c (enclosing_instantiation_of): Just compare DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION. (regenerate_decl_from_template): Copy DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION.
[Bug c/100605] -Wimplicit-fallthrough=5 still recognizes comments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100605 --- Comment #1 from Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho --- Interestingly, all the 3 warnings are reported when using -save-temps: $ gcc -c -save-temps -Wimplicit-fallthrough=5 -Werror=implicit-fallthrough t.c t.c: In function ‘foo’: t.c:12:9: error: this statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=] 12 | k = 3; | ~~^~~ t.c:14:5: note: here 14 | case 2: | ^~~~ t.c:15:9: error: this statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=] 15 | k = 8; | ~~^~~ t.c:16:5: note: here 16 | case 1: | ^~~~ t.c:17:9: error: this statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=] 17 | k = 16; | ~~^~~~ t.c:18:5: note: here 18 | case 0: | ^~~~ cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
[Bug c/100605] New: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=5 still recognizes comments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100605
Bug ID: 100605
Summary: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=5 still recognizes comments
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tuliom at ascii dot art.br
Target Milestone: ---
According to the GCC manual:
"-Wimplicit-fallthrough=5 doesn’t recognize any comments as fallthrough
comments, only attributes disable the warning."
However, comments are still being recognized and are disabling the warning.
In the following example, there are 3 fall-throughs:
$ cat t.c
#include
#include
uint32_t foo(size_t in)
{
uint32_t out = 0;
uint32_t k = 0;
switch (in & 3)
{
case 3:
k = 3;
// FALLTHROUGH
case 2:
k = 8;
case 1:
k = 16;
case 0:
default:
out = k;
break;
}
return out;
}
However, GCC 11 reports only 2 when using -Wimplicit-fallthrough=5:
$ gcc-11 -c -Wimplicit-fallthrough=5 -Werror=implicit-fallthrough t.c
t.c: In function ‘foo’:
t.c:15:9: error: this statement may fall through
[-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
15 | k = 8;
| ~~^~~
t.c:16:5: note: here
16 | case 1:
| ^~~~
t.c:17:9: error: this statement may fall through
[-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
17 | k = 16;
| ~~^~~~
t.c:18:5: note: here
18 | case 0:
| ^~~~
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
[Bug middle-end/100604] New: GCC generates invalid LO_SYM for unaligned global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100604
Bug ID: 100604
Summary: GCC generates invalid LO_SYM for unaligned global
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dragan.mladjenovic at syrmia dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 50814
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50814=edit
Reproducer example.
This a bit contrived example that requires -O0. Not sure if it applies to
bitfield extracts in other contexts and optimization levels. I noticed it on
STRICT_ALIGMENT targets w/o extzvmisalign.
$cat unaligned.c
int __attribute__((aligned(2))) bar;
int foo (void)
{
return bar;
}
$riscv64-elf-gcc unaligned.c -S -o -
.file "unaligned.c"
.option nopic
.attribute arch, "rv64i2p0_m2p0_a2p0_f2p0_d2p0_c2p0"
.attribute unaligned_access, 0
.attribute stack_align, 16
.text
.globl bar
.section.sbss,"aw",@nobits
.align 1
.type bar, @object
.size bar, 4
bar:
.zero 4
.text
.align 1
.globl foo
.type foo, @function
foo:
addisp,sp,-16
sd s0,8(sp)
addis0,sp,16
lui a5,%hi(bar)
lhu a4,%lo(bar)(a5)
lhu a5,%lo(bar+2)(a5)
sllia5,a5,16
or a5,a5,a4
sllia5,a5,32
sraia5,a5,32
sext.w a5,a5
mv a0,a5
ld s0,8(sp)
addisp,sp,16
jr ra
.size foo, .-foo
.ident "GCC: (Scratch/experimental build 20210514_1511) 11.1.1
20210503"
$mipsisa64-elf-gcc -O0 unaligned.c -G 0 -mips64r6 -S -o -
.file 1 "unaligned.c"
.section .mdebug.eabi64
.previous
.section .gcc_compiled_long64
.previous
.nan2008
.module fp=64
.module oddspreg
.text
.globl bar
.section.bss,"aw",@nobits
.align 1
.type bar, @object
.size bar, 4
bar:
.space 4
.text
.align 2
.globl foo
.setnomips16
.setnomicromips
.entfoo
.type foo, @function
foo:
