https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101780
--- Comment #4 from KL ---
I get it but, as is, with no more contextual information, it is an annoying
warning.
Not enough information for the developer is the real problem here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64165
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61722
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101711
--- Comment #8 from bootmgr at 163 dot com ---
(In reply to ctice from comment #6)
> I applied the patch supplied in comment 5. I added
> --with-sysroot=/usr/local to my configure command (still not using
> --enable-threads=mcf or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101796
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
There's 2 issues.
1. simplify_rtx should be able to simplify it.
2. x86 backend use ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx (mode) which prevent simplication.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101796
Bug ID: 101796
Summary: Miss optimization to optimized (vashl op0, (op1:
const_duplicate_vector)) to (ashl op0 op1_inner)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95816
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The edge is also marked with EDGE_CROSSING. So maybe there is a way to try
communicate this to the register allocator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101783
--- Comment #1 from nick huang ---
The following snippet of code and error gives more clear the issue.
Considering:
template struct A{
typedef T& Type;
};
template
void f(const typename A::Type){}
struct B{};
template <>
void f(const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95816
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101787
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||heinzisoft at web dot de
--- Comment #13 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100438
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100438
--- Comment #11 from Filipe Brandenburger ---
BTW, I just checked and see that the commit is already pushed upstream:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/72264a639729a5dcc21dbee304717ce22b338bfd
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100438
--- Comment #10 from Filipe Brandenburger ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> Please try:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/576603.html
>
> on GCC master branch. I can create a backport branch for GCC 11 if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57024
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.3, 4.9.0, 4.9.4, 5.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56406
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101711
--- Comment #7 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also, I downloaded the sources for mcfgthread from the repo supplied in
comment5, but I can't seem to get that to build -- the GCC on my machine does
not recognize "-municode" as a valid flag. Is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101711
--- Comment #6 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I applied the patch supplied in comment 5. I added --with-sysroot=/usr/local
to my configure command (still not using --enable-threads=mcf or
--enable-vtable-verify). Now it configures, but the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50214
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is you cann't use :P unless you have a templated pattern which
strmov/strset are.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45632
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38544
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC, ICC, clang nor MSVC does this. Someone would need to look at the
instruction to see if it is valid to do for the C++11 memory model too. Does it
write to the memory location even without the add?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31985
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49869
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
On the trunk I only see one copy of the loop:
.L11:
movups (%rbx,%rax), %xmm7
movups 0(%rbp,%rax), %xmm0
movups (%r9,%rax), %xmm1
subps %xmm7, %xmm0
movups
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47626
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101711
--- Comment #5 from bootmgr at 163 dot com ---
(In reply to ctice from comment #4)
> Is there something special I need to download, set up, or build in order to
> do mingw32 cross-compiles?
>
> I'm getting configure/build failures even when I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.1.0, 9.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46551
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43225
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47895
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
This was fixed by r0-124016.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47895
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101795
Bug ID: 101795
Summary: (x > QNaNf) is not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45090
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101794
Bug ID: 101794
Summary: std::lerp with NaN input does not result in NaN
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39843
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||ILP32
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39843
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101793
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to thutt from comment #3)
> Thanks for the quick triage. If the optimizer is getting confused about
> control / data flow, is it possible that it's making bad decisions for
> codegen?
No, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31802
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.3, 4.7.1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101793
--- Comment #3 from thutt at vmware dot com ---
Thanks for the quick triage. If the optimizer is getting confused about
control / data flow, is it possible that it's making bad decisions for codegen?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30492
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30685
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101793
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101792
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101793
--- Comment #1 from thutt at vmware dot com ---
Also using godbolt.org, this sample fails from 4.9.0 to trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101793
Bug ID: 101793
Summary: Incorrect production of ‘may be used uninitialized in
this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]'
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101731
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is most likely caused by r7-2434.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101731
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101731
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101792
Bug ID: 101792
Summary: Compiling access to templated parent object fails with
unrelated message: invalid use of 'auto'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101505
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> This is a different bug though, probably caused by HJs changes, looks like
> the fixed PR101742, indeed updating and re-building my dev tree makes the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29970
--- Comment #9 from Martin Uecker ---
The sizeof problem is that in c_expr_sizeof_expr the argument of sizeof is only
evaluated for VLAs but not for structs of variable size. The information about
the size is then lost. Changing this fixes some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86369
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another possibility would be to detect it in cxx_eval_binary_expression before
calling fold_binary_loc and punt.
But, the constant evaluation actually doesn't track whether it is the same or
different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101782
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8b024fa4b76bfd914e96dd3cecfbb6ee8e91316
commit r12-2773-gc8b024fa4b76bfd914e96dd3cecfbb6ee8e91316
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79938
--- Comment #6 from postmaster at raasu dot org ---
I tried identical code using intrinsics with both clang and gcc:
clang:
movdqa xmm1,XMMWORD PTR [rip+0xd98]# 402050 <_IO_stdin_used+0x50>
pand xmm1,xmm0
movdqa xmm2,xmm0
pshufb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101744
--- Comment #7 from Matthew Malcomson ---
Hi there,
I didn't check all the new tests that Christophe mentioned, but all those I
checked had `dg-require-effective-target hwaddress_exec` in them.
