[Bug libgcj/55716] [4.8 Regression] gjavah throws an exception

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55716 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-18 10:00:29 UTC --- Author: aph Date: Tue Dec 18 10:00:18 2012 New Revision: 194574 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194574 Log: PR gcc/55716 [4.8

[Bug libgcj/55716] [4.8 Regression] gjavah throws an exception

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55716 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug java/55764] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE when building frysk

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug java/55764] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE when building frysk

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX

[Bug middle-end/54303] -fdata-sections -ffunction-sections and -fmerge-constants do not work well together

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54303 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug java/60667] Undefined behavior in Java FE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60667 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org --- Still no luck with ubsan, which seems to be broken: /usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include-O2 -g -O2 -DIN_GCC-W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict

[Bug java/60667] Undefined behavior in Java FE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60667 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org --- OK, pls ping me whan the tree is stable and I'll fix the Java FE.

[Bug c++/60965] New: IPA: Devirtualization versus placement new

++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: aph at gcc dot gnu.org Created attachment 32683 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32683action=edit Reproducer here: Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a virtual method is reachable

[Bug ipa/60963] [4.10 Regression] wrong devirt with placement new

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60963 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug ipa/60965] IPA: Devirtualization versus placement new

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot

[Bug ipa/60965] [4.10 Regression] IPA: Devirtualization versus placement new

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org --- Jan, can we please have an ETA to fix this? It is a very importantant problem for Java because it breaks OpenJDK.

[Bug ipa/60965] [4.10 Regression] IPA: Devirtualization versus placement new

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #7) (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6) It is a bit questionable on how precisely define what type transitions are allowed

[Bug ipa/60965] [4.10 Regression] IPA: Devirtualization versus placement new

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9) (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #8) While it's true that we can play hardball on this one by insisting that only char arrays

[Bug bootstrap/50888] Bootstrap failure in libjava against latest git glibc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-21 18:02:29 UTC --- I suppose I don't really object to a workaround in libjava, but surely the sensible thing to do is fix isspace() not to throw. It can't, anyway: that would

[Bug bootstrap/50888] Bootstrap failure in libjava against latest git glibc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-22 17:55:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) isspace is actually marked as not throwing, i.e. throw() in C++. In glibc 2.15+ it happens to be implemented as throw() inline

[Bug target/37651] __sync_bool_compare_and_swap creates wrong code with -fPIC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37651 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/21855] array bounds checking elimination

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|WAITING

[Bug java/21855] array bounds checking elimination

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855 --- Comment #16 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 16:26:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) (In reply to comment #14) (In reply to comment #13) We can't optimize this because System.out.println can change args

[Bug java/21855] array bounds checking elimination

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855 --- Comment #19 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 16:44:16 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) (In reply to comment #16) (In reply to comment #15) (In reply to comment #14) (In reply to comment #13) We can't

[Bug java/21855] array bounds checking elimination

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855 --- Comment #22 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 17:08:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) The Java frontend could handle this by performing loads of the length field via a SAVE_EXPR and sharing this across a function

[Bug c/50773] float values are printed with greater precision than the float data type has when given as an argument to printf()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50773 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aph at gcc dot

[Bug c/46926] Paired sin() cos() calls optimized to sincos() call.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46926 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug java/45773] gcj fails to compile java

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45773 --- Comment #20 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-28 09:54:30 UTC --- Author: aph Date: Tue Sep 28 09:54:27 2010 New Revision: 164679 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164679 Log: 2010-09-27 Andrew Haley

[Bug java/45773] gcj fails to compile java

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45773 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug java/40816] error: 'jvariant::jvariant(jbyte)' cannot be overloaded

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug driver/46563] link with -lgcc when creating a shared lib

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46563 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-19 16:09:00 UTC --- If you try linking with -lgcc_s -lgcc, does everything then work?

[Bug driver/46563] link with -lgcc when creating a shared lib

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46563 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-19 17:30:35 UTC --- I am cross-compiling too. Try this: $ cat /home/aph/x-arm/install/arm-linux-gnueabi/lib/libgcc_s.so /* GNU ld script Use the shared library, but some

[Bug driver/46563] link with -lgcc when creating a shared lib

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46563 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug driver/46563] link with -lgcc when creating a shared lib

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46563 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-22 10:12:04 UTC --- Sure, but not everyone uses the driver, some use ld directly. I might as well ask: why not? libc is linked this way on GNU/Linux systems too. It's easy