.frame $fp,8,$31 # vars= 0, regs= 1/0, args= 0, gp= 0
.mask 0x4000,0
.fmask 0x,0
.setnoreorder
.setnomacro
daddiu $sp,$sp,-8
sd $fp,0($sp)
move$fp,$sp
lui $2,%hi(bar)
lhu $3,%lo(bar)($2)
dsll$3,$3,16
lhu $2,%lo(bar+2)($2)
or $2,$2,$3
dsll$2,$2,32
dsra$2,$2,32
sll $2,$2,0
move$sp,$fp
ld $fp,0($sp)
daddiu $sp,$sp,8
jrc $31
.setmacro
.setreorder
.endfoo
.size foo, .-foo
.ident "GCC: (Scratch/experimental build 20210514_1405) 11.1.1
20210503"
Notice that %lo(bar)(.*) and %lo(bar+2)(.*) resue same %hi(bar) value.
This can be wrong since bar is 2-byte aligned and might be split between two
different %hi pages.
[Bug target/100603] New: csky: config/csky/csky.h:402:13: error: comparison of unsigned expression in '>= 0' is always true [-Werror=type-limits]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100603 Bug ID: 100603 Summary: csky: config/csky/csky.h:402:13: error: comparison of unsigned expression in '>= 0' is always true [-Werror=type-limits] Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: jbg...@lug-owl.de Target Milestone: --- Hi! I've started doing CI builds for numerous targets again and stumbled over this (as of 5e0236d3b0e0d7ad98bcee36128433fa755b5558) using Debian's "gcc-snapshot": $ g++ --version g++ (Debian 20210320-1) 11.0.1 20210320 (experimental) [master revision 3279a9a5a9a:6526c452d22:5f256a70a05fcfc5a1caf56678ceb12b4f87f781] $ ./configure --target=csky-linux-gnu --enable-werror-always --enable-languages=all --prefix=/tmp/gcc-csky-linux-gnu $ make all-gcc [...] /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ -fno-PIE -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wno-error=format-diag -Wmissing-format-attribute -Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Werror -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.././gcc -I../.././gcc/. -I../.././gcc/../include -I../.././gcc/../libcpp/include -I../.././gcc/../libcody -I../.././gcc/../libdecnumber -I../.././gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber -I../.././gcc/../libbacktrace -o builtins.o -MT builtins.o -MMD -MP -MF ./.deps/builtins.TPo ../.././gcc/builtins.c [all 2021-05-13 15:48:27.392703] In file included from ./tm.h:32, [all 2021-05-13 15:48:27.392897] from ../.././gcc/backend.h:28, [all 2021-05-13 15:48:27.392981] from ../.././gcc/builtins.c:27: [all 2021-05-13 15:48:27.393053] ../.././gcc/builtins.c: In function 'int apply_args_size()': [all 2021-05-13 15:48:27.393128] ../.././gcc/config/csky/csky.h:402:13: error: comparison of unsigned expression in '>= 0' is always true [-Werror=type-limits] [all 2021-05-13 15:48:27.393204] 402 | (((REGNO) >= CSKY_FIRST_PARM_REGNUM \ [all 2021-05-13 15:48:27.393279] ../.././gcc/builtins.c:2187:13: note: in expansion of macro 'FUNCTION_ARG_REGNO_P' [all 2021-05-13 15:48:27.393350] 2187 | if (FUNCTION_ARG_REGNO_P (regno)) [all 2021-05-13 15:48:27.393420] | ^~~~ [all 2021-05-13 15:49:14.430002] cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors [all 2021-05-13 15:49:14.463549] make[1]: *** [Makefile:1142: builtins.o] Error 1 [all 2021-05-13 15:49:14.464381] make[1]: Leaving directory '/var/lib/laminar/run/gcc-csky-linux-gnu/1/gcc/host-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc' [all 2021-05-13 15:49:14.469285] make: *** [Makefile:4432: all-gcc] Error 2
[Bug fortran/100602] New: Erroneous "pointer argument is not associated" runtime error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100602 Bug ID: 100602 Summary: Erroneous "pointer argument is not associated" runtime error. Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: here.is.a.gcc.bug at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 50813 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50813=edit A minimal broken example. (14 lines) Compiling with -check=all gives a runtime error "Pointer argument `this` is not associated" This only happens using gfortran-11.1. I'm unsure if this is this bug [1] [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
[Bug tree-optimization/100601] New: wrong code at -O1 on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100601
Bug ID: 100601
Summary: wrong code at -O1 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
Target Milestone: ---
This seems to be a recent regression.
