https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83963
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83964
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83958
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83892
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018, simon at pushface dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83892
>
> simon at pushface dot org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83949
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 43201
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43201&action=edit
unincluded unreduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83949
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83950
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83877
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83952
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83878
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83952
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
But at least we could perform strength reduction in IVOPTs, replacing
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
val = 2 * i;
a[i] = val;
}
with
for (i = 0, j = 0; i < 100; i++, j+=2) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83958
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82005
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon at pushface dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83962
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83966
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83963
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83963
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, I knew this assert would fire...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83961
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, this is different issue introduced by Richard's change to reorder can
inline and want inline.
2018-01-14 Richard Sandiford
* ipa-inline.c (want_inline_small_function_p): Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83965
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's rather a combinatorial explosion than an unbounded recursion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71892
dnahrblock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howunijemu at crypemail dot
info
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27931
dnahrblock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howunijemu at crypemail dot
info
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34300
dnahrblock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howunijemu at crypemail dot
info
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49915
dnahrblock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howunijemu at crypemail dot
info
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65018
dnahrblock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howunijemu at crypemail dot
info
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #2 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Thinking more about it, the rule that the discriminant entry must be a child of
the variant part entry sounds suspicious to me.
In the case of two variant parts, which are nested and depend on the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967
Bug ID: 83967
Summary: LTO removes C functions declared as weak in
assembler(depending on files order in linking)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80481
Andrew Senkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61458
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's not an ABI break. Changing it now would be an ABI break.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83969
Bug ID: 83969
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2997
(error: could not split insn) for powerpc targets
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83958
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83969
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto, wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83961
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> AFAIK AArch64 has multiple configurable sizes of the virtual address space
> and older GCCs like 6 was only supporting one of those sizes, not all of
> them.
> S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83970
Bug ID: 83970
Summary: -mindirect-branch=thunk -fno-plt generates
CET-incompatible thunk
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83895
--- Comment #2 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Mon Jan 22 12:44:33 2018
New Revision: 256942
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256942&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83895
cp/
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Don't diagnose ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83895
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83892
--- Comment #6 from simon at pushface dot org ---
I tried check-gnat, which also shows additional lto-related failures.
Running with lto shows 5 additional FAILs (and 3 fewer PASSes???)
LTO:
Running target unix/-flto/-g0
...
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83963
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 22 13:10:57 2018
New Revision: 256943
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256943&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/83963
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83704
--- Comment #18 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Jan 22 13:31:08 2018
New Revision: 256944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256944&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 78534, 83704 Large character lengths
This patch fixes various parts of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83898
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534
--- Comment #25 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Jan 22 13:31:08 2018
New Revision: 256944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256944&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 78534, 83704 Large character lengths
This patch fixes various parts of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83704
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #45 from Jan Hubicka ---
I believe all issues tracked here has been adressed. Andrew, do you still see
some anomalies?
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
--- Comment #2 from Dan Bonachea ---
Thanks Mr. Liška!
If possible it would be useful for our project to know whether this defect is
solely a spurious warning, or whether it could affect analysis in a way that
might result in incorrect code gene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83963
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
> Assuming it's the latter, can anyone suggest any non-intrusive workarounds?
> (aside from the obvious "big hammers" of -fno-lto or -fno-strict-aliasing)
Yes, the warning should not produce bogus warnings. P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463
--- Comment #13 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
(In reply to Andrey Belevantsev from comment #12)
> (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #11)
> > How about this one? It makes only trunk gcc ICE, though.
> >
> > short int t2;
> > int cd, aa, ft;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
--- Comment #5 from Dan Bonachea ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > Assuming it's the latter, can anyone suggest any non-intrusive workarounds?
> > (aside from the obvious "big hammers" of -fno-lto or -fno-strict-aliasing)
>
> Ye
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Dan Bonachea from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > > Assuming it's the latter, can anyone suggest any non-intrusive
> > > workarounds?
