https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87339
Bug ID: 87339
Summary: gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
> To me, two things are unclear in the quote: whether the option is intended
> to be used with other languages at all, and why specifically it "is not
> generally sufficient to protect against stack-clash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29931
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 29931, which changed state.
Bug 29931 Summary: following argv[0] symlink in process_command breaks
symlinked-together toolchain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29931
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87340
Bug ID: 87340
Summary: Stack overflow problem for c++filt
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87336
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86881
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87339
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86881
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I'm not sure that changing the meaning of fundamental language constructs like
declarations and writes to them in such a profound way would be viewed as a
good idea. One way to find out is to email the gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87341
Bug ID: 87341
Summary: gfortran can not link executables: _edata: invalid
version 21 (max 4)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87341
--- Comment #1 from mi+gcc at aldan dot algebra.com ---
Invoking gfortran with -v I get the following details:
Driving: gfortran -v -o xscblat1 c_sblat1.o c_sblas1.o ../lib/cblas_LINUX.a -l
gfortran -l m -shared-libgcc
Using built-in specs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87334
--- Comment #2 from Michael Cronenworth ---
Done: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629910
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #11 from Rich Felker ---
This problem starded because I read "not generally sufficient" in the sense
that it's helpful but not a complete fix for the kinds of issues that
-fstack-clash-protection mitigates. Based on my findings and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I don't see that as implicit, and it's certainly not true for
> -fstack-clash-protection.
We're going in circles... -fstack-clash-protection is not stack checking a la
Ada, it's stack protection against
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87334
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87335
Bug ID: 87335
Summary: The stack overflow in function cplus_demangle_type in
cp-demangle.c:2565 (c++filt -t)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87336
Bug ID: 87336
Summary: [8/9 regression] wrong output for pointer dummy
assiocated to target actual argument
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Okay, so can you please document that -fstack-check probes one extra page
> ahead by design, skipping one page adjacent to current stack pointer on the
> assumption that callers are also compiled with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87341
--- Comment #2 from mi+gcc at aldan dot algebra.com ---
BTW, I'd dearly love if not a fix, then a work-around ASAP. Is there some kind
of command-line option I can add to gfortran's command-line? Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87341
--- Comment #4 from mi+gcc at aldan dot algebra.com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This is a binutils bug, in gold.
> --enable-gold
>
> Please report this to binutils instead.
Is there a work-around, perhaps? Some additional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338
Bug ID: 87338
Summary: gcc 8.2 fails to bootstrap on ia64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338
--- Comment #1 from Jason Duerstock ---
Here is the full build log:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-8=ia64=8.2.0-6=1536516302=0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87337
Bug ID: 87337
Summary: Internal compiler error on coarrays
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> We're going in circles... -fstack-clash-protection is not stack checking a
> la Ada, it's stack protection against clash attacks and it indeed has
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #14 from Andreas Schwab ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #9)
> FWIW, glibc supports building with -fstack-check and seems to be attempting
> to use it for this purpose too. See for example
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87342
Bug ID: 87342
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error:
definition in block 10 does not dominate use in block
8)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87288
--- Comment #4 from bin cheng ---
In dump for IVOPTs, there is niter analyzed like:
Applying pattern match.pd:1651, generic-match.c:16009
Analyzing # of iterations of loop 1
exit condition [1, + , 1](no_overflow) < bnd.8_41
bounds on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86172
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> > Sadly I have no better suggestion than -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized
>
> Move -Wmaybe-uninitialized from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55588
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2)
> Also present in 4.9 trunk, and I recently got a user complaint about this
> bug. How can I upvote? :)
If Bug 86315 is fixed, adding yourself on cc will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87330
--- Comment #2 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
Thanks, I'll take a look. Kyrill can you please assign the bug to me? I don't
seem to have to chops to edit the bz.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87325
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
Seems alloc_iv doesn't infer base object correctly:
/* Lower address expression in base except ones with DECL_P as operand.
By doing this:
1) More accurate cost can be computed for address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87328
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87330
Bug ID: 87330
Summary: ICE in scan_rtx_reg, at regrename.c:1097
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87140
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87328
Bug ID: 87328
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in do_rpo_vn, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:6566
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86659
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87329
Bug ID: 87329
Summary: ICE in patch_jump_insn, at cfgrtl.c:1271
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86659
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85954
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Sep 17 07:18:17 2018
New Revision: 264358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264358=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-17 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/85954
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Sorry you're right, I forgot we're talking about the converting case here. The
move doesn't prevent elision (because elision isn't possible here).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87327
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87331
Bug ID: 87331
Summary: if delete "node->operator_type = kADD;" will report
"internal compiler error: Segmentation fault"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87331
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87301
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 17 10:21:21 2018
New Revision: 264364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264364=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87301
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87309
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87311
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, I think we have quite some opportunistic replacement of traps by "correct"
results (according to twos complement). -ftrapv is not getting much love and
generally we recommend to use sanitizers these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86315
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Is there please any update?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87311
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Yes, I think we have quite some opportunistic replacement of traps by
> "correct" results (according to twos complement).
Yes, that's "correct" according to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Fixed on trunk. It only took 4 years :-(
What are you up to these days, FX?
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Sep 17 11:22:27 2018
New Revision: 264365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264365=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-17 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/64120
* trans-decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86001
Raphael Kubo da Costa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raphael.kubo.da.costa@intel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87322
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86470
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The !$ use omp_lib
line isn't really needed.
Started to ICE with r211397.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87301
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87304
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87313
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87330
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gotplt dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87239
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87311
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Sep 17 10:19:02 2018
New Revision: 264363
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264363=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix out-of-bounds in gcov.c (PR gcov-profile/85871).
2018-09-17 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Known to fail|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87328
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at pgmasters dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87316
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87320
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87319
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87328
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87328
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 17 13:28:04 2018
New Revision: 264369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264369=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87328
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 44705
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44705=edit
patch
This "simple" one helps. It builds partition bases similar to the
-ftree-coalesce-vars case. Correctness
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87332
Bug ID: 87332
Summary: Issues related to Identical Code Folding (ICF)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87333
Bug ID: 87333
Summary: A stack overflow problem for c++filt
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87316
--- Comment #8 from David ---
Thanks, using -ftree-coalesce-vars cuts the time down by about 5x and allows
the unit tests to compile in available memory.
We may be able to cut down on the number of setjmps in the unit test macros,
but they are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83601
Dominik Haumann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dhaumann at kde dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> We cannot reasonably document that a feature does exactly the opposite of
> what it is intended to do, can we? You need to compile the entire software
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87334
Bug ID: 87334
Summary: RFE: Add '__builtin_ms_va_list' support to ARM64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87313
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71157
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
Yes, the warning should use the %G directive. It might be worth reviewing all
the middle-end warnings for this improvement. Unless we get rid of %G/%K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #9 from Rich Felker ---
FWIW, glibc supports building with -fstack-check and seems to be attempting to
use it for this purpose too. See for example
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21253
85 matches
Mail list logo