https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84453
Bug ID: 84453
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in
build_type_attribute_qual_variant, at attribs.c:1166
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84454
Bug ID: 84454
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in invalid_nonstatic_memfn_p at
gcc/cp/typeck.c:1882
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84455
Bug ID: 84455
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in build_call_a at
gcc/cp/call.c:389 during error reporting
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84348
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Feb 19 08:49:30 2018
New Revision: 257802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-02-19 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/84348
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79064
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84431
Sebastian Peryt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.peryt at intel dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83392
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Ok so with -O the difference is in between x86_64 and i586:
i586:
Visiting statement:
p_3 = &b + 2147483649;
which is likely CONSTANT
Lattice value changed to CONSTANT &MEM[(void *)&b + 2147483649B]. Adding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84348
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE with |[7 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84453
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84428
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84453
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
On x86_64-linux-gnu:
$ cat /tmp/ice.ii
struct a {
void b(long() __attribute__((fastcall))) {}
};
$ g++ ice.ii -m32 -c --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0
ice.ii:2:8: internal compiler error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84453
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84430
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84457
Bug ID: 84457
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/guality/pr49888.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84458
Bug ID: 84458
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/guality/pr49888.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84459
Bug ID: 84459
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/guality/pr49888.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84455
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
>
> tfft of polyhedron is aslso still regressing. Martin, perhaps you can bisect
> that one as it seems most consistent?
>
Can't see any difference for both tfft and tfft2 benchmarks on my Haswell
machine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84458
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84457
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 84458 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84459
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84457
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 84459 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80589
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80589
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Feb 19 09:54:09 2018
New Revision: 257803
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257803&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix documentation typos (PR other/80589).
2018-02-19 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84455
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43453&action=edit
gcc8-pr84455.patch
Untested fix. This mirrors what cp_parser_lambda_body does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84457
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Guskov ---
Whoops. Sorry. Kept getting an HTTP 504 from post_bug.cgi.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67420
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84452
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84452
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43454
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43454&action=edit
gcc8-pr84452.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84460
Bug ID: 84460
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr57193.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82862
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Nesterovskiy ---
I'd say that it's not just fixed but improved with an impressive gain.
It is about +4% on HSW AVX2 and about +8% on SKX AVX512 after r257734 (compared
to r257732) for a 465.tonto SPEC rate.
Comparin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84461
Bug ID: 84461
Summary: [8 regression] openjdk-10 fails to build
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82491
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
--- Comment #12 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> From my completely ARM unaware POV, if NEON is available, it isn't a strict
> requirement that NEON must never be used for this, just a matter of
> preferences. So per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84460
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
-mtune=generic will solve this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84460
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:30 AM, andrey.y.guskov at intel dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84460
>
> Andrey Guskov changed:
>
>What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84433
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84436
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
--- Comment #13 from Matthijs van Duin ---
In case it's of interest, I did a quick benchmark of my testcase executed in a
loop on a cortex-a8:
Without neon:
12 instructions/iteration
14 cycles/iteration
With neon:
14 instructions/it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
--- Comment #14 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Matthijs van Duin from comment #13)
> In case it's of interest, I did a quick benchmark of my testcase executed in
> a loop on a cortex-a8:
>
> Without neon:
> 12 instructions/iteration
> 14 cy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84436
--- Comment #2 from Mário Feroldi ---
That code (which is just a simplified example) is generated by macros.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
--- Comment #15 from Matthijs van Duin ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #14)
> Yes on older cores it can be a bad idea to allow accidental use of Neon
> instructions. The simplest workaround is to switch off Neon, just use
> -mfpu=vfp.
Sure,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84449
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
--- Comment #16 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Matthijs van Duin from comment #15)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #14)
> > Yes on older cores it can be a bad idea to allow accidental use of Neon
> > instructions. The simplest workaround is to swi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84447
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79854
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84419
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 43456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43456&action=edit
Possible patch
I think the problem was that the optimisation was dropping
the alignment informat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83823
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
The problem seems to be the simplifcation which gets the
string length wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83823
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84436
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83877
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82183
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82491
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81272
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84436
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Note that this is good for identity, but we could also turn a map 0->3, 1->4,
5->8 into x->x+3, or generally any map (with an unreachable default case) into
a polynomial (or some other simple function), the cos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84462
Bug ID: 84462
Summary: internal compiler error: in
output_constructor_regular_field when creating array
of structs (with testcase)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63572
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80277
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84462
--- Comment #1 from Christian Wolf ---
Created attachment 43459
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43459&action=edit
Output of g++ during run with save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84436
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> Note that this is good for identity, but we could also turn a map 0->3,
> 1->4, 5->8 into x->x+3, or generally any map (with an unreachable default
> case) into a po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79747
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84367
Frederic Tingaud changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLIC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48890
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||83497
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84445
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48890
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|83497 |83823
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45996
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84408
--- Comment #4 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #3)
> I can't reproduce on gcc116.fsffrance.org. The assembler completes in less
> than a second for both -gno-inline-points and without.
>
> aldyh@gcc116:~/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84435
--- Comment #1 from Mário Feroldi ---
Note that the following `foo`'s variant doesn't make the warning go away:
int foo(E e)
{
(e == E::A || e == E::B || e == E::C) ? void() :
__builtin_unreachable();
switch (e)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84445
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45582
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84435
--- Comment #2 from Mário Feroldi ---
I'm really sorry for the mess up (previous comment wasn't meant to be posted on
this issue); could someone delete it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Chris Hall from comment #11)
> FWIW: __attribute__((aligned(32))) works nicely for functions.
You are right, that works fine! It should be equal to use
#pragma GCC optimize "align-functions=12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84434
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at acm dot org
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84463
Bug ID: 84463
Summary: Supposedly-incompliant "error: '* key0' is not a
constant expression"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Vollmer ---
I'm having even more trouble to get this to work using a current gcc-7
(Homebrew GCC 7.3.0) 7.3.0.
First, I see some warnings in step 1) of the form
ld: warning: direct access in function
'__GLOBAL__sub_I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60725
Mário Feroldi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mferoldif at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84433
--- Comment #5 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Very interesting ... the return can be added and the problem still exists.
However changing the size of the array sA to be >= 16 makes the problem go
away. Why is that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84441
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84433
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to acsawdey from comment #5)
> Very interesting ... the return can be added and the problem still exists.
> However changing the size of the array sA to be >= 16 makes the problem go
> away. Why is t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84457
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84456
Bug ID: 84456
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/guality/pr49888.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84441
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81715
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
As it's fixed on GCC-7 and currect trunk, can we Jakub close that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84433
--- Comment #7 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 43462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43462&action=edit
revised test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81715
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I haven't heard any answer to #c16 whether it actually helped the kernel or
not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84433
--- Comment #8 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It looks like both gcc 7 and 8 assume that the statement
ptrA->sA[ptrB->int1].zt = parm1;
will only be executed 14+1 times because of the declaration sA[15].
However gcc 7 assumes the whole
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
