[Bug c++/101767] [10/11/12 Regression] Aggregate initialization fails for struct that has both unnamed struct and union fields
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101767 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2
[Bug fortran/101760] [11/12 Regression] ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.c:290 since r12-1319-gd4d38135b3137f1d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101760 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.3
[Bug tree-optimization/101754] Missed fold for a/b*b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101754 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords||missed-optimization Last reconfirmed||2021-08-04 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Confirmed.
[Bug c++/90925] gcc allows calling private overridden operators
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=55361 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361#c5 I suspect applies here.
[Bug tree-optimization/101756] [12 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: non-trivial conversion in 'ssa_name')
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101756 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |12.0 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Mine.
[Bug tree-optimization/101750] [12 regression] g++.dg/vect/pr99149.cc fails on aarch64 since r12-2523
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101750 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101750 > > --- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > > On x86_64 the testcase is optimized to the following now: > > not sure how we conclude that 'n' is not written to anywhere. The issue > > persists even when I rename 'main' to 'foo' (when it's 'main' we could > > indeed > > conclude so). > > I think it's because it's concluding that the access of `h` must trap since > `h` > is local and uninitialized. Hmm, but 'h' is a member of the class object 'n' which is global. > That also explains the abort. Looks like the reducer needs some slight > adjustment. if I declare `h` static then it works again.
[Bug c++/48078] accepts-invalid: taking address of private member function from template function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||awise.gcc.bug at gmail dot com --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 70984 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/70984] Templated derived class erroneously allows taking address of private base class member functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70984 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- This is a dup of bug 48078 which seems fixed in GCC 11+. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 48078 ***
[Bug c++/48078] accepts-invalid: taking address of private member function from template function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=41437 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- This seems fixed in GCC 11+, maybe by the patch which fixed PR 41437.
[Bug c++/53116] protected member access from derived template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53116 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- GCC, ICC and MSVC all accept this code. clang rejects it.
[Bug c++/35383] Lookup of template dependent function with overloads fails for namespace-qualified parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35383 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I think GCC trunk does the correct for the first testcase. ADL only finds functions in the same namespace as the arguments types; that is why: // move this line inside namespace Foo, and all is OK Works. as for func, GCC 4.7+ gets it correct and rejects the code for Fred. So all invalid/fixed. (In reply to ophir.setter+gcc from comment #2) > Is the following the same bug as this bug? It is the same accepts-invalid bug that is similar to func2 in the original testcase.
[Bug c++/65969] typename allowed in using declaration of non-types names
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65969 --- Comment #5 from jim x --- The last two cases seem to be not a bug to me. The standard says(cite the c++20 standard) > If a using-declarator uses the keyword typename and specifies a dependent > name ([temp.dep]), the name introduced by the using-declaration is treated as > a typedef-name. In these cases, regardless of `g`, `f` or even `var`; they are not **dependent name**, hence the keyword `typename` has no effect on them(i.e., they were not considered as typedef-name). they didn't violate any rule.
[Bug c++/72708] error on anonymous union in an unnamed namespace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72708
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
This code is accepted:
namespace {
static union { int x; };
}
---
For the original testcase, only clang accepts the code; ICC, GCC and MSVC all
reject the code with the similar error message saying:
GCC:
:3:18: error: namespace-scope anonymous aggregates must be static
ICC:
(3): error: anonymous union at global or namespace scope must be
declared static
MSVC:
(3): error C2646: an anonymous union at global or namespace scope must
be declared static
--- CUT -
[Bug c++/92034] extern template declarations cannot have internal linkage (unnamed namespace)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92034 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Only clang errors out. ICC, GCC and MSVC all accept the code.
[Bug tree-optimization/95384] Poor codegen cause by using base class instead of member for Optional construction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95384 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2021-08-04 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Confirmed. All bad around. I wonder if we could "expose" some of the details of the ABI late in gimple to simplify/solve this.
[Bug tree-optimization/95384] Poor codegen cause by using base class instead of member for Optional construction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95384 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |tree-optimization Severity|normal |enhancement
[Bug c++/84832] Base class member function incorrectly introduced by using-declarator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84832 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Note GCC and ICC accept the code. While clang and MSVC reject the code.
[Bug c++/86249] declaration conflicts with target of using declaration already in scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86249 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Interesting, GCC, ICC and MSVC all accept this.
[Bug c++/85251] Using declaration for base class constructor looses explicit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85251 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- GCC, ICC, and MSVC all do the same thing and calls A(int).
[Bug c++/80577] Avoid using adj in member function pointers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80577 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||101603 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Severity|normal |enhancement Last reconfirmed||2021-08-04 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- What is being mentioned here is that mfp.__delta will always be 0 as we know foo has no base classes and f is an exact type of foo and using it as foo type. _1 = mfp.__delta; _2 = (sizetype) _1; _3 = + _2; Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101603 [Bug 101603] [meta-bug] pointer to member functions issues
[Bug c++/80288] Using directive injects names into a wrong namespace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80288 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Interesting, ICC, GCC and MSVC all reject this with being ambiguous. Only clang accepts it.
[Bug c++/50921] GCC cannot find dependent conversion-function-id even if there's a using declaration for it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50921 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Known to fail||11.1.0 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Last reconfirmed|2012-08-31 00:00:00 |2021-8-3 Assignee|fabien at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- So it seems like it is only the conversion operators and only if explicitly called.
