Re: extern const initialized warns in C

By this argument there is a missing warning for the equivalent:   const int foo = 123; with no previous extern declaration. As well, there is no warning in C++. All three constructs are equivalent, yet only one gets a warning. Interesting point, that I had not realized, and with an often

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

On 21/01/18 08:12, Jay K wrote: > extern const int foo = 123; > > > > Why does this warn? > This is a valid portable form, with the same meaning > across all compilers, and, importantly, portably > to C and C++. > > I explicitly do not want to say: > > const int foo = 123 > > because I

Second GCC 7.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

A second release candidate for GCC 7.3 is available from ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7.3.0-RC-20180122/ and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 256937. I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Please test

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

On 22/01/2018 10:31, Jay K wrote: By this argument there is a missing warning for the equivalent:   const int foo = 123; with no previous extern declaration. I would like to see such a warning. There is "-Wmissing-declarations", but that applies only to functions and not to objects.

Retpolines and CFI

I tried this: struct C { virtual ~C(); virtual void f(); }; void f (C *p) { p->f(); p->f(); } with r256939 and -mindirect-branch=thunk -O2 on x86-64 GNU/Linux, and got this: _Z1fP1C: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc pushq %rbx .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16

Re: Status of m32c target?

Hi, On Fri, Jan 19 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 01/19/2018 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > >> cc0 needs to die. That doesn't mean that any particular target needs to >> be dropped -- it just means that someone has to step forward to do the >> conversion. > > Unifying two parallel threads:

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

Am 2018-01-21 um 13:08 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay: Jay K schrieb: extern const int foo = 123; Why does this warn? This is a valid portable form, with the same meaning across all compilers, and, importantly, portably to C and C++. I also wondered about this. In C99 §6.9.2 "External object

Re: Status of m32c target?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:57:35AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 19 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > > On 01/19/2018 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > >> cc0 needs to die. That doesn't mean that any particular target needs to > >> be dropped -- it just means that someone has to

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

> If you put static (non-const) > variables in your header files, you have misunderstood how to use header > files in C programming. Not me, and usually const, but people do it, both. Even the consts can get duplicated. Even the simple C++ const int one = 1; I can take the address

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

Also the warning did not include a link explaining the desired workaround. Since you advocate for static...and I know it has big value.. There are the following reasons against static:  - It is prohibited in some coding conventions.     They instead hide symbols by omitting them from any

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

Hi, I made some points in my other reply. But for completeness, I'll tackle these too. On 22/01/2018 10:38, Jay K wrote: Also the warning did not include a link explaining the desired workaround. Since you advocate for static...and I know it has big value.. There are the following

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

> I find the "scoping" too hard to pass it, and if I need to make > the symbol extern in future, I can afford a rename to do it. I mean, I actually like like the ability to shorten file level static symbols. As you point out, true, you can have it both ways, static does not force

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

On 22/01/2018 11:14, Jay K wrote: I  meant: extern const foo = 123; does not warn in C++, but by these arguments, should. Yes, I think it should. But I am a compiler user, not a compiler author, so my bias is strongly towards /my/ code rather than a wider audience. I understand

Forms to contribute to GCC

Hello, I'll be contributing to GCC by working on OpenCoarrays as my PhD programme's broadening project. I'd like to request the necessary forms to do so. As far as I'm aware, those are the copyright assignment form of all future changes and the employer disclaimer form. Best wishes, Daniel

Re: Bugzilla timing out

Hi - > Problems are still occurring for me; Bugzilla gives me 504 Gateway > Time-outs when I try to access it tonight... OK, we reworked some of the database routine maintenance workload, e.g., a nightly cleanup pass that was quite likely excessive, and will keep monitoring. - FChE

Re: Unused GCC builtins

* Manuel Rigger: > Details: We downloaded all C projects from GitHub that had more than 80 > GitHub stars, which yielded almost 5,000 projects with a total of more > than one billion lines of C code. We filtered GCC, forks of GCC, and > other compilers as we did not want to incorporate internal