[563] % gcctk -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcctk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk --enable-languages=c,c++
--disable-werror --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210514 (experimental) [master revision
df18a1343dd:515cc33a922:40a2f88838e5119799649a74692cbf38d774b706] (GCC)
[564] %
[564] % gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
[565] % gcc110 -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[566] %
[566] % gcctk -O1 small.c
[567] % ./a.out
Segmentation fault
[568] %
[568] % cat small.c
struct a {
unsigned b : 10;
} const c;
int d;
static void i(const struct a f) {
unsigned j = f.b;
for (; d < 1; d++)
if (f.b) {
int g = f.b;
}
}
int main() {
i(c);
return 0;
}
[Bug c++/100596] [12 Regression] error: attribute appertains to a friend declaration that is not a definition since r12-786-g149061188c7c6ddf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100596
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Rejecting such code was the point of the patch. I guess we'll have to
> either downgrade to a warning or just not complain about GNU attributes at
> all.
Let's do both.
It occurs to me that attributes on non-definition friends can be useful when
there is no other reachable declaration of the function, as
struct A
{
__attribute((deprecated)) friend void f(A); // part of A API, definition in
.C
};
int main()
{
A a;
f(a); // warning desired
}
[Bug c/100600] New: ICE: in verify_hash_value, at fold-const.c:3929
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100600
Bug ID: 100600
Summary: ICE: in verify_hash_value, at fold-const.c:3929
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: cnsun at uwaterloo dot ca
Target Milestone: ---
$ gcc-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-trunk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/scratch/software/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto --enable-checking-yes --enable-multiarch
--prefix=/scratch/software/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210514 (experimental) [master revision
:e5c3c8afa:f3b1516d9dfd969d7cc1ca6f26dec13478a1c458] (GCC)
$ cat mutant.c
a, b, c;
long d(long, long e, long f, long g) {
long h, i;
for (; h < e; h++) {
i = f;
for (; i < g; i++)
c = b + a;
}
return h + i;
}
long j(long, long e, long, long g) {
long h, i;
for (; h < e; h++)
for (; i < g; i++)
c = b + a;
return h + i;
}
$ gcc-trunk -O3 mutant.c
mutant.c:1:1: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
1 | a, b, c;
| ^
mutant.c:1:1: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘a’
[-Wimplicit-int]
mutant.c:1:4: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘b’
[-Wimplicit-int]
1 | a, b, c;
|^
mutant.c:1:7: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘c’
[-Wimplicit-int]
1 | a, b, c;
| ^
during IPA pass: icf
mutant.c:17:1: internal compiler error: in verify_hash_value, at
fold-const.c:3929
17 | }
| ^
0x6b4fe9 operand_compare::verify_hash_value(tree_node const*, tree_node const*,
unsigned int, bool*)
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/fold-const.c:3929
0x19e8d35 ipa_icf_gimple::func_checker::operand_equal_p(tree_node const*,
tree_node const*, unsigned int)
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/ipa-icf-gimple.c:312
0x19e606b ipa_icf_gimple::func_checker::compare_operand(tree_node*, tree_node*,
ipa_icf_gimple::func_checker::operand_access_type)
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/ipa-icf-gimple.c:397
0x19d642a ipa_icf::sem_function::compare_phi_node(basic_block_def*,
basic_block_def*)
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:1584
0x19dccf1 ipa_icf::sem_function::equals_private(ipa_icf::sem_item*)
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:925
0x19dcdf3 ipa_icf::sem_function::equals_private(ipa_icf::sem_item*)
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:836
0x19dcdf3 ipa_icf::sem_function::equals(ipa_icf::sem_item*,
hash_map, ipa_icf::sem_item*>
>&)
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:813