[Bug c++/66159] bogus warning for alias-declaration using elaborated-type-specifier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66159 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rutsky.vladimir at gmail dot com --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 64259 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/64259] Erroneous "declaration 'struct ...' does not declare anything" when using "typename"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64259 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Dup of bug 66159 which is fixed in GCC 11+. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 66159 ***
[Bug c++/95597] GCC rejects "typename" in using-declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95597
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is another testcase:
typedef int T;
namespace y{
using typename ::T;
}
[Bug c++/94159] parse error on a declaration of a dependent class using a class-key instead of typename
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94159 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2021-08-04 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to fail||4.1.2 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Confirmed.
[Bug c++/65969] typename allowed in using declaration of non-types names
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65969 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xmh970252187 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 101771 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/101771] The keyword "typename" is illegal used in a using-declaration that introduces the non-type declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101771 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- This is a dup of bug 65969. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 65969 ***
[Bug c++/101771] New: The keyword "typename" is illegal used in a using-declaration that introduces the non-type declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101771
Bug ID: 101771
Summary: The keyword "typename" is illegal used in a
using-declaration that introduces the non-type
declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: xmh970252187 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
struct C{
void fun(){}
};
template
struct D:T{
using typename T::fun; // #1
};
int main(){
D b;
}
According to [temp.res#general-5]
>A qualified-id whose terminal name is dependent and that is in a type-only
>context is considered to denote a type. A name that refers to a
>using-declarator whose terminal name is dependent is interpreted as a
>typedef-name if the using-declarator uses the keyword typename.
`fun` in #1 is interpreted to a typedef-name
Meanwhile, according to [temp.res#general-6.5]
> The validity of a template may be checked prior to any instantiation. The
> program is ill-formed, no diagnostic required, if:
>> the interpretation of such a construct in the hypothetical instantiation is
>> different from the interpretation of the corresponding construct in any
>> actual instantiation of the template.
The actual instantiation of `D` would make `fun` denotes a function rather
than denotes a type. Hence, it should be illegal.
[Bug tree-optimization/101770] New: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm with only locals in GNU diffutils
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101770
Bug ID: 101770
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm with only locals in
GNU diffutils
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: eggert at cs dot ucla.edu
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 51256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51256=edit
False alarm with gcc -O2 -Wmaybe-uninitialized and only locals
I found this problem while compiling sdiff.c from GNU diffutils. The attached
is is a simplified version. It appears to be distinct from GCC bug 101768 since
it involves only local variables.
Compile it this way:
gcc -O2 -Wmaybe-uninitialized -S w.i
The output is:
w.i: In function ‘edit’:
w.i:50:18: warning: ‘cmd1’ may be used uninitialized in this function
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
50 | return !cmd1;
| ^
This is a false alarm, because line 50 can be reached only if cmd0=='e', and if
cmd0=='e' then the previous switch statement (inside the while loop - line 27)
guarantees that cmd1 has been initialized.
I briefly tried to simplify the example further, but failed. For example, if I
remove line 16 ("case '2':") the false alarm goes away.
This is with gcc (GCC) 11.2.1 20210728 (Red Hat 11.2.1-1) on x86-64.
[Bug tree-optimization/94274] fold phi whose incoming args are defined from binary operations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94274 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Severity|normal |enhancement Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- Mine. There is another bug which I assigned to myself which is very similar.
[Bug tree-optimization/96336] Multiple multiplications fail to optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96336 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement
[Bug tree-optimization/94884] Failure to recognize that result of or is always superior to operands
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94884 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||101590 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- The comment #4 is recorded in PR 101590, see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590#c2. So I will double check this when I go implement that one fully. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590 [Bug 101590] (len & - N) <= len is not optimized to 1
[Bug c++/101717] [12 Regression] ICE capturing static member within stateless generic lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101717
--- Comment #5 from Steven Sun ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
Thanks!
(In reply to myself from comment #3)
> The program seems never think of a situation "a lambda inside a lambda
> inside a NSDMI`. We need to amend the logic here.
edit to:
The program seems never think of a situation "member function call inside a
generic lambda inside a lambda inside a NSDMI`. We need to amend the logic
here.
-
The direct cause of failure is in g:91e534b0d
```
if (!containing_function && !COMPLETE_TYPE_P (closure))
/* If we're parsing a lambda in a non-local class,
we can find the fake 'this' in scope_chain. */
init = scope_chain->x_current_class_ptr;
```
This part of logic is to find the potential `this` since there is a (static)
member function call `f`. Refer to the following comments:
/* For the overload resolution we need to find the actual `this`
that would be captured if the call turns out to be to a
non-static member function. Do not actually capture it at this
point. */
// in function `build_new_method_call_1` in `gcc/cp/call.c`
-
As for example in comment 1:
`scope_chain->x_current_class_ptr` is correctly set when parsing
```
[=](auto) { f(); }
```
But it was soon incorrectly set when instantiating the same lambda, i.e.
parsing
```
[=](auto) { f(); }()
```
This failure only affectes the potential `this` pointer inside the
```
[=](auto) { f(); }
```
But since here needs no `this` pointer, deleting that problematical
`gcc_checking_assert` is actually a potential fix for this problem.