LVM 2.02.168 2016-11-30 libary 1.02.137 Driver Versuon 4.35.0 :/#

Lvn vrtsion

Re: Unstable build/host qsorts causing differing generated target code

Hi, On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Alexander Monakov wrote: > > > No. The qsort_chk effort was limited to catching instances where comparators > > are invalid, i.e. lack anti-commutativity (may indicate A < B < A) or > > transitivity property (may indicate A < B

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

Hi, I think we are getting quite a bit off-topic for the gcc list here. We should probably take the discussion to somewhere like comp.lang.c. So I shall limit things to just a couple of points to round off. On 22/01/2018 12:27, Jay K wrote:  > If you put static (non-const)  > variables

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

On 21 January 2018 at 07:12, Jay K wrote: > extern const int foo = 123; > > > > Why does this warn? > This is a valid portable form, with the same meaning > across all compilers, and, importantly, portably > to C and C++. > > I explicitly do not want to say: > > const int foo = 123 > > because I

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

On 21 January 2018 at 12:08, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Jay K schrieb: >> >> extern const int foo = 123; >> >> Why does this warn? >> This is a valid portable form, with the same meaning >> across all compilers, and, importantly, portably >> to C and C++. > > > I also wondered about this. > > In

Re: Status of m32c target?

Hi! On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:57:35AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > > On 01/19/2018 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > >> cc0 needs to die. That doesn't mean that any particular target needs to > >> be dropped -- it just means that someone has to

https://open.spotify.com/track/1mXVgsBdtIVeCLJnSnmtdV

Sent from my iPhone

Re: Unused GCC builtins

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:55:42PM +0100, David Brown wrote: > Many of these are going to be used automatically by the compiler. You > write "strdup" in your code, and the compiler treats it as > "__builtin_strdup". I don't know that such functions need to be > documented as extensions, but they

Re: Unused GCC builtins

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 7:55 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 22/01/18 16:46, Manuel Rigger wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> As part of my research, we have been analyzing the usage of GCC builtins >> in 5,000 C GitHub projects. One of our findings is that many of these >> builtins

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

On 2018-01-22 10:53:55 +0100, David Brown wrote: > On 22/01/2018 10:31, Jay K wrote: > > > > By this argument there is a missing warning for the equivalent: > > > >   const int foo = 123; > > > > with no previous extern declaration. > > I would like to see such a warning. There is

Re: Unused GCC builtins

On 1/22/2018 9:55 AM, David Brown wrote: On 22/01/18 16:46, Manuel Rigger wrote: Hi everyone, As part of my research, we have been analyzing the usage of GCC builtins in 5,000 C GitHub projects. One of our findings is that many of these builtins are unused, even though they are described in

Re: Google Summer of Code 2018: Call for mentors and ideas

On 01/19/2018 03:09 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 18 2018, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 01/17/2018 06:54 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: >> > ... >>> >>> 2) Martin Liška is willing to mentor either: >>>2a) -fsanitize=type (He provided URL https://reviews.llvm.org/D32197 >>>but

Unused GCC builtins

Hi everyone, As part of my research, we have been analyzing the usage of GCC builtins in 5,000 C GitHub projects. One of our findings is that many of these builtins are unused, even though they are described in the documentation (see

Re: Unused GCC builtins

On 22/01/18 16:46, Manuel Rigger wrote: > Hi everyone, > > As part of my research, we have been analyzing the usage of GCC builtins > in 5,000 C GitHub projects. One of our findings is that many of these > builtins are unused, even though they are described in the documentation > (see

Re: Google Summer of Code 2018: Call for mentors and ideas

On 01/19/2018 03:13 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19 2018, Martin Jambor wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Jan 18 2018, Martin Liška wrote: >>> On 01/17/2018 06:54 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: >>> >> ... 2) Martin Liška is willing to mentor either: 2a) -fsanitize=type (He provided

Re: Status of m32c target?