0x19d7457 ipa_icf::sem_item_optimizer::subdivide_classes_by_equality(bool)
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:2732
0x19e34ac ipa_icf::sem_item_optimizer::execute()
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:2464
0x19e51aa ipa_icf_driver
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:3600
0x19e51aa ipa_icf::pass_ipa_icf::execute(function*)
/tmp/tmp.eZIsobWkq2-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:3647
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
[Bug c++/95226] [8 Regression] Faulty aggregate initialization of vector with struct with float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95226 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4206171605de65df9674a14dd9db75bf4f4ed037 commit r12-801-g4206171605de65df9674a14dd9db75bf4f4ed037 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Fri May 14 16:29:49 2021 +0200 testsuite: Add testcase for already fixed PR [PR95226] 2021-05-14 Jakub Jelinek PR c++/95226 * g++.dg/cpp1y/pr95226.C: New test.
[Bug c++/95226] [8 Regression] Faulty aggregate initialization of vector with struct with float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95226
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems on the 8 branch this regressed with
r8-8138-gbdc2c1ea35c16d3bbd3711430d8035dd54cfcf20
change aka PR85873 fix.
Slightly simplified testcase:
#include
struct T {
unsigned a;
float b {8.};
};
int main()
{
T t = {1};
std::vector tt = {{1}, {2}};
if (t.a != 1 || t.b != 8.0f || tt[0].a != 1 || tt[0].b != 8.0f || tt[1].a !=
2 || tt[1].b != 8.0f)
__builtin_abort ();
}
[Bug c++/100599] ICE in tree check: accessed elt 2 of ‘tree_vec’ with 1 elts in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:15649
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100599 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Last reconfirmed||2021-05-14 Summary|internal compiler error:|ICE in tree check: accessed |Segmentation fault |elt 2 of ‘tree_vec’ with 1 ||elts in tsubst, at ||cp/pt.c:15649 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Confirmed, it's old ICE.
[Bug c++/100596] [12 Regression] error: attribute appertains to a friend declaration that is not a definition since r12-786-g149061188c7c6ddf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100596 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- I noticed that in a couple of packages that I have in my testing playground: https://build.opensuse.org/project/monitor/home:marxin:home:marxin:gcc-periodic-testing-v2 [ 1268s] /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/libreoffice-7.1.3.2/workdir/UnpackedTarball/skia/include/core/SkMatrix.h:1579:24: error: attribute appertains to a friend declaration that is not a definition [ 1268s] 1579 | friend SK_API bool operator==(const SkMatrix& a, const SkMatrix& b); [ 1268s] |^~~~ [ 98s] /usr/include/boost/thread/detail/thread.hpp:641:37: error: attribute appertains to a friend declaration that is not a definition [ 98s] 641 | friend id BOOST_THREAD_DECL this_thread::get_id() BOOST_NOEXCEPT; [ 98s] | ^~~ [ 279s] /usr/include/qt5/QtCore/qbytearray.h:486:37: error: attribute appertains to a friend declaration that is not a definition [ 279s] 486 | friend Q_CORE_EXPORT QByteArray qUncompress(const uchar *data, int nbytes); [ 279s] | ^~~
[Bug target/92889] [8/9 only] GCC-8 considers the _mm_gf2p8affine_epi64_epi8 intrinsic to be symmetric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92889 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, retargeting at 9.4
[Bug objc++/49070] [9/10/11/12 regression] ObjC++ compiler fails to compile ObjC method invocations without keyword arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49070 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.6 |9.4 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, retargeting at 9.4
[Bug rtl-optimization/100317] [8 only] 64-bit integer compare gives wrong result when MIN_INT64 is one of the operands
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100317 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.4.