[Bug tree-optimization/94884] Failure to recognize that result of or is always superior to operands
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94884 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement
[Bug tree-optimization/94884] Failure to recognize that result of or is always superior to operands
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94884
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Part of this is:
bool f1_part0(unsigned x, unsigned y)
{
unsigned t1 = x;
unsigned t = (x | y);
return t >= t1;
}
Should be optimized to true.
[Bug tree-optimization/94793] Failure to optimize clz idiom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94793 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 99887 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug tree-optimization/99887] Failure to optimize log2 pattern to clz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99887 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- This is the same as PR 94793 really. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 94793 ***
[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > > Hmm, thinking about expanding this further: > > I am going to handle the non-special (bool) case as PR 101610. Actually PR 91213.
[Bug tree-optimization/91213] Missed optimization: (sub X Y) -> (xor X Y) when Y <= X and isPowerOf2(X + 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91213 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 101610 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug tree-optimization/101610] CST - (x ^ (CST-1)) can be optimized to x + 1 if x < CST and CST is a power of 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101610 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- This is basically PR 91213. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 91213 ***
[Bug tree-optimization/91213] Missed optimization: (sub X Y) -> (xor X Y) when Y <= X and isPowerOf2(X + 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91213 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- MIne.
[Bug tree-optimization/89263] Simplify bool expression to OR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89263 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement
[Bug tree-optimization/96685] Failure to optimize not+sub to add+not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96685 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0
[Bug tree-optimization/94356] Missed optimisation: useless multiplication generated for pointer comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, the following is worse:
typedef int t[10];
int f(t *p, long long o) {
t *p1 = p+o;
return p < p1;
}
[Bug middle-end/19987] [meta-bug] fold missing optimizations in general
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987 Bug 19987 depends on bug 96897, which changed state. Bug 96897 Summary: Failure to optimize sub+not involving constant to add https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96897 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug tree-optimization/96897] Failure to optimize sub+not involving constant to add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96897 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Fixed with r11-5958.
[Bug tree-optimization/96897] Failure to optimize sub+not involving constant to add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96897 Bug 96897 depends on bug 37516, which changed state. Bug 37516 Summary: ~(-2 - a) is not being optimized into a + 1 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37516 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
[Bug tree-optimization/96685] Failure to optimize not+sub to add+not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96685 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 37516 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug rtl-optimization/37516] ~(-2 - a) is not being optimized into a + 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37516 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- Fixed with r11-5958. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 96685 ***
[Bug c/101766] Microblaze gcc misses symver but __has_attribute(symver) returns true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101766 --- Comment #3 from Giulio Benetti --- I've done this: https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/pull/620/commits/3aba09a5c56e017746c5c1652dbc845f4db7374a and works fine. It doesn't seem to have pitfalls.
[Bug tree-optimization/96897] Failure to optimize sub+not involving constant to add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96897 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||37516 Assignee|prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- MIne because this is basically PR 37516. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37516 [Bug 37516] ~(-2 - a) is not being optimized into a + 1
[Bug tree-optimization/96897] Failure to optimize sub+not involving constant to add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96897 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement
[Bug c++/101717] [12 Regression] ICE capturing static member within stateless generic lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101717 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Steven Sun from comment #3) > By the way, does anyone know other magics like g:hash? r works for the old Subversion revisions "PR" and "bug " (maybe one more) puts a link to the other bug. rN- (and rN--H) works if you know the new scheme of git revisions (git gcc-descr can find that for you and you can undo them with gcc-undescr) I think those are all of the ones which we added to bugzilla, everything else is standard (e.g. comment #0 works).
[Bug tree-optimization/99997] Missed optimisation with -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, phi-opt should have done it:
if (_10 != 0)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count: 536870913]:
_3 = page_2(D)->compound_head;
_4 = (_Bool) _3;
_11 = (int) _4;
[local count: 1073741824]:
# iftmp.0_5 = PHI <1(2), _11(3)>
We have code to move the conversion in phiopt but we are not doing it for some
reason:
Take:
bool f(int tf, long unsigned int r)
{
int t = 1;
if (tf)
t = ((r&1)!=0);
return t;
}
bool f2(int tf, long unsigned int r)
{
int t = 1;
bool tt = ((r&1)!=0);
if (tf)
t = tt;
return t;
}
These two functions should produce 100% the same code but they don't.
Mine.
[Bug c++/101717] [12 Regression] ICE capturing static member within stateless generic lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101717 Steven Sun changed: What|Removed |Added CC||StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com --- Comment #3 from Steven Sun --- This bug is not introduced in GCC 12. The relevant code fragment is last edited by g:91e534b0d in `gcc/cp/lambda.c` ``` gcc_checking_assert (init && (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (init)) == current_nonlambda_class_type ())); ``` The assertion fails since long ago. (init == 0 in this case) Before GCC 12, the `gcc_checking_assert` is `(void)0` in release version, leaving everything fine. Somehow `gcc_checking_assert` starts working now, and aborts the program. My insight on the problem: The program seems never think of a situation "a lambda inside a lambda inside a NSDMI`. We need to amend the logic here. "here" means https://gcc.gnu.org/git?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/cp/lambda.c;h=2e9d38bbe832702804ddcaffc4024ce930a74843;hb=refs/heads/master#l755 By the way, does anyone know other magics like g:hash?
