https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94832
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48405&action=edit
gcc10-pr94832.patch
Untested fix for the -O0 gather/scatter macros.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94832
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Kenneth Heafield from comment #3)
> Being a macro some of the time also causes trouble with template commas and
> the C preprocessor.
>
> #include
> template int *TemplatedFunction();
> void
|pr94780.c fails with ICE on |fails with ICE on aarch64
|aarch64 |
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk (so far).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94826
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 regression] ICE in |[8/9 regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94849
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it is undefined behavior and just doesn't crash because the pathname is
passed to a syscall which will fail then.
So IMHO nothing we should support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94849
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So it might be well defined on Windows, but unless glibc documents it as an
extension, it is not valid on Linux.
C clearly says: "The fopen function opens the file whose name is the string
pointed to by filen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94832
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 10+ so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94852
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94775
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94860
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed:
_Atomic float x = 5;
void
bar (float y[(int) (x += 2)])
{
}
is accepted while
_Atomic float x = 5;
void
foo (void)
{
void bar (float y[(int) (x += 2)]) {}
}
ICEs. The problem is that create_artif
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48415
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48415&action=edit
gcc10-pr94842.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94874
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is something that is handled by
lang_hooks.decls.omp_predetermined_sharing
some FEs need to treat all DECL_ARTIFICIAL decls that way, others perhaps a
subset of them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94885
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this goes wrong during combine, auto-inc-dec makes
(insn 29 6 7 2 (set (reg/f:DI 106)
(reg/f:DI 97)) "pr94873.c":11:48 -1
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:DI 97)
(nil)))
(insn 7 29 8 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
|i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or just if one uses "frame" instead of "19" or "20", it ICEs with all the
revisions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or there are possible target ways, e.g. asm ("frame") would be rejected if that
register isn't in accessible_reg_set or operand_reg_set. Now, I haven't
investigated if it doesn't have to be in both sets for
gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94903
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
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=94914
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48439
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48439&action=edit
gcc11-pr94914.patch
Untested fix.
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-04
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94942
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48441
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48441&action=edit
gcc11-pr94942.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> I thought we might already simplify (u >> 32) != 0 to u >= cst (other
> possible forms are u != (uint64_t)(uint32_t)u, u & cst != 0, etc, I am
> trying to think whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94907
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94800
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-04
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94800
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=94873
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, so what we do about this bug then if it ought to be combine.c that needs
changing? For REG_EQUAL notes in combine_instructions check for the
auto-incdec side-effects in the pattern (I'd hope we don't ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94800
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed, but keeping open for #c4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94942
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE: in |[10 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48451&action=edit
gcc11-pr94873.patch
Untested patch then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 regression] ICE in |[8/9/10/11 regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|dereferencing type-punned |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
|pointer will break |dereferencing type-punned
|strict-aliasing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly simplified testcase:
struct A { unsigned a[32]; };
template
struct B : public A
{
static B foo () { B t; t.a[0] = 4; return t; }
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And the array isn't needed either:
struct A { int a; };
template
struct B : public A
{
static B foo () { B t; t.a = 4; return t; }
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] gnutls |[10 Regression] gnutls test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48453&action=edit
gcc11-pr94921.patch
Untested fix.
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48456&action=edit
gcc11-pr94951.patch
Untested fix. It seems just wrong to call the c-family strict_aliasing_warning
for de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another option would be to fold FFS (x) for x known non-zero into CTZ (x) + 1
in match.pd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some of it changed recently, e.g. when the FEs use ARRAY_RANGE_REFs in the
initializer the gimplifier's gimplify_init_ctor_eval emits a loop.
But in this case I think we need the FE to emit the loop itself.
M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|RESOLVED
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
IMNSHO a clear dup of PR94730. It really doesn't make sense to file further
similar bugs until that one is fixed. Any time you incorrectly redecl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94730
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 94966 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48464
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48464&action=edit
gcc11-pr94968.patch
Untested fix.
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48466
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48466&action=edit
gcc11-pr94961.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 regression] ICE |[8/9/10 regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94913
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48467&action=edit
gcc11-pr94913.patch
Untested fix for that part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94934
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94877
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Related PR is PR89059 though, while we can have a useful range info already in
the early opts from evrp, in many cases we can get much better info after
inlining. So, if we during the first switchconv pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94783
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=93069
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94946
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Isn't 9 branch affected too? The r10-7998 change has been backported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94946
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #5)
> I tested it with an rv64gc-linux cross compiler. The patch fixes these
Thanks.
> I think it should be backported to the gcc-10 release branch.
Sure, but at this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94706
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94688
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91954
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94672
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90822
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93821
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94853
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87165
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92394
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91804
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90823
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94397
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71367
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94907
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90698
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94829
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88937
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91737
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek
901 - 1000 of 40461 matches
Mail list logo