[Bug target/100152] [10/11/12 Regression] used caller-saved register not preserved across a call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |10.4 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug sanitizer/89308] [8 only] The sanitizers do no longer work on GCC 8 with newer kernels
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89308 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug middle-end/95810] [8 only] Spurious UBSan warning when computing the opposite of the absolute value of INT_MIN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95810 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.4.
[Bug c++/96282] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: in output_constructor_regular_field
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96282 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.4.
[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.4.
[Bug libstdc++/96029] [8 Regression] Inconsistencies with associative/unordered containers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96029 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.4.
[Bug c++/95468] [8 Regression] ICE in expression sfinae
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95468 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.4.
[Bug c++/95226] [8 Regression] Faulty aggregate initialization of vector with struct with float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95226 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/94616] [8 Regression] Incorrect destruction for partially built objects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/94616] [8 Regression] Incorrect destruction for partially built objects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94616 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3cafe627d6c8bce7e7f46bdbdef3d14e9701ce9d commit r12-800-g3cafe627d6c8bce7e7f46bdbdef3d14e9701ce9d Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Fri May 14 15:34:12 2021 +0200 testsuite: Add testcase for already fixed PR [PR94616] 2021-05-14 Jakub Jelinek PR c++/94616 * g++.dg/cpp0x/pr94616.C: New test.
[Bug c++/100599] New: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100599 Bug ID: 100599 Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: mu11 at yahoo dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 50812 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50812=edit test case for bug gcc crashes with an internal error. Using the attached test case: % g++ -c -std=c++11 x2.cpp x2.cpp: In substitution of ‘template template using __is_harmonic = std::__bool_constant<(std::ratio<_Period::den, std::duration<_Rep, _Period>::_S_gcd(5, 3)>::den == 1)> [with _Period2 = _Period2; _Rep = _Rep; _Period = _Period]’: x2.cpp:92:142: required from here x2.cpp:83:23: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault 83 | static constexpr long _S_gcd(long __m, long __n) noexcept | ^~ 0xcbd91f crash_signal ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/toplev.c:327 0x7a4921 tsubst(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:15649 0x7b75f1 tsubst_template_args(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:13418 0x7afb00 tsubst_aggr_type ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:13621 0x7ba32e tsubst_function_decl ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:14020 0x7b0529 tsubst_decl ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:14513 0x79f1c5 tsubst_copy ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:16747 0x7a0c90 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool, bool) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:20950 0x7a1199 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool, bool) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:19587 0x7a1199 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool, bool) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:20223 0x7b2954 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool, bool) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:19587 0x7b2954 tsubst_expr(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:19198 0x7b75f1 tsubst_template_args(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:13418 0x7afb00 tsubst_aggr_type ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:13621 0x7a0535 tsubst_qualified_id ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:16448 0x7a19f6 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool, bool) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:19948 0x7a0b03 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool, bool) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:19587 0x7a0b03 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool, bool) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:19910 0x7b2954 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool, bool) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:19587 0x7b2954 tsubst_expr(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool) ../../gcc-11.1.0/gcc/cp/pt.c:19198
[Bug c++/69698] [meta-bug] flexible array members
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698 Bug 69698 depends on bug 93753, which changed state. Bug 93753 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE on a flexible array followed by a member in an anonymous struct with an initializer https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93753 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c++/93753] [8 Regression] ICE on a flexible array followed by a member in an anonymous struct with an initializer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93753 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|8.5 |9.3 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.3.
[Bug middle-end/92478] [8 Regression] ICE on strcpy referencing an element of a static local constant array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92478 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/92475] [8 Regression] incorrect code with optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug middle-end/92195] [8 Regression/Latent] 'libgomp.c/pr90811.c:29:1: error: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set' ('internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed')
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92195 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Status|WAITING |RESOLVED --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/91966] [8 Regression] pack expansion for Cartesian product breaks if certain indirections are involved since r6-1487-g1a4cd2cd7e7266b0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91966 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed for 8.5 too.