[Bug tree-optimization/95527] Failure to optimize __builtin_ffs == 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95527 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement
[Bug tree-optimization/101769] New: loop->finite_p is not always true for some loops even with -ffinite-loops being used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101769
Bug ID: 101769
Summary: loop->finite_p is not always true for some loops even
with -ffinite-loops being used
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
Target Milestone: ---
Take the following C++ testcase:
struct Node
{
Node* right;
Node* down;
};
inline
void free_node(Node*)
{
}
void free_all(Node* n_)
{
if (n_ == nullptr) {
return;
}
free_all(n_->right);
do {
Node* t = n_->down;
free_node(n_);
n_ = t;
} while (n_);
}
void free_all2_r(Node* n_)
{
if (n_->right) {
free_all2_r(n_->right);
}
do {
Node* t = n_->down;
free_node(n_);
n_ = t;
} while (n_);
}
void free_all2(Node* n_)
{
if (n_) {
free_all2_r(n_);
}
}
void loop(Node* n_)
{
do {
n_ = n_->down;
} while (n_);
}
int main()
{
return 0;
}
CUT -
These all should be empty functions at -O2 -ffinite-loops but currently
free_all, free_all2_r, and free_all2 produce empty loops around the element.
loop is able to do the right thing.
What seems to be happening is loop->finite_p being lost somewhere.
[Bug middle-end/100810] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-397-gda9e6e63d1ae22e530ec7baf59f6ed028bf05776
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > GCC does warn about an unitialized variable i even in "i && d" > For: > if (!b) > i & > > b is even set to 1. Note setting b to be 0 still get the wrong code. The bug is IV-OPTS which selects a variable which is based on an unintialized value. CCP is not the problem, it was just happen to find that h_lsm.23_29 is based on an unintialized value and props the undefinedness forward.
[Bug middle-end/100810] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-397-gda9e6e63d1ae22e530ec7baf59f6ed028bf05776
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- GCC does warn about an unitialized variable i even in "i && d" For: if (!b) i & b is even set to 1. Note setting b to be 0 still get the wrong code.
[Bug gcov-profile/71672] inlining indirect calls does not work with autofdo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71672 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Eugene Rozenfeld : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:285aa6895d479bed8e72ad363290846645b6faa0 commit r12-2711-g285aa6895d479bed8e72ad363290846645b6faa0 Author: Eugene Rozenfeld Date: Mon Aug 2 18:36:09 2021 -0700 Fix indirect call inlining with AutoFDO The histogram value for indirect calls was incorrectly set up. That is fixed now. With this change the tree-prof tests checking indirect call inlining with AutoFDO in gcc.dg and g++.dg are passing. Resolves: PR gcov-profile/71672 - inlining indirect calls does not work with autofdo gcc/ChangeLog: PR gcov-profile/71672 * auto-profile.c (afdo_indirect_call): Fix setup of the historgram value for indirect calls.
[Bug gcov-profile/71672] inlining indirect calls does not work with autofdo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71672 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Eugene Rozenfeld : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9265b378531391498ec1727f67a45da72a6c07e9 commit r12-2710-g9265b378531391498ec1727f67a45da72a6c07e9 Author: Eugene Rozenfeld Date: Mon Aug 2 18:29:24 2021 -0700 Fixes for AutoFDO testing * create_gcov tool doesn't currently support dwarf 5 so I made a change in profopt.exp to pass -gdwarf-4 when compiling the binary to profile. * I updated the invocation of create_gcov in profopt.exp to pass -gcov_version=2. I recently made a change to create_gcov to support version 2: https://github.com/google/autofdo/pull/117 . * I removed useless -o perf.data from the invocation of gcc-auto-profile in target-supports.exp. These changes contribute to fixing PR gcov-profile/71672. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * lib/profopt.exp: Pass gdwarf-4 when compiling test to profile; pass -gcov_version=2. * lib/target-supports.exp: Remove unnecessary -o perf.data passed to gcc-auto-profile.
[Bug gcov-profile/71672] inlining indirect calls does not work with autofdo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71672 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Eugene Rozenfeld : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ed093c7c3f755bc1cd80e5186abeb2f5c50ee0c commit r12-2709-g0ed093c7c3f755bc1cd80e5186abeb2f5c50ee0c Author: Eugene Rozenfeld Date: Mon Aug 2 17:22:34 2021 -0700 Fix indir-call-prof-2.c with AutoFDO indir-call-prof-2.c has -fno-early-inlining but AutoFDO can't work without early inlining (it needs to match the inlining of the profiled binary). I changed profopt.exp to always pass -fearly-inlining for AutoFDO. With that change the indirect call inlining in indir-call-prof-2.c happens in the early inliner so I changed the dg-final-use-autofdo. Contributes to fixing PR gcov-profile/71672 gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.dg/tree-prof/indir-call-prof-2.c: Fix dg-final-use-autofdo. * lib/profopt.exp: Pass -fearly-inlining when compiling with AutoFDO.
[Bug gcov-profile/71672] inlining indirect calls does not work with autofdo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71672 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Eugene Rozenfeld : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9ad3d5339faaaed6e15a7b27d90fbc66eb72f37 commit r12-2708-gf9ad3d5339faaaed6e15a7b27d90fbc66eb72f37 Author: Eugene Rozenfeld Date: Mon Aug 2 17:12:04 2021 -0700 Fixes for AutoFDO tests * Changed several tests to use -fdump-ipa-afdo-optimized instead of -fdump-ipa-afdo in dg-options so that the expected output can be found * Increased the number of iterations in several tests so that perf can have enough sampling events Contributes to fixing PR gcov-profile/71672. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/tree-prof/indir-call-prof.C: Fix options, increase the number of iterations. * g++.dg/tree-prof/morefunc.C: Fix options, increase the number of iterations. * g++.dg/tree-prof/reorder.C: Fix options, increase the number of iterations. * gcc.dg/tree-prof/indir-call-prof-2.c: Fix options, increase the number of iterations. * gcc.dg/tree-prof/indir-call-prof.c: Fix options.