> On Jan 22, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:57:35AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Jan 19 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >>> On 01/19/2018 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> cc0 needs to die. That doesn't mean

[Bug c++/83950] [8 regression] error: no matching function for call to ‘folly::dynamic::at(size_t&) const’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83950 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Priority|P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/83952] [missed optimization] difference calculation for floats vs ints in a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83952 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/83949] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (only with -g)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83949 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 43201 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43201=edit unincluded unreduced testcase

[Bug ipa/81360] [8 Regression] ice in estimate_edge_growth, at ipa-inline.h:86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360 --- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka --- Hmm, this is different issue introduced by Richard's change to reorder can inline and want inline. 2018-01-14 Richard Sandiford * ipa-inline.c

[Bug ipa/81360] [8 Regression] ice in estimate_edge_growth, at ipa-inline.h:86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[PACH][RFC] Pass -m -jN to gcc_build from gcc_release

Currently gcc_release builds GCC (for generating in-tree generated files) serially - that's prohibitly expensive and takges ages (>4h for me). I'm using (when I remember to edit gcc_release ...) -j6 without a problem for some years, thus the following proposal. Any recommendation for the

[Bug lto/83954] [6/7/8 Regression] LTO: Bogus -Wlto-type-mismatch warning for array of pointer to incomplete type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [PACH][RFC] Pass -m -jN to gcc_build from gcc_release

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:37:05AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > Currently gcc_release builds GCC (for generating in-tree generated > files) serially - that's prohibitly expensive and takges ages (>4h for > me). I'm using (when I remember to edit gcc_release ...) -j6 without > a problem for

[Bug c/83960] Bad assembler with debug and LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83960 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/83958] [7/8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in find_decomp_class_base)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83958 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Version|unknown

[Bug target/82005] [8 regression] early lto debug creates invalid assembly on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82005 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||simon at pushface dot org --- Comment

[PATCH] Minor warning option sync with clang

Hi, a mail in the gcc-list https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-01/msg00144.html reminded me about this minor stuff I have (so it can be controlled by -Werror), but never managed to write testcases. I'm posting it here in case it's good enough or someone wants to take over from here. Franz

[Bug target/83946] [7/8 Regression] Safe Indirect Jumps broken on AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gcov-profile/83877] Make gcov accept a path to the gcda and a path to the gcno file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83877 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/83966] ICE in check_function_arguments at gcc/c-family/c-common.c:5617

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83966 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug rtl-optimization/83962] [8 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (too many outgoing branch edges from bb 8)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83962 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug ada/83892] Various ICEs and link-errors with running ACATS with -O2 -g -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83892 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sun, 21 Jan 2018, simon at pushface dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83892 > > simon at pushface dot org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/83945] [7 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -O -fcode-hoisting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug c++/83947] [8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code with auto: in tsubst_decl, at cp/pt.c:13046

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83947 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug debug/83949] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (only with -g)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83949 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/83954] [6/7/8 Regression] LTO: Bogus -Wlto-type-mismatch warning for array of pointer to incomplete type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug rtl-optimization/83952] [missed optimization] difference calculation for floats vs ints in a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83952 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- But at least we could perform strength reduction in IVOPTs, replacing for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) { val = 2 * i; a[i] = val; } with for (i = 0, j = 0; i < 100; i++, j+=2) {

[Bug gcov-profile/83878] Line hit counts are sometimes wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83878 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/83964] [8 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83964 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |8.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/83965] [8 Regression] ICE in vectorize_fold_left_reduction, at tree-vect-loop.c:6154

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83965 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Version|unknown

[Bug tree-optimization/83963] [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in merge_sese, at graphite-scop-detection.c:517

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83963 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/83965] [8 Regression] ICE in vectorize_fold_left_reduction, at tree-vect-loop.c:6154

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83965 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug lto/83967] New: LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 Bug ID: 83967 Summary: LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking) Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

RE: [patch][x86] -march=icelake

Hi, I tried omp_clause_mask and it looks ok. But it lacks check if there is any bit or none. With addition of it(as proposed or in some other way it should work. What do you think about this approach(patch attached)? Thanks, Julia > -Original Message- > From: Jakub Jelinek