[Bug tree-optimization/91934] [8 Regression] Performance regression on 8.3.0 with -O3 and avx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91934 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/91112] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Bad error message for virtual function of a template class. Wrong "required from here" line number
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91112 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 Status|WAITING |NEW Summary|[8 Regression] Bad error|[9/10/11/12 Regression] Bad |message for virtual |error message for virtual |function of a template |function of a template |class. Wrong "required from |class. Wrong "required from |here" line number |here" line number CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- This changed with r8-6771-g486c529987375143c1ca508a76c751cb07c56324 and behaves the same way till trunk. GCC 8 branch has been closed.
[Bug c++/89700] Warn if move constructor is not generated and not deleted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89700 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Severity|normal |enhancement Last reconfirmed||2021-05-14 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think it's worth keeping open, because there might be something we can do. But I currently have no idea what it would be. See also https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2021-May/140288.html
[Bug inline-asm/91111] [8 Regression] arm64 Linux kernel panics at boot due to unexpected register assignment in inline asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug middle-end/91021] [8 Regression] ICE in tm_memopt_compute_antic at gcc/trans-mem.c:3867
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91021 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug middle-end/90796] [8 Regression] GCC: O2 vs O3 output differs on simple test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.3 Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.3.
[Bug other/90556] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wreturn-local-addr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90556 Bug 90556 depends on bug 90737, which changed state. Bug 90737 Summary: [8 Regression] inconsistent address of a local converted to intptr_t between callee and caller https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90737 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug middle-end/90648] [8 Regression] ICE tree check: accessed operand 4 of call_expr with 3 operands in generic_simplify_MULT_EXPR, at generic-match.c:27222
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90648 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.3 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.3.
[Bug c/90737] [8 Regression] inconsistent address of a local converted to intptr_t between callee and caller
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90737 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.2 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.2.
[Bug c++/90212] [8 Regression] by-ref capture of constexpr class object rejected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90212 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.4.
[Bug tree-optimization/90211] [8 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have real_cst in first_readonly_imm_use, at ssa-iterators.h:351
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90211 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/90190] [8 regression] CTAD confuses with {one element} initializer_list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90190 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug tree-optimization/90078] [9 Regression] ICE with deep templates caused by overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 Summary|[8 Regression] ICE with |[9 Regression] ICE with |deep templates caused by|deep templates caused by |overflow|overflow --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- >From the above it seems the fix got reverted on 9 branch, then a different fix has been applied to trunk but I don't see backports. So, is this still broken on 9 branch? If not, please close.
[Bug c++/90047] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: in finish_expr_stmt, at cp/semantics.c:680
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90047 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/90019] [8 regression] Bogus ambiguous overload error for NTTP pack of disjoint enable_ifs unless there is an unsupplied default argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90019 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d25809dbfe43917b3bed9454620fcc24f04c1e03 commit r12-799-gd25809dbfe43917b3bed9454620fcc24f04c1e03 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Fri May 14 14:56:28 2021 +0200 testsuite: Add testcase for already fixed PR [PR90019] 2021-05-14 Jakub Jelinek PR c++/90019 * g++.dg/cpp0x/sfinae68.C: New test.
[Bug c++/86932] [8 Regression] Empty non-type template parameter pack not considered for SFINAE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86932 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redbeard0531 at gmail dot com --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- *** Bug 90019 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/90019] [8 regression] Bogus ambiguous overload error for NTTP pack of disjoint enable_ifs unless there is an unsupplied default argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90019 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Started with r8-544-g0ea37ae178ba156ec9f88134acc4bb13665c56ef Fixed for 9.1 with r9-6728-gce4609958f8db5cd64ec1c3bec624a36d8b35812 Therefore, dup of PR86932. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 86932 ***
[Bug c++/100596] [12 Regression] error: attribute appertains to a friend declaration that is not a definition since r12-786-g149061188c7c6ddf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100596 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Rejecting such code was the point of the patch. I guess we'll have to either downgrade to a warning or just not complain about GNU attributes at all.