[Bug middle-end/100810] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-397-gda9e6e63d1ae22e530ec7baf59f6ed028bf05776
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- # i_16 = PHI _22 = (unsigned int) i_16; _48 = -_22; _49 = _39 - _22; h_lsm.23_29 = (int) _49; Somehow or another h gets its value from i which causes the incorrect code. ccp is not at fault.
[Bug tree-optimization/82188] Missed optimization opportunity for constant folding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
int main (void)
{
volatile int x = 1;
long t1 = 1/(2U-x);
int t2 = 0!=(((int)(2%(2+t1)))/2);
if (t1 != 1) __builtin_abort();
if (t2 != 1) __builtin_abort();
return 0;
}
CUT
x.1_2 = (unsigned int) x.0_1;
_3 = 2 - x.1_2;
_4 = 1 / _3;
_12 = _3 <= 1;
_8 = (long int) _12;
_6 = _8 << 1;
if (_4 != 1)
...
if (_6 != 2)
We know the range of _8 is [0, 1], so we should change _6 != 2 to _8 != 1
Which then gets simplified to _3 > 1.
As for the _4 != 1:
1/ (2-x) != 1 is always false?
[Bug c/101766] Microblaze gcc misses symver but __has_attribute(symver) returns true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101766 --- Comment #2 from Giulio Benetti --- Ah ok, so the workaround is to check with a little build test, right?
[Bug c++/95016] [DR 2082] Referring to parameters in unevaluated operands of default arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95016 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Will be fixed by https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/576627.html
[Bug tree-optimization/81206] missed tail recursion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81206
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-03
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Full testcase:
int a;
int b(int c, int d)
{
//int c, d;
if (a)
d = b(c, d);
return (1 + c) + d;
}
int b1(int c, int d)
{
// int c, d;
int t = (1 + c);
if (a)
d = b1(c, d);
return t + d;
}
Both of these should have a tail recursion but currently b1 only does.
[Bug middle-end/100810] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-397-gda9e6e63d1ae22e530ec7baf59f6ed028bf05776
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810 --- Comment #4 from Roger Sayle --- I believe this bug occurs during the .195t.ccp4 pass that was introduced by the commit identified above, where tree-ssa-propagate.c's substitute_and_fold_engine appears not to correctly handle the situation of a completely empty basic block (or the CFG flags describing it are incorrect). Things are fine (but unusual) with the incoming GIMPLE: [local count: 69772953]: # i_30 = PHI # h_lsm.23_40 = PHI if (g.12_20 != 0) goto ; [50.00%] else goto ; [50.00%] [local count: 282263306]: [local count: 69772953]: # h_lsm.23_27 = PHI _31 = i_30 != 0; _14 = _10 & _31; if (_14 != 0) goto ; [25.00%] else goto ; [75.00%] Notice that the only purpose of the empty bb12 is to define the phi eddges into bb13, one edge sets h_lsm to 2, the other doesn't. Alas, this logic gets overlooked by ccp4, where TDF_DETAILS reports: Folding PHI node: h_lsm.23_40 = PHI No folding possible Folding PHI node: h_lsm.23_27 = PHI Queued PHI for removal. Folds to: 2 ... Removing basic block 12 ;; basic block 12, loop depth 1 ;; pred: ;; succ: 13 Merging blocks 11 and 13 And things do downhill from there. Alas I'm still trying to figure exactly how the "Folds to: 2" is (mis)deduced, but I thought I'd share my analysis so far so that a real tree-ssa expert can confirm what's supposed to happen. A useful workaround for debugging is: diff --git a/gcc/passes.def b/gcc/passes.def index 26d86df..c2806bc 100644 --- a/gcc/passes.def +++ b/gcc/passes.def @@ -339,7 +339,9 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see /* Threading can leave many const/copy propagations in the IL. Clean them up. Instead of just copy_prop, we use ccp to compute alignment and nonzero bits. */ +#if 0 NEXT_PASS (pass_ccp, true /* nonzero_p */); +#endif NEXT_PASS (pass_warn_restrict); NEXT_PASS (pass_dse); NEXT_PASS (pass_cd_dce, true /* update_address_taken_p */); Another workaround, for this particular testcase, is -fno-tree-loop-sm, but the real culprit (as shown above) is inside pass_ccp (or in the invariants it's relying on).