Re: [C++ PATCH] PR c++/83895

On 01/21/2018 09:21 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote: Finishing testing the attached, OK for trunk? ok (I had thought typedefs would be covered by the decl_context == TYPENAME case, but I see that is not true.) nathan -- Nathan Sidwell

[Bug target/83970] New: -mindirect-branch=thunk -fno-plt generates CET-incompatible thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83970 Bug ID: 83970 Summary: -mindirect-branch=thunk -fno-plt generates CET-incompatible thunk Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/83895] [8 Regression] -Wparentheses warns about pointer-to-member typedefs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83895 --- Comment #2 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ville Date: Mon Jan 22 12:44:33 2018 New Revision: 256942 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256942=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/83895 cp/ * decl.c (grokdeclarator): Don't diagnose extra parens

[Bug middle-end/81443] [7/8 regression] build/genrecog.o: virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443 --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou --- It's rather a combinatorial explosion than an unbounded recursion.

[Bug debug/83935] DWARF for a variant part is incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935 Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/71892] Recent optimization changes introduce bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71892 dnahrblock changed: What|Removed |Added CC||howunijemu at crypemail dot info ---

[Bug libstdc++/27931] valgrind reports memleak when std::ios:sync_with_stdio(false)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27931 dnahrblock changed: What|Removed |Added CC||howunijemu at crypemail dot info ---

[Bug target/83969] New: [8 Regression] ICE in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2997 (error: could not split insn) for powerpc targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83969 Bug ID: 83969 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2997 (error: could not split insn) for powerpc targets Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status:

[Bug gcov-profile/83879] __gcov_dump doesn't work with dlopen-ed libraries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/80481] Unoptimal additional copy instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80481 Andrew Senkevich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/83958] [7/8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in find_decomp_class_base)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83958 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:30:10AM +, Koval, Julia wrote: > Hi, I tried omp_clause_mask and it looks ok. But it lacks check if there > is any bit or none. With addition of it(as proposed or in some other way > it should work. What do you think about this approach(patch attached)? Well, I

[Bug target/83969] [8 Regression] ICE in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2997 (error: could not split insn) for powerpc targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83969 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug tree-optimization/83957] ICE: Segmentation fault (in gimple_phi_arg)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83957 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/83895] [8 Regression] -Wparentheses warns about pointer-to-member typedefs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83895 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [PATCH] Fix branch probability computation in do_compare_rtx_and_jump (PR tree-optimization/83081)

Dne 2018-01-19 22:45, Jakub Jelinek napsal: Hi! This PR is about a certain test FAILing on arm, because it scans for "Invalid sum ..." message in the *.ira dump, but recent GCC versions have that message in there; not introduced by IRA though, but all the way from expansion. We are

[Bug debug/83935] DWARF for a variant part is incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935 --- Comment #2 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat --- Thinking more about it, the rule that the discriminant entry must be a child of the variant part entry sounds suspicious to me. In the case of two variant parts, which are nested and depend on the

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix test fail with conflicting -mfloat-abi

Hi Kyrill On 19/01/18 18:00, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 16/01/18 10:31, Sudakshina Das wrote: Hi Christophe On 12/01/18 18:32, Christophe Lyon wrote: Le 12 janv. 2018 15:26, "Sudakshina Das" a écrit : Hi This patch fixes my earlier test case that fails for arm-none-eabi

[Bug libstdc++/61458] std::aligned_storage is bigger than expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61458 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- That's not an ABI break. Changing it now would be an ABI break.

[PATCH] Fix PR83963

Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress. Richard. 2018-01-22 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/83963 * graphite-scop-detection.c (scop_detection::get_sese): Delay including the loop exit block.