The test that determines that effective target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101780
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to KL from comment #2)
> > How would P,Q,R be left uninitialized?
>
> Only if the analyzer has the info that, at this stage, there no default
> value for the field.
> It could be interesting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89085
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Accepted since r11-1571 and r10-8343:
c++: Refinements to "more constrained".
P2113 from the last C++ meeting clarified that we only compare constraints
on functions or function templates that have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101791
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101791
Bug ID: 101791
Summary: missing warning on a mismatch between scalar and array
forms of new and delete
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71267
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Accepted since r12-1094 and r11-8714:
c++: argument pack with expansion [PR86355]
This testcase revealed that we were using PACK_EXPANSION_EXTRA_ARGS a lot
more than necessary;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100977
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4739344d36e6d24764cbedde44a3fff6edc70f6c
commit r12-2772-g4739344d36e6d24764cbedde44a3fff6edc70f6c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100977
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4805b92a32637b987f924463d6af9dcf95b21f63
commit r12-2771-g4805b92a32637b987f924463d6af9dcf95b21f63
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57466
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The core issue is still open, for some reason.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61543
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> GCC 8+ rejects the first "// accepted" in the reduced testcase.
Since r249083
> GCC 9+ rejects both.
Since approximately r267272
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82204
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r11-3699:
c++: block-scope externs get an alias [PR95677,PR31775,PR95677]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86369
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88736
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101770
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100372
--- Comment #5 from Marc C. Steinbach ---
Thanks for fixing!
I was unable to install any development snapshots,
so I waited for the 11.2.0 release to test my codes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101782
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101786
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
IMHO clang++ implements it incorrectly, if you compile the testcase I've added
in the patch with clang, then it will properly use _ZTH for the 4th variable
(as it has non-trivial dtor, that dtor needs to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101786
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101780
--- Comment #2 from KL ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
Thanks,
I thought that this warning is fine if it helps to assure the developer that
everything is still under control: that if the analyzer sees that a field is
left
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101782
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b1de3eb9ed3f8dde54732d88520292c5ad1157d
commit r12-2766-g7b1de3eb9ed3f8dde54732d88520292c5ad1157d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101790
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on invalid regression |[12 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97475
--- Comment #4 from Anders Granlund ---
Sounds good to me!
On Thu, 5 Aug 2021, 13:35 redi at gcc dot gnu.org,
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97475
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Maybe we should make this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72264a639729a5dcc21dbee304717ce22b338bfd
commit r12-2765-g72264a639729a5dcc21dbee304717ce22b338bfd
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat Jul 17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101787
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101790
Bug ID: 101790
Summary: ICE on invalid regression in trunk: tree check:
expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101787
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c04bb6d93f3bd009800cb99e56c779a69d832691
commit r12-2764-gc04bb6d93f3bd009800cb99e56c779a69d832691
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17
.size memcpy_char, .-memcpy_char
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.0 20210805 (experimental) [master revision
f7aa81892eb:82bfff3e5fa:c16f21c7cf97ce48967e42d3b5d22ea169a9c2c8]"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-skl-2 gcc]$
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 90773 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16
vmovdqa 32(%rdi), %ymm1
vmovdqa %ymm0, (%rsi)
vmovdqa %ymm1, 32(%rsi)
vzeroupper
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE5670:
.size _Z5copy2RK10smart_pairRS_, .-_Z5copy2RK10smart_pairRS_
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.0 20210805 (experimental) [master revis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100613
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org|iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101723
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c1cdabe3aab817d95a8db00a8b5e9f6bcdea936f
commit r12-2762-gc1cdabe3aab817d95a8db00a8b5e9f6bcdea936f
Author: Richard Earnshaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69302
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r253266
PR c++/56973, DR 696 - capture constant variables only as needed.
* expr.c (mark_use): Split out from mark_rvalue_use and
mark_lvalue_use. Handle lambda capture of constant variables.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101625
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101780
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to KL from comment #0)
> Can you confirm it is the intended behavior?
See the documentation for -Wmissing-field-initializers.
It doesn't warn about members being uninitialized, it warns about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97475
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe we should make this ill-formed for C++20, and a pedwarn otherwise, so
existing code continues to compile using previous standards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46589
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This code was made ill-formed by https://wg21.link/p1766r1 (new in C++20 but a
DR against previous standards).
So GCC should just reject it (maybe with a switch to allow the old behaviour).
See PR 97475.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97475
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Well that's about the linkage of such entities, this is about whether they are
ill-formed.
The rule that makes this ill-formed was added by https://wg21.link/p1766r1 but
was approved as a defect report
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
