https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
For the specific testcase I also wonder if the Fortran frontend optimization
pass can somehow unify these?
But yes, to be able to optimize these kind of library functions we need an
internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108881
Bug ID: 108881
Summary: "__builtin_ia32_cvtne2ps2bf16_v16hi" compiled only
with option -mavx512bf16 report ICE.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108882
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108882
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108882
Bug ID: 108882
Summary: [13 Regression] Wrong symver on 4 new libstdc++
symbols on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108871
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108681
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.wassenberg at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Can we split them out to a separate CU that we can build with -msse2?
>
> That is, does it work to simply add tinfo-x86-sse2.o by compiling
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #20 from Daniel Lundin ---
Further info about the "ARM32 port bug".
In case you write code like `(uint32_t)_pointer` and the port happens
to use 32 bit pointers, the non-conforming cast is let through.
In case you cast to an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
Bug ID: 108884
Summary: [temp.friends]/9: Should constraint friends declared
in class scope differ with definition out of scope?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
Bug ID: 108883
Summary: [13 Regression] ABI problems with
_Float16/std::bfloat16_t rtti symbols on i?86
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, it _might_ be possible to special case such functions in VN as well,
but to be not too intrusive it would happen at elimination time where we
also remove redundant stores so secondary effects of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103628
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |guihaoc at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108874
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107925
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed the patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/612506.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108681
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108874
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > The regression is probably rtl-optimization/target specific since we never
> > had this kind of pattern detected on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108874
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The regression is probably rtl-optimization/target specific since we never
> had this kind of pattern detected on the tree/GIMPLE level and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Daniel Lundin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.lundin.mail at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106258
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb5365907317551cf9e4661aa78dd4f773e7a18a
commit r13-6273-gfb5365907317551cf9e4661aa78dd4f773e7a18a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108835
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54506
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54506=edit
gcc13-pr108883.patch
Untested fix on the compiler side of emit_support_tinfos.
That said, these fundamental types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108631
Arthur Cohen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #3 from Younan Zhang ---
(In reply to Younan Zhang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> > #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-clause nor a
> > friend function template with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE is actually in cgraph code, so it might as well be just some latent
cgraph bug triggered by the C++ changes.
What I see is that first_analyzed is set to a cgraph node for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #2 from Younan Zhang ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-clause nor a
> friend function template with a constraint that depends on a template
> parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
Younan Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #8 from Younan Zhang ---
Sorry for duplicate comments. Network issue :(
And thanks Patrik's explaination.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
FWIW, -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow,shift seems to be enough to trigger
the runaway compilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108858
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Bug ID: 10
Summary: error: definition in block 26 follows the use
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108885
Bug ID: 108885
Summary: Missing sanitization checks for optimized integer
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Younan Zhang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> > #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-clause nor a
> > friend function template with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108886
Bug ID: 108886
Summary: Add basic_string throw logic_error when assigned a
nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
The C90/C99 difference is due to ubsan_instrument_shift:
193 /* For signed x << y, in C99 and later, the following:
194 (unsigned) x >> (uprecm1 - y)
195 if non-zero, is undefined. */
196
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108886
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why are you suggesting adding a check in two places when the first one just
calls the second one?
What would be the point of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDASSERT when there's already a
debug assertion there?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 102633, which changed state.
Bug 102633 Summary: [11 Regression] warning for self-initialization despite
-Wno-init-self
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I do however expect there may be cases in GCC 13 where constexpr
initializers of floating type are accepted that do not meet the definition
of arithmetic constant expressions, since GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108871
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 108893 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Isn't this the same as PR 108871 ?
Also, the access attribute does not imply the attribute nonnull; it may be
appropriate to add both attributes at the declaration of a function that
unconditionally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
--- Comment #28 from yan12125 <49tbwddbqeazdawz at chyen dot cc> ---
Thanks, so that commit changes ABI - objects built by patched GCC will not link
to unpatched libstdc++. I will stick to -Wno-restrict for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108879
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||97110
--- Comment #1 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108830
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
> There are also a huge number of spammy "'new_vals' is NULL" messages.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105958#c1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #0)
>
> void f(const char * const str) __attribute__((access(read_only, 1)));
> void f(const char * const str)
> {
> __builtin_puts(str);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> > Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two
> > stmts. I'm testing:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108890
Bug ID: 108890
Summary: Translation mistakes 2023
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108891
Bug ID: 108891
Summary: libatomic: AArch64 SEQ_CST 16-byte load missing
barrier
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31303c9b5bab200754cdb7ef8cd91ae4918f3018
commit r13-6289-g31303c9b5bab200754cdb7ef8cd91ae4918f3018
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
Bug ID: 108889
Summary: [12/13 Regression] (Re)Allocate in assignment shows
used uninitialized memory warning with -Wall if LHS is
unallocated
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
We generate HUGE trees for the div sanitization, but I notice that
c_genericize_control_r doesn't use pset, like cp_genericize_r does. So I think
the fix would be to add a hash_set to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
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=108880
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> It's not only "slow", it also produces a gigantic executable, the .original
> dump was 7.1GB when I stopped the compilation ...
Well, original dump for deeply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Another simple patch is
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
@@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ c_genericize_control_stmt (tree *stmt_p, int
*walk_subtrees, void *data,
tree t =
thms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.1 20230222 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Bug ID: 108894
Summary: -fsanitize=bounds missing bounds provided by
__builtin_dynamic_object_size()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #21 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, daniel.lundin.mail at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> First of all, it is questionable if gcc is still conforming after the change
> discussed here and implemented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It adds a new symbol to the library, which is not usually considered an ABI
change, because it's backwards compatible. Compiling with a new GCC and linking
to an old libstdc++ is never supported anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||106089
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #10)
> Another simple patch is
>
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
> @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ c_genericize_control_stmt (tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two stmts.
I'm testing:
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
@@ -516,7 +516,8 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two
> stmts. I'm testing:
>
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
> +++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:48:07AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
>
> --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
> For the specific testcase I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105958
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
A particularly bad example seems to be gcc.dg/analyzer/null-deref-pr108830.c:
https://godbolt.org/z/rabfxeaxz
which currently emits:
: In function 'apr_hash_merge':
:82:24: warning: dereference of NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
Bug ID: 108893
Summary: attribute access read_only
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
My apologies, I had understood attribute access read_only was different from
the attribute nonnull. So I filed a different report for this.
I didn't want to use __attribute__((nonnull)) because the optimizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Kees Cook changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54508|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #1 from Kees Cook ---
The corresponding Clang feature request is here:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60928
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] slow |[11/12 Regression] slow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108897
Bug ID: 108897
Summary: Comparing pointer to field in rvalue class is not
considered constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #1 from Kees Cook ---
The matching Clang bug is: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60926
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1370014f2ea02ec185cf1199027575916f79fe63
commit r13-6290-g1370014f2ea02ec185cf1199027575916f79fe63
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108897
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108895
Bug ID: 108895
Summary: [13.0.1 (exp)] Fortran + gfx90a !$acc update device
produces a segfault.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
Bug ID: 108896
Summary: provide "element_count" attribute to give more context
to __builtin_dynamic_object_size() and
-fsanitize=bounds
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83670
Michael N. Moran changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mike at mnmoran dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
-fstrict-flex-array= option doesn't affect the sanitization, if you want strict
sanitization of bounds, you should use -fsanitize=bounds-strict rather than
-fsanitize=bounds.
Furthermore, it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danakj at orodu dot net
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108897
--- Comment #2 from danakj at orodu dot net ---
Thank you for the workaround!
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