[Bug c/52936] New: Assertion failure in c-typeck.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52936 Bug #: 52936 Summary: Assertion failure in c-typeck.c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/52936] Assertion failure in c-typeck.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52936 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-11 16:06:08 UTC --- Created attachment 27134 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27134 Test case

[Bug java/64044] Java emits bogus .class$ decls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4) On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, aph at redhat dot com wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044 Andrew Haley aph at redhat

[Bug target/65697] __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #16 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to mwahab from comment #14) (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #13) But LDAXR/STLXR doesn't do that, and there's no write barrier at all when the compare fails

[Bug target/65697] __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #18 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to mwahab from comment #17) int cas(int* barf, int* expected, int* desired) { return __atomic_compare_exchange_n(barf, expected, desired, 0

[Bug target/65697] __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #20 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to mwahab from comment #19) (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #18) It looks inconsistent with C11 S7.17.7.4-2 (C++11 S29.6.4-21) Further, if the comparison is true

[Bug target/65697] __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aph at gcc dot

[Bug java/21855] array bounds checking elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855 Andrew Haley changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug java/15525] suggestion to enable cast elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15525 Andrew Haley changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/79943] Loop splitting breaks with loops of pointer type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79943 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Haley --- Author: aph Date: Wed Mar 8 11:35:23 2017 New Revision: 245974 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245974=gcc=rev Log: 2017-03-08 Andrew Haley PR tree-optimization/79943

[Bug tree-optimization/79943] Loop splitting breaks with loops of pointer type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79943 Andrew Haley changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/79943] New: Loop splitting breaks with loops of pointer type

Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: aph at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 40914 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40914=edit GCC test case, If a loop index has POINTER_TYPE, splitting genera

[Bug c/65892] gcc fails to implement N685 aliasing of union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892 --- Comment #60 from Andrew Haley --- (In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #51) > (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #49) > > (In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #46) > > > > The principle of type-based alias analysis is that

[Bug c/65892] gcc fails to implement N685 aliasing of union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892 --- Comment #62 from Andrew Haley --- Just a bit of clarification: (In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #59) > > > 1) all type-based alias analysis is effectively impossible > > Alias analysis is only affected by the special guarantee

[Bug c/65892] gcc fails to implement N685 aliasing of union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892 --- Comment #57 from Andrew Haley --- (In reply to Davin McCall from comment #52) > (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #45) > > (In reply to Davin McCall from comment #44) > > > The "one special guarantee" clause appears in the section

[Bug c/65892] gcc fails to implement N685 aliasing of union members

PM GMT+02:00, "aph at gcc dot gnu.org" > <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892 >> >> --- Comment #40 from Andrew Haley --- >> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #29) >> >>> Note I

[Bug c/65892] gcc fails to implement N685 aliasing of union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892 --- Comment #47 from Andrew Haley --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #43) > (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #42) > > > > So, if any union types with a common initial sequence are declared > > anywhere in a program, then their

[Bug c/65892] gcc fails to implement N685 aliasing of union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892 --- Comment #49 from Andrew Haley --- (In reply to James Kuyper Jr. from comment #46) > (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #42) > ... > > In order to use type-based alias analysis in any LTO framework it's > > necessary to save type

[Bug c/65892] gcc fails to implement N685 aliasing of union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892 --- Comment #45 from Andrew Haley --- (In reply to Davin McCall from comment #44) > > Well, perhaps not, but this is the language specification. > > The "one special guarantee" clause appears in the section describing union > member access via

[Bug c/65892] gcc fails to implement N685 aliasing of union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892 --- Comment #50 from Andrew Haley --- (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #49) > > Perhaps so, yes, but in practice it'd be pretty hard to do that. > Functions can only be defined in the other scope, Should be "the outer scope" > and

[Bug c/65892] gcc fails to implement N685 aliasing of union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892 --- Comment #40 from Andrew Haley --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #29) > Note I repeatedly said this part of the standard is just stupid. It makes > most if not all type-based alias analysis useless. I don't think so. It does

[Bug boehm-gc/66848] boehm-gc fails test suite on x86_64-apple-darwin15

||aph at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #35 from Andrew Haley --- Boehm GC is gone from GCC sources.

[Bug tree-optimization/104475] [12/13/14 Regression] Wstringop-overflow + atomics incorrect warning on dynamic object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104475 Andrew Haley changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aph at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #27

[Bug target/55522] -funsafe-math-optimizations is unexpectedly harmful, especially w/ -shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522 --- Comment #23 from Andrew Haley --- This bug has pernicious effects in many more places: https://moyix.blogspot.com/2022/09/someones-been-messing-with-my-subnormals.html Florian is right: at least, GCC should not automatically link