https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #17 from gagan sidhu (broly) ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> (In reply to gagan sidhu (broly) from comment #15)
>
> > and also: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9f943b2446f2d0
>
> Please don't use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to gagan sidhu (broly) from comment #15)
> and also: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9f943b2446f2d0
Please don't use this. I've already said why this is not correct in previous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
gagan sidhu (broly) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||broly at mac dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53513|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106643
--- Comment #1 from Henry Le Berre ---
Here is a more minimal version:
m_mod.f90:
```fortran
module m_mod
real(kind(0d0)),allocatable, dimension(:) :: arrs
!$acc declare create(arrs)
contains
subroutine s_mod_init()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106774
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106779
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106672
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Well, at the very least GCC could print a nicer error message (and possibly
suggest a fix-it hint for it, too)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106763
George Pee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104265
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106779
--- Comment #7 from Todd Richmond ---
i was playing w/ cmdline and had deleted an extra arg. the 12.2 path is before
the 12.1 path. However, our build scripts include the correct gcc header dir
to all configure lines to ensure we don't pull in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106750
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If you need a workaround, replace:
j(i) = do_with_array(ts(choose)) ! [#1] MEMORY LEAK
by
j(i) = do_with_array([ts(choose)]) ! [#1] no more MEMORY LEAK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106750
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-30
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106779
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Where does the:
-I/tools/arch/Linux_3.10.0-x86_64/gcc-12.1.0-bootstrap//include
come there? If it e.g. contains glibc fixincluded ansidecl.h, then that could
explain why it breaks.
But you don't want to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106779
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
include/ansidecl.h has:
#if defined (__STDC__) || defined(__cplusplus) || defined (_AIX) || (defined
(__mips) && defined (_SYSTYPE_SVR4)) || defined(_WIN32)
...
#define PTR void *
...
#else /*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106779
--- Comment #4 from Todd Richmond ---
one other comment. all the gcc prereqs are the latest available releases -
every 3rd party package is built by us from the most up-to-date versions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106779
--- Comment #3 from Todd Richmond ---
We have been using the same build setup for the last 20 years and this is the
1st gcc failure :) We build EVERYTHING in a self contained fashion and don't
rely on any OS libraries except libc.so.
I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106779
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106780
Bug ID: 106780
Summary: gcc maybe-uninitialized warning on std_function.h
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106775
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106779
--- Comment #1 from Todd Richmond ---
filename is likely wrong - I did this 2 days ago and lost the log output. 100%
consistent on 2 different build systems/OS though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106779
Bug ID: 106779
Summary: GCC 12.2 fails to compile in libiberty - uknown symbol
PTR - requires later patch
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
This debug INSN:
(debug_insn 29 28 30 2 (var_location:BLK D#2 (concatn:BLK [
(mem/j:SI (plus:DI (plus:DI (ashift:DI (zero_extend:DI (and:SI
(mem:SI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 7 sp)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106778
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31290
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Philipp from comment #4)
> I disagree about this bug for gcc.c-torture/execute/920711-1.c. I think
> there was no bug here, and the "fix" actually introduced a problem, and
> should be reverted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106763
--- Comment #6 from George Pee ---
That explanation makes a lot of sense. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106763
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
My guess (and it's only a guess because I'm not a kernel expert) is that the OS
has disabled the FP/SIMD unit because of something like a context switch and
then is failing, somehow, to recognize that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106763
--- Comment #4 from George Pee ---
Yes, it's possible that this isn't a compiler bug. I thought that it might be
because the problem started showing up after upgrading the toolchain.
I wasn't sure if the compiler was failing to emit some kind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106759
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106759
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29dfe1cacadd2a47b4e5b1cab11bd7263fe211c9
commit r12-8729-g29dfe1cacadd2a47b4e5b1cab11bd7263fe211c9
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106763
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Programs don't generally take SIGILL intermittently - if that really is the
case, then it's unlikely to be a bug in the compiler.
You haven't told us what OS you are running on, or anything else about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73550
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce776225249d99b089d02424b9472811a6bbd7f5
commit r13-2279-gce776225249d99b089d02424b9472811a6bbd7f5
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90994
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106778
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106775
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The difference between -fstrong-eval-order=all and -fstrong-eval-order=some:
<).b = 1) >;
+ (void) ((TARGET_EXPR ).b[0] = 1) >;
return = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106778
Bug ID: 106778
Summary: libcpp/makeuname2c.cc:454: sanity check in wrong place
?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106759
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe915f35b7d8dc768a2b977c09aa02f933e1d1e9
commit r13-2277-gfe915f35b7d8dc768a2b977c09aa02f933e1d1e9
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106775
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.4.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73550
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
If you fix that then the issue is that predicate::init_from_control_deps, when
failing to process any edge will fatally fail. In this case we have a case
label with a range which isn't handled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73550
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The diagnostic is gone in GCC 12+ and re-appears with adding -fno-thread-jumps
because:
MAX_NUM_CHAINS exceeded: 8
and the logic is extra stupid in building 8 chains but no more but then
when building
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106777
Bug ID: 106777
Summary: Permit TFmode (real(16)/float128) in gfortran if GLIBC
supports it and --disable-libquadmath(-support)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67196
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61051ee5cfd59ee292984641d02caac85f6dfac3
commit r13-2273-g61051ee5cfd59ee292984641d02caac85f6dfac3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106707
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The following pattern is matched by a peephole2 pattern:
(insn 164 161 165 5 (set (reg:DI 0 ax [orig:91 _10 ] [91])
(reg:DI 0 ax)) "pr106707.c":13:12 82 {*movdi_internal}
(expr_list:REG_UNUSED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67196
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106776
Bug ID: 106776
Summary: Unexpected use-after-free warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106721
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106579
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67194
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
For the second testcase the issue is the aliasing store *operand_loc = 0;
which can invalidate the predicate value. Fixed with -fstrict-aliasing (or
-O2).
Nothing uninit analysis can do here.
The first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66459
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-02-03 00:00:00 |2022-8-30
Summary|bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106771
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #16 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63660
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bfaa6807defb18874e4c4b6b8608fe0afee7d7b8
commit r13-2262-gbfaa6807defb18874e4c4b6b8608fe0afee7d7b8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 63660, which changed state.
Bug 63660 Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false positive on many repeated
bitwise tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63660
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 63518, which changed state.
Bug 63518 Summary: missing Wuninitialized warning independent of order of
arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63518
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 56654, which changed state.
Bug 56654 Summary: uninit warning behaves erratically (always executed block,
"is" vs "may", order when walking uses)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56654
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56654
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56654
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a63343a744a8584a9dfcbc3817f66755baafe8a
commit r13-2261-g8a63343a744a8584a9dfcbc3817f66755baafe8a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106524
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106524
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e927d1cf141f221c5a32574bde0913307e140984
commit r12-8728-ge927d1cf141f221c5a32574bde0913307e140984
Author: Tamar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106775
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
Summary|[11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106774
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
that's more coding style though?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106771
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Note that the GCC 9 branch is no longer maintained so the issue is fixed in all
maintained versions? If so please close as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31290
Philipp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkk at spth dot de
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106744
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106744
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:37ebaabde2b88d446369240ae8f03b8e6a284a7b
commit r13-2259-g37ebaabde2b88d446369240ae8f03b8e6a284a7b
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106771
--- Comment #5 from federico ---
My bad, the SEGFAULT is my mistake, I've made a half-baked example that does
not work. Here's the fixed one:
module test
implicit none
type::t
integer, allocatable :: iloc(:)
contains
71 matches
Mail list logo