[Bug tree-optimization/81206] missed tail recursion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81206
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
int a;
int b()
{
int c, d;
if (a)
d = b();
return 1 + c + d;
}
[Bug tree-optimization/101768] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm with non local variables in some cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101768 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- [AFTER NORMALIZATION -- [DEF]: (.NOT.) ct.0_1 == 1 [AFTER NORMALIZATION -- [DEF]: offset_width_13 = PHI is guarded by : (.NOT.) arg_10 != 0 (.AND.) arg_16 != 0 (.AND.) ct.0_1 == 1 (.OR.) (.NOT.) arg_16 != 0 (.AND.) ct.0_1 == 1 [AFTER NORMALIZATION -- [USE]: foo (offset_width_13); is guarded by : prephitmp_5 == 1 Uninit did not look up the chain for prephitmp_5 to see: # prephitmp_5 = PHI foo (offset_width_13); pretmp_6 = ct;
[Bug tree-optimization/101768] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm with non local variables in some cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101768
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-03
Summary|-Wmaybe-uninitialized false |-Wmaybe-uninitialized false
|alarm with 'switch' instead |alarm with non local
|of 'if' |variables in some cases
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is a reduced testcase:
int ct;
void foo (int);
int
cmp (int arg)
{
int differing = 0;
int offset_width;
if (ct == 1)
{
offset_width = 1;
for (offset_width = 1; (arg /= 10) != 0; offset_width++)
;
}
do {
if (ct == 1) {
foo (offset_width);
differing--;
}
} while (differing <= 0);
return !!differing;
}
GCC does not figure out once ct == 1, and foo is called, it will either become
ct == 1 which is fine or never be ct == 1 again.
[Bug tree-optimization/101768] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm with 'switch' instead of 'if'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101768 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- switch has nothing to do it.
[Bug tree-optimization/101768] New: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm with 'switch' instead of 'if'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101768 Bug ID: 101768 Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm with 'switch' instead of 'if' Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: eggert at cs dot ucla.edu Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 51255 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51255=edit False alarm with gcc -O2 -Wmaybe-uninitialized The attached program is a greatly-simplified version of GNU diffutils' cmp program. Compiling it this way: gcc -O2 -Wmaybe-uninitialized -S u.i causes gcc to emit the bogus diagnostic: u.i: In function ‘cmp’: u.i:21:11: warning: ‘offset_width’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 21 | foo (offset_width); | ^~ I tried simplifying it further (removing the 'main' function, turning the switch into an if, etc.) but the warning went away with the further simplifications. This is with gcc (GCC) 11.2.1 20210728 (Red Hat 11.2.1-1) on x86-64.
[Bug c++/101767] [10/11/12 Regression] Aggregate initialization fails for struct that has both unnamed struct and union fields
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101767 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[10/11/12 Regression] |Aggregate initialization|Aggregate initialization |fails for struct that has |fails for struct that has |both unnamed struct and |both unnamed struct and |union fields|union fields Target Milestone|11.3|10.4 See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=100489 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work||10.3.0 Last reconfirmed||2021-08-03 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- So this is most likely caused by the patch which fixes PR 100489 so this is a regression in 10.4.0 also.
[Bug c++/101767] [11/12 Regression] Aggregate initialization fails for struct that has both unnamed struct and union fields
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101767 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.3
[Bug c++/101747] Two-argument version of attribute malloc does not perform overload resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101747 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2021-08-03 CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Keywords||rejects-valid Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- I suppose the return type of the allocator could be used for the disambiguation. The difficulty here is that the attribute handler is in code shared by the C and C++ front ends with no good way to call a language-specific routine to do overload resolution. Maybe the attribute should accept a string with the mangled name of the function in addition to a function name. IIRC, attribute copy has the same limitation.
[Bug c++/101767] New: Aggregate initialization fails for struct that has both unnamed struct and union fields
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101767
Bug ID: 101767
Summary: Aggregate initialization fails for struct that has
both unnamed struct and union fields
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: xtkoba at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 51254
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51254=edit
Repro
$ cat unnamed_fields.cc
typedef struct {
struct {
int x;
};
union {
int y;
float z;
};
} S;
void foo(void)
{
[[maybe_unused]] S a = {
.x = 1,
.y = 0
};
}
$ g++-11.2.0 unnamed_fields.cc -c
unnamed_fields.cc: In function 'void foo()':
unnamed_fields.cc:17:3: error: 'S::' has no non-static data
member named 'y'
17 | };
| ^
$ g++-11.2.0 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-11.2.0
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.2.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with:
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-11.2.0/work/gcc-11.2.0/configure
--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --prefix=/usr
--bindir=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/11.2.0
--includedir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.2.0/include
--datadir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.2.0
--mandir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.2.0/man
--infodir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.2.0/info
--with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.2.0/include/g++-v11
--with-python-dir=/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.2.0/python
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-obsolete --enable-secureplt
--disable-werror --with-system-zlib --enable-nls --without-included-gettext
--disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-checking=release
--with-bugurl=https://bugs.gentoo.org/ --with-pkgversion='Gentoo 11.2.0 p1'
--disable-esp --enable-libstdcxx-time --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-multilib
--with-multilib-list=m32,m64 --disable-fixed-point --enable-targets=all
--enable-libgomp --disable-libssp --disable-libada --disable-systemtap
--disable-valgrind-annotations --disable-vtable-verify --disable-libvtv
--without-zstd --enable-lto --without-isl --enable-default-pie
--enable-default-ssp
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.2.0 (Gentoo 11.2.0 p1)
[Bug c/101766] Microblaze gcc misses symver but __has_attribute(symver) returns true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101766 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- __has_attribute is broken for many attributes. If GCC supports them in a generic way but does not really support them, __has_attribute still returns true.