> > > (aside from the obvious "b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83971
Bug ID: 83971
Summary: gcc -static link command hardcoded when
--with-system-libunwind used
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81440
--- Comment #4 from Dan Halbert ---
There's movement on bug 83954, which seems related but is a different
manifestation. Will a fix there fix this also? (I see your "I've got a patch"
comment, but that was a while ago).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |driver
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also I was going to say the c function maybe should be marked as used as lto
likes to remove unused functions in general.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81440
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Dan Halbert from comment #4)
> There's movement on bug 83954, which seems related but is a different
> manifestation. Will a fix there fix this also? (I see your "I've got a
> patch" comment, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
The multiple definitions of gcov_master should not be a problem. The (ELF)
semantics of shared libraries are such that the definition in the main program
preempts the defiitions in the libraries. The libra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83973
Bug ID: 83973
Summary: ICE in code_motion_process_successors, at
sel-sched.c:6398
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83972
Bug ID: 83972
Summary: ICE in code_motion_process_successors, at
sel-sched.c:6398
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463
--- Comment #14 from Arseny Solokha ---
Thank you for the analysis. I can fill a separate PR for this testcase if
that's more appropriate.
Meanwhile, I got two more testcases which I've just reported as PR83972 and
PR83973 not to clutter this PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jan 22 16:05:20 2018
New Revision: 256951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81933
* typeck2.c (split_nonconstant_init_1): Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] Invalid|[7 Regression] Invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83971
--- Comment #2 from Jason Duerstock ---
At least tangentially related, what's the reason only ia64 needs libunwind?
What happens if gcc is built with --disable-libunwind-exceptions? I haven't
been able to find a clear explanation regarding this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83966
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Aha, this is the behaviour of the static linker. It is not placing
'__gcov_master' into main's dynamic symbol table. So dlloading the shared
objects do not see it, and have their own instance. To confuse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80547
--- Comment #5 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wasn't able to reproduce the nvptx ICE in og7. However, the host fallback
does segfault at runtime in og7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83972
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 83973 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83973
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83720
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Pierre-Marie de Rodat from comment #2)
> Thinking more about it, the rule that the discriminant entry must be a child
> of the variant part entry sounds suspicious to me.
TBH this did not make sens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #16 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 43208
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43208&action=edit
split-stack related bug test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #17 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems to be some interaction between split-stack and inlining. The ICE does not
occur when compiling with -O2 -fdisable-ipa-inline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83974
Bug ID: 83974
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in cxx_eval_constant_expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #2 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83974
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83975
Bug ID: 83975
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in set_parm_default_def_partition,
at tree-ssa-coalesce.c:1919
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83975
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Configured with --enable-checking=yes :
$ gfortran-8-20180121-chk -c z1.f90
z1.f90:1:0:
subroutine s(x)
internal compiler error: tree check: expected parm_decl, have var_decl in
assign_parm_find_data_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83976
Bug ID: 83976
Summary: ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:211
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83976
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
This variant works as expected :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
integer :: a
end type
class(t), allocatable :: x
type(t) :: z = t(3)
x = z
z = x
print *, z
end
$ gfortran-8-20180
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83977
Bug ID: 83977
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in simd_clone_clauses_extract, at
omp-simd-clone.c:184
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #46 from Andrew Roberts ---
With the latest snapshot:
gcc version 8.0.1 20180121
For the mt19937ar things now look reasonable without any strange options on
Ryzen.
Top 5
mt19937ar took 226849 clocks -march=amdfam10 -mtune=btver2
mt1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #4 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #3)
> TBH this did not make sense to me, either, which is partly why I originally
> wrote my patch the "more natural" way -- then this got caught in review,
> see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #47 from Andrew Roberts ---
Again with the latest snapshot:
gcc version 8.0.1 20180121
matrix.c is still needing additional options to get the best out of the Ryzen
processor. But is better than before (223029 clocks vs 371978 origin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #48 from Andrew Roberts ---
Correction, that should be 23 not 23000 for the haswell drop in
performance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83978
Bug ID: 83978
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in determine_visibility
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
