https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98418
Bug ID: 98418
Summary: Valid integer constant expressions based on
expressions that trigger -Wshift-overflow are treated
as non-constants
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
--- Comment #5 from Michael Briggs ---
Created attachment 49835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49835=edit
C portion of test case
The second part of an additional test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
Michael Briggs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||briggs.michaels at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98419
Bug ID: 98419
Summary: wrong code when destructor of local variable modifies
returned object
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98318
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
FWIW my build server is CentOS Stream release 8 (x86_64), so it seems
something's different in your setup. The toplevel make knows that libcody must
be built before gcc. Perhaps the libcody build is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98419
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98324
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Nathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
--- Comment #7 from Michael Briggs ---
Comment on attachment 49834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49834
fortran portion of test case
First part of a two part test case, Fortran & C.
The bug appears as: malloc: *** error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98417
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Gerald got their first:
* 7e63d383b89 2020-12-22 | c++: Fix build with clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
--- Comment #6 from Michael Briggs ---
Comment on attachment 49834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49834
fortran portion of test case
An additional test case, in two parts: Fortran & C. The bug appears as:
malloc: ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98418
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Shifting into the sign bit is problematic. I cant remember the exact rules.
Using ull is valid though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98348
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 49832
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49832=edit
gcc11-pr98348_v3.patch
1. Use REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_SINGLE/DOUBLE in the
"float_vector_all_ones_operands" predicate, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98417
Bug ID: 98417
Summary: -internal compiler error when using -g
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98415
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97847
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
@Vladimir: Can you please take a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I have started to bisect this now. aa80d0650ce612d88a62d072b63c2523d547fca8 is
still good while HEAD is broken.
It will take a while until I have a result as I have to perform this bisecting
on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #3 from Marius Hillenbrand ---
Potential duplicate: I have seen very similar errors on s390x while reproducing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98228
There, bisecting lead back to d119f34c952f ("New modref/ipa_modref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98421
Bug ID: 98421
Summary: std::span does not detect invalid range in Debug Mode
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98420
Bug ID: 98420
Summary: Invalid simplification of x - x with -frounding-math
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97827
--- Comment #12 from Matthias Klose ---
Fyi, this is still seen with LLVM 11.0.1 rc2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98228
--- Comment #8 from Marius Hillenbrand ---
Potential duplicate observed for m68k:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
Very similar error messages during bootstrap with lto.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
--- Comment #19 from Uroš Bizjak ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:337ed0eb490b14899f4049bc4c8922eb1d8a2e67
commit r11-6303-g337ed0eb490b14899f4049bc4c8922eb1d8a2e67
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue Dec 22 18:13:24 2020 +0100
i386: Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93480
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ffd454b92ba6ff5499cf57f82a2b0f4cee59978c
commit r11-6305-gffd454b92ba6ff5499cf57f82a2b0f4cee59978c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93480
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85877
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97597
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
--- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0bf0e0b86d3e2f12555479096baaf0ca7a9f7ac6
commit r10-9164-g0bf0e0b86d3e2f12555479096baaf0ca7a9f7ac6
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue Dec 22 21:11:51 2020 +0100
i386: Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96045
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The -fdump-fortran-original of the last example in comment#21 contains
symtree: 'z' || symbol: 'z'
type spec : (DERIVED t)
attributes: (VARIABLE IMPLICIT-SAVE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98416
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
You need to use the target atrribute on CPU_ProbePower9 so GCC won't use power9
instructions on it.
Something like:
bool CPU_ProbePower9() __attribute__((target("cpu=power7")));
bool CPU_ProbePower9()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98332
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Started with r6-7607-g52228180f1e50cbb.
Rather, with r10-986-g9b9eb42a4168c342e5cd71b13d21e63ba7e1b7ab.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #25 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #24)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
> Looks like the patch from comment #2 that I posted 9 years ago. LoL.
> Bug must not hit real code too often as no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #27 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #26)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #23)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
> > > There's also valid code that ICEs, and invalid code that is silently
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97704
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96045
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Nathan, this PR points out that your change to EOF location means that we no
longer show the last line of source to give context for the error. Why not
give the EOF token a location of the end of the last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98419
--- Comment #2 from Lénárd Szolnoki ---
This is probably invalid, I wasn't aware of
http://eel.is/c++draft/class.temporary#3
> When an object of class type X is passed to or returned from a function, if X
> has at least one eligible copy or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
--- Comment #22 from Ev Drikos ---
Created attachment 49836
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49836=edit
module + driver
A slightly modified example gives me the impression
that some local objects that are class arrays share
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #24 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
>
> And after fixing an obvious NULL pointer dereference,
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
> index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #26 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #23)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
> > There's also valid code that ICEs, and invalid code that is silently
> > accepted.
> >
> > Invalid code:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98029
--- Comment #3 from Martin Uecker ---
It seems this does not happen anymore after fixing PR98047.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98413
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Kip Warner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kip at thevertigo dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98422
Bug ID: 98422
Summary: C++ 20 module ICE with lto
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98370
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98423
Bug ID: 98423
Summary: The defaulted default constructor defined as deleted
when one of variant member has a default member
initializer
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98424
Bug ID: 98424
Summary: The point of destroying temporary objects when
initializing an array
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98318
--- Comment #7 from Hao Liu ---
I found that:
1. "make -j1" can pass, but "make -j8" always fails. It seems something wrong
with parallel build
2. When "make -j8" failed, if I try "make -j8" again, it can pass.
> What happens if you cd into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98318
--- Comment #8 from Hao Liu ---
Hi Nathan,
The problem is related to use another make binary, which is 4.2.0 and built by
ourselves. Maybe there is a strange bug.
Anyway, after using the system installed make (which is 4.2.1 and under
55 matches
Mail list logo