[Bug libbacktrace/101753] ld: Unrecognized argument: --build-id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101753 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Target|hppa*-hp-hpux* |hppa64-hp-hpux* Host|hppa*-hp-hpux* |hppa64-hp-hpux* Build|hppa*-hp-hpux* |hppa64-hp-hpux* --- Comment #2 from John David Anglin --- hppa64-hp-hpux* is an ELF system but linker is HP. This is also true for ia64-hpux. This is what I see for HAVE_ELF: ./hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/libbacktrace/config.log:HAVE_ELF_FALSE='#' ./hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/libbacktrace/config.log:HAVE_ELF_TRUE='' ./hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/libbacktrace/config.status:S["HAVE_ELF_FALSE"]="#" ./hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/libbacktrace/config.status:S["HAVE_ELF_TRUE"]="" ./libbacktrace/config.log:HAVE_ELF_FALSE='#' ./libbacktrace/config.log:HAVE_ELF_TRUE='' ./libbacktrace/config.status:S["HAVE_ELF_FALSE"]="#" ./libbacktrace/config.status:S["HAVE_ELF_TRUE"]=""
[Bug tree-optimization/101741] [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at gimple-range-fold.cc:541 since r12-2517-g1ce0b26e6e1e6c34
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101741 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I believe invalid in the keyword means strictly syntactically invalid, not undefined as a result of a semantic constraint (e.g., defining a standard function; GCC normally handles that gracefully).
[Bug c/101766] New: Microblaze gcc misses symver but __has_attribute(symver) returns true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101766
Bug ID: 101766
Summary: Microblaze gcc misses symver but
__has_attribute(symver) returns true
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: giulio.benetti at benettiengineering dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Microblaze gcc can't use .symver attribute leading to:
error: symver is only supported on ELF platforms
This is a simple test-case(taken from libfuse3) that reproduce the problem:
'''
# if !__has_attribute (symver)
# error symver attribute not supported
# endif
#else
#error __has_attribute not defined, assume we do not have symver
#endif
__attribute__ ((symver ("fuse_new@FUSE_3.0")))
void func1(void)
{
}
int main(void) {
return 0;
}
'''
The problem is the discrepancy I've found between __has_attribute(symver)
that return true, while in gcc/gcc/config.gcc 'elfos.h' is not listed under
Microblaze cases. Trying adding elfos.h to it leads to other linker problems
and this makes me think that Microblaze doesn't actually support
__ELF__(symver).
So I thought to build gcc using --disable-symvers explictly until a fix is
found, but that doesn't either work.
Can you please give help?
Thanks a lot!
[Bug tree-optimization/81127] Complex division misses BB vectorisation opportunity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81127
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
SLP does work for:
void f(complex double *x, complex double *y, double *tt) {
complex double t = *x/ *y;
tt[0] = __real__ t;
tt[1] = __imag__ t;
}
[Bug testsuite/101688] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails on 32-bit archs with new jump threader
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101688 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed in r12-2707.
[Bug testsuite/101688] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails on 32-bit archs with new jump threader
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101688 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aabf07cd5dc314135adde89830a86be157d7596b commit r12-2707-gaabf07cd5dc314135adde89830a86be157d7596b Author: Martin Sebor Date: Tue Aug 3 13:53:02 2021 -0600 Disable a test case in ILP32 [PR101688]. Resolves: PR testsuite/101688 - g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails on 32-bit archs with new jump threader gcc/testsuite: PR testsuite/101688 * g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C: Disable a test case in ILP32.
[Bug testsuite/101688] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails on 32-bit archs with new jump threader
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101688 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Component|middle-end |testsuite Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Host|x86-64 with -m32, ppc64 |i686-*-* powerpc-*-* |with -m32 |
[Bug c++/101765] New: ICE when using a VLA inside of a coroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101765
Bug ID: 101765
Summary: ICE when using a VLA inside of a coroutine
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kacper.slominski72 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code, when compiled with "-std=c++20 -fcoroutines" (on GCC
versions starting from 10.1 and including trunk) causes an ICE:
#include
struct dummy_coro {
using promise_type = dummy_coro;
bool await_ready() noexcept { return false; }
void await_suspend(std::coroutine_handle<>) noexcept { }
void await_resume() noexcept { }
dummy_coro get_return_object() { return {}; }
dummy_coro initial_suspend() { return {}; }
dummy_coro final_suspend() noexcept { return {}; }
void return_void() { }
void unhandled_exception() { }
};
dummy_coro foo(int arg) {
char arr[arg];
co_return;
}
Compiler output from GCC 11:
: In function 'dummy_coro foo(int)':
:18:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
18 | }
| ^
0x1786229 internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
0x100ff23 wi::lts_p_large(long const*, unsigned int, unsigned int, long const*,
unsigned int)
???:0
0x6a7c06 finish_struct_1(tree_node*)
???:0
0x6a9c8c finish_struct(tree_node*, tree_node*)
???:0
0x6cd958 morph_fn_to_coro(tree_node*, tree_node**, tree_node**)
???:0
0x6fd221 finish_function(bool)
???:0
0x7c47db c_parse_file()
???:0
0x896762 c_common_parse_file()
???:0
Compiler output from GCC trunk:
: In function 'dummy_coro foo(int)':
:18:1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected integer_cst, have
plus_expr in get_len, at tree.h:6066
18 | }
| ^
0x1dadf09 internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
0x69f111 tree_check_failed(tree_node const*, char const*, int, char const*,
...)