[Bug c++/89994] [8 Regression] ICE (segfault) in compare_ics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89994 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/89940] [8 Regression] Template substitution causes segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89940 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c/89888] [8 Regression] When switch controlling expression is promoted from type narrower than int, GCC does not diagnose identical cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89888 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug sanitizer/89764] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ubsan diagnostic on generic lambdas decayed to function pointers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89764 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 Summary|[8 Regression] ubsan|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |diagnostic on generic |ubsan diagnostic on generic |lambdas decayed to function |lambdas decayed to function |pointers|pointers --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- I can reproduce it even with 9.3, 10.1 and 11.1. On the other side, on the bisect-seed box I can't reproduce, strange.
[Bug c++/79308] ICE on specialization of nested template classes (in finish_member_declaration, at cp/semantics.c:2963)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79308 Bug 79308 depends on bug 89744, which changed state. Bug 89744 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE with specialization of nested template class https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89744 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c++/89744] [8 Regression] ICE with specialization of nested template class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89744 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug rtl-optimization/89676] [8 Regression] Redundant moves for long long shift on 32bit x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89676 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 89644, which changed state. Bug 89644 Summary: [8 Regression] false-positive -Warray-bounds on strncpy with unterminated array https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89644 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug middle-end/88781] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-truncation warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88781 Bug 88781 depends on bug 89644, which changed state. Bug 89644 Summary: [8 Regression] false-positive -Warray-bounds on strncpy with unterminated array https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89644 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug tree-optimization/89644] [8 Regression] false-positive -Warray-bounds on strncpy with unterminated array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89644 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug target/89506] [8 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at rtl.h:2266 with -Og -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89506 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug debug/82738] [meta-bug] issues with the -Og optimization level
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82738 Bug 82738 depends on bug 89506, which changed state. Bug 89506 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at rtl.h:2266 with -Og -g https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89506 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug tree-optimization/89487] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7993
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89487 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug debug/82738] [meta-bug] issues with the -Og optimization level
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82738 Bug 82738 depends on bug 89434, which changed state. Bug 89434 Summary: [8 Regression] wrong code with -Og and __builtin_mul_overflow() https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89434 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug target/89434] [8 Regression] wrong code with -Og and __builtin_mul_overflow()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89434 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c/89410] [8 Regression] ICE in calculate_line_spans, at diagnostic-show-locus.c:1237 after #line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89410 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug target/89399] [8 Regression] ICE: RTL check: expected code 'set', 'clobber' or 'clobber_high', have 'parallel' in combine_reaching_defs, at ree.c:783
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89399 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/86953] [8 Regression] compiler crashes with constexpr operator== and specific struct (cxx_eval_bit_field_ref, at cp/constexpr.c:2704)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86953 Bug 86953 depends on bug 89285, which changed state. Bug 89285 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE after casting the this pointer in the constructor in C++17 mode https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c++/89285] [8 Regression] ICE after casting the this pointer in the constructor in C++17 mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/58601] [meta-bug] alignas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58601 Bug 58601 depends on bug 89357, which changed state. Bug 89357 Summary: [8 regression][C++11] alignas for automatic variables with alignment greater than 16 fails https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c++/89357] [8 regression][C++11] alignas for automatic variables with alignment greater than 16 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.3 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.3.
[Bug c/89340] [8 Regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility, at ipa-visibility.c:707
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89340 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug c++/89325] [8 Regression] False warnings about "optimization attribute" on operators when -fno-ipa-cp-clone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89325 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug tree-optimization/89280] [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in is_gimple_reg_type)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89280 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug middle-end/92377] [7/8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92377 Bug 92377 depends on bug 89280, which changed state. Bug 89280 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in is_gimple_reg_type) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89280 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug tree-optimization/89247] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_LOOP_VECTORIZED, at internal-fn.c:2409
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89247 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
[Bug tree-optimization/89182] [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in extract_affine, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:280
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89182 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|8.5 |9.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