Re: [PATCH] Fix branch probability computation in do_compare_rtx_and_jump (PR tree-optimization/83081)

On 19 January 2018 at 22:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > This PR is about a certain test FAILing on arm, because it scans for > "Invalid sum ..." message in the *.ira dump, but recent GCC versions have > that message in there; not introduced by IRA though, but all the way

[Bug middle-end/34300] gcc 4.2.2 miscompiles code that uses global register variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34300 dnahrblock changed: What|Removed |Added CC||howunijemu at crypemail dot info ---

[Bug libstdc++/65018] Use secure_getenv when available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65018 dnahrblock changed: What|Removed |Added CC||howunijemu at crypemail dot info ---

[Bug c/49915] Function call with 2-D arrays and -O2 (or strict-aliasing and inlining) gives random results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49915 dnahrblock changed: What|Removed |Added CC||howunijemu at crypemail dot info ---

[PATCH][arm] Make gcc.target/arm/copysign_softfloat_1.c more robust

Hi all, This test has needlessly restrictive requirements. It tries to force a soft-float target and tries to run. This makes it unsupportable for any non-soft-float variant. In fact, the test can be a run-time test for any target, and only the scan-assembler tests are specific to

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||lto, wrong-code Target|

Re: [PATCH] Fix branch probability computation in do_compare_rtx_and_jump (PR tree-optimization/83081)

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 01:11:34PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 19 January 2018 at 22:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > That IMHO can't work and the Invalid sum message verifies that. If we want > > the first jump to hit 99times more often than the second one or vice versa, >

[Bug sanitizer/83961] AddressSanitizer CHECK failed on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83961 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Walton --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > AFAIK AArch64 has multiple configurable sizes of the virtual address space > and older GCCs like 6 was only supporting one of those sizes, not all of > them. >

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 83921 ("[7/8 Regression] GCC rejects constexpr initialization of empty aggregate")

Hi, On 20/01/2018 02:59, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi again, On 19/01/2018 23:55, Paolo Carlini wrote: ...Therefore It seems to me that a way to more cleanly solve the bug would be moving something like || !DECL_NONTRIVIALLY_INITIALIZED_P to the the above check in

[Bug fortran/67804] ICE on data initialization of type(character) with wrong data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gs...@t-online.de ---

[Bug c++/83974] [8 Regression] ICE in cxx_eval_constant_expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83974 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/83974] New: [8 Regression] ICE in cxx_eval_constant_expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83974 Bug ID: 83974 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in cxx_eval_constant_expression Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Patch, fortran] PR37577 - [meta-bug] change internal array descriptor format for better syntax, C interop TR, rank 15

This patch has been triggered by Thomas's recent message to the list. Not only did I start work late relative to stage 3 but debugging took somewhat longer than anticipated. Therefore, to get this committed asap, we will have to beg the indulgence of the release managers and prompt review and/or

[PATCH] Finish removing class move_computations_dom_walker

r232820 (aka 2c7b2f8860794cc9b9cf5eeea9d7dc109c0de3be) removed the implementation of class move_computations_dom_walker, but kept the decl. This patch removes the stray decl. Successfully bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for trunk? gcc/ChangeLog: PR tree-optimization/69452

Re: [PATCH] Fix branch probability computation in do_compare_rtx_and_jump (PR tree-optimization/83081)

Dne 2018-01-22 19:36, Jakub Jelinek napsal: On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 06:44:17PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > + /* Split *THIS (ORIG) probability into 2 probabilities, such that > + the returned one (FIRST) is *THIS * CPROB and *THIS is > + adjusted (SECOND) so that FIRST + FIRST.invert

[Bug target/81616] Update -mtune=generic for the current Intel and AMD processors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616 --- Comment #49 from Jan Hubicka --- > matrix.c is still needing additional options to get the best out of the Ryzen > processor. But is better than before (223029 clocks vs 371978 originally), > but 122677 is achievable with the right options.

[Bug target/83969] [8 Regression] ICE in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2997 (error: could not split insn) for powerpc targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83969 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Apparently vectorization, from expand dump it looks like TImode is mode of vector(2) long long int.

[Bug fortran/83975] [8 Regression] ICE in set_parm_default_def_partition, at tree-ssa-coalesce.c:1919

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83975 --- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz --- Configured with --enable-checking=yes : $ gfortran-8-20180121-chk -c z1.f90 z1.f90:1:0: subroutine s(x) internal compiler error: tree check: expected parm_decl, have var_decl in

  1   2   3   >