???:0
0x739efa finish_struct_1(tree_node*)
???:0
0x73ca54 finish_struct(tree_node*, tree_node*)
???:0
0x77d64c morph_fn_to_coro(tree_node*, tree_node**, tree_node**)
???:0
0x7de6df finish_function(bool)
???:0
0x914885 c_parse_file()
???:0
0xa97472 c_common_parse_file()
???:0
[Bug middle-end/101688] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails on 32-bit archs with new jump threader
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101688
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-03
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I can confirm the unexpected warnings but the reason for them isn't that
they're somehow confused. They're correct for the emitted IL.
Here's a small example:
$ cat pr101688.C && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -m32 pr101688.C
char *p, *q;
void f (int n)
{
if (n < 0)
n = 0;
p = (char*)new int[n];
*p = 0;
q = (char*)new int[n + 1];
*q = 0;
}
pr101688.C: In function ‘void f(int)’:
pr101688.C:9:6: warning: writing 1 byte into a region of size 0
[-Wstringop-overflow=]
9 | *p = 0;
| ~~~^~~
pr101688.C:8:23: note: destination object of size 0 allocated by ‘operator new
[]’
8 | p = (char*)new int[n];
| ^
The IL the warning is issued for is the following:
[local count: 1073741824]:
if (n_3(D) < 0)
goto ; [25.50%]
...
[local count: 273804168]:
_29 = operator new [] (0); <<< zero-sized allocation
p = _29;
MEM[(char *)_29] = 0; <<< -Wstringop-overflow
goto ; [100.00%]
The invalid code in bb 8 is first seen in the vrp1 dump:
[local count: 1073741824]:
if (n_3(D) < 0)
goto ; [25.50%]
...
[local count: 273804168]:
# n_25 = PHI <0(2)>
# n.1_26 = PHI <0(2)>
iftmp.0_27 = n.1_26 * 4;
_29 = operator new [] (iftmp.0_27);
p = _29;
MEM[(char *)_29] = 0;
When i == 0, the first allocation creates a zero-sized object which then
results in an out-of-bounds store. If this were real code (as opposed to a
test) I'd say the code is unsafe and warning for it is justified. What's
unhelpful here is that the warning that ends up issued doesn't make the problem
clear.
[Bug tree-optimization/79028] Un-optimal/ incorrect forward propagation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79028 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2017-01-09 00:00:00 |2021-8-3 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- There are a lot of match-simplify patterns which should either have :s or check for single use but someone needs to audit them.
[Bug tree-optimization/101758] Inconsistent optimizations with UBSan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101758 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- So my checks are not fully correct, I am not going to take my time to debug this fully debug how we can remove the check.
[Bug tree-optimization/71343] missed optimization (can't "prove" shift and multiplication equivalence)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71343 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement
[Bug tree-optimization/77705] Optimize away some static constructors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77705 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Severity|normal |enhancement
[Bug tree-optimization/71034] abs(f) u>= 0. is always true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71034 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement
[Bug tree-optimization/101763] Comments in tree-vrp.c are way out of date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101763 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- The change happened in r11-439.
[Bug fortran/101760] [11/12 Regression] ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.c:290 since r12-1319-gd4d38135b3137f1d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101760 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, ||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2021-08-03 Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE in |[11/12 Regression] ICE in |make_ssa_name_fn, at|make_ssa_name_fn, at |tree-ssanames.c:290 |tree-ssanames.c:290 since ||r12-1319-gd4d38135b3137f1d Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Started with r12-1319-gd4d38135b3137f1d.
[Bug tree-optimization/59564] False positive array -Warray-bounds check with -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59564 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- So this was fixed by r5-6842 which was backported for GCC 4.9.3 also.
[Bug c++/101764] New: ICE for constexpr if within fold expression within lambda expression within a template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101764
Bug ID: 101764
Summary: ICE for constexpr if within fold expression within
lambda expression within a template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: johelegp at gmail dot com
CC: johelegp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
See https://godbolt.org/z/o944oWafx.
```C++
void f(auto i) {
([](T...) {
return (..., [] {
if constexpr (T{0})
;
}());
}(i));
}
void g() { f(0); }
```
```
: In instantiation of 'f(int):: [with T = {int}]':
:7:4: required from 'void f(auto:1) [with auto:1 = int]'
:9:13: required from here
:6:8: internal compiler error: in tsubst_pack_expansion, at
cp/pt.c:13102
6 | }());
|^
0x1dadf09 internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
0x6e5511 fancy_abort(char const*, int, char const*)
???:0
0x962157 tsubst_pack_expansion(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*)
???:0
0x94de47 instantiate_decl(tree_node*, bool, bool)
???:0
0x7f5dbe maybe_instantiate_decl(tree_node*)
???:0
0x7f7520 mark_used(tree_node*, int)
???:0
0x710ad5 build_op_call(tree_node*, vec**, int)
???:0
0x9b4935 finish_call_expr(tree_node*, vec**, bool,
bool, int)
???:0
0x94de47 instantiate_decl(tree_node*, bool, bool)
???:0
0x99020b instantiate_pending_templates(int)
???:0
0x7fb2f9 c_parse_final_cleanups()
???:0
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See
[Bug tree-optimization/101763] Comments in tree-vrp.c are way out of date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101763 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Note I found this while trying to figure out what fixed PR 59564.
[Bug tree-optimization/101756] [12 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: non-trivial conversion in 'ssa_name')
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101756 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2021-08-03 Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org, ||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Started with r12-1551-g3dfa4fe9f1a089b2.
