GCC 13.3 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 13.4.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2058742
Title:
libalog and dbusada ftbfs on s390x with gnat-13
To manage notifications about
Fixed for 13.3 too.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2052929
Title:
failed autopkgtests for evolver vs glibc 2.39 on amd64
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
From what I can see, glibc uses there the same thing as libquadmath
does, so why is it ok on the glibc side and not on the libquadmath side?
I mean
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=stdio-common/printf_fp.c;h=e75706f089bba3baabbcfb6bcf41514bad0a9dcb;hb=HEAD#l222
and
I guess we should go with the above patch after fixing formatting, but it isn't
enough,
printf_fphex.c has similar code.
Even in glibc which doesn't support printing _Float128 nor any other type which
would require similar alignment, the hooks only register a function to fill in
some mem and
Created attachment 57853
gcc14-pr114533.patch
Untested fix. Unfortunately, we don't have any testsuite for
libquadmath, hope it will be tested during libgfortran testing.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
GCC 12.1 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 12.2.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1831385
Title:
`std::cosf`, `std::sinf`, `std::sqrtf` are not declared in ``
To manage
The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1791425
Title:
Compiler error: constexpr with bitfields.
To manage notifications about this bug go
The GCC 8 branch is being closed, fixed in GCC 9.1.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1823296
Title:
g++ 7.3 and g++ 8.2 report segmentation fault
To manage notifications about this
Assuming fixed.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1856682
Title:
[UBUNTU 20.04] GCC Miscompilation in vectorized code
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
GCC 8.4.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1823296
Title:
g++ 7.3 and g++ 8.2 report segmentation fault
To manage notifications about
The fixes have been reverted for 9.3/8.4.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1862053
Title:
Compiler gets stuck (or extremely slow) on ppc64el
To manage notifications about this bug go
GCC 9.3.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1862053
Title:
Compiler gets stuck (or extremely slow) on ppc64el
To manage notifications
Caused PR93974.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1862053
Title:
Compiler gets stuck (or extremely slow) on ppc64el
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
GCC 8.4.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1791425
Title:
Compiler error: constexpr with bitfields.
To manage notifications about this
On the #c7 testcase, this started with
r8-6072-ga3a821c903c9fa2288712d31da2038d0297babcb (so I wonder why this
isn't a 8/9/10 Regression).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1862053
Title:
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 16 19:06:41 2019
New Revision: 270396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270396=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86953
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-86953.C: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-86953.C
Modified:
What we could do there is remove the first of those two splitters, remove the
&& !dead_or_set_p (insn, operands[1])
test from the second, and add peephole2 that would transform
(set (access part 1) (subreg:SI (match_dup 1) low))
(set (match_dup 1) (rotate:DI (match_dup 1) (const_int 32)))
That said, the regression is fixed now.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1811798
Title:
gcc 8 miscompiles scipy/optimize/minpack/qrsolv.f
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #16)
> I'll commit a patch which just removes the splitter for now. I'll try to
> come up with a nicer testcase.
All 3 s390 splitters that do this?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
I admit I have just a vague recollection of this, but I thought since df
has been added, usually if a pass wants REG_DEAD notes, it needs to
df_note_add_problem () and df_analyze should rebuild the
REG_DEAD/REG_UNUSED notes.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
So, to me this looks like a backend bug, using dead_or_set_p in a splitter when
the split passes don't really compute the note problem. Seems s390 is the only
backend that does this, other backends use dead_or_set_p either only in
peephole2s (which is fine, peephole2 pass starts with
Segher on IRC says that removing REG_DEAD notes that aren't valid is the
right thing, so paging others what they think.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1811798
Title:
gcc 8
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > ... Can't what you are doing in the splitters be done in
> > define_peephole2 instead?
>
> Not that easy unfortunately. peephole2 will run after reload. So the FP
> constant ok 0.0 will already be
Yeah, like that problematic source, all gfortran options used to compile that,
any needed modules too + stubbed whatever it calls and whatever is needed in
MAIN__ or main to reproduce, ideally with minimal dependencies.
If you know the exact problematic routine, see in the debugger how many
GCC 4.8.4 has been released.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1295738
Title:
[4.8 Regression] unable to find a register to spill in class 'LO_REGS'
To manage notifications about this
GCC 4.8.4 has been released.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1352417
Title:
[4.8/4.9 Regression] cc1plus doesn't terminate when called with -g on
arm-linux-gnueabihf
To manage
GCC 4.8.4 has been released.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1112499
Title:
WiFi.cpp doesn't compile with default flags
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Fixed on the trunk, but not on the 4.8 branch yet.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1295653
Title:
[4.8/4.9 Regression] Error: value of 256 too large for field of 1
bytes at 68242
Fixed on the trunk so far.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1286343
Title:
mrpt triggers ICE on armf, powerpc, ppc64el at -O2 or higher
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
FYI, since r208573 the reduced ppc64 testcase no longer reproduces, but
the #c0 still does.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1286343
Title:
mrpt triggers ICE on armf, powerpc, ppc64el
Slightly more reduced testcase:
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr60419.C 2014-03-19 15:57:57.735114622 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr60419.C 2014-03-20 10:20:56.245365852 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+// PR middle-end/60419
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options -O2 }
+
+struct J
+{
+ J ();
+
I have:
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr60419.C 2014-03-19 15:57:57.735114622 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr60419.C 2014-03-20 11:13:58.933256068 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+// PR middle-end/60419
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options -O2 }
+
+struct C
+{
+};
+
+struct I : C
+{
+ I ();
+};
+
Honza or Martin, can you please have a look? The #c5 testcase should be
reproduceable with a cross to powerpc64-linux.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1286343
Title:
mrpt triggers
The slsr issue is just a pilot error, I've mistakenly used ~ r205NNN
compiler in that case, so it looks like an already fixed issue.
Anyway, the ICE on ppc64 with the reduced testcase started with r208184 (thus I
wonder about the 4.8 regression status), the problem is that
getMeanVal function
Created attachment 32321
pr60419.C
This is quite impossible to reduce, at least after 4 days of attempting to
delta/creduce reduce this I got only to 132KB.
Compile with -m64 -O3 -std=c++11.
Anyway, it is reduced enough that it compiles (and ICEs in a different place)
with x86_64-linux cc1plus,
GCC 4.6.4 has been released and the branch has been closed.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1112499
Title:
WiFi.cpp doesn't compile with default flags
To manage notifications about
GCC 4.8.2 has been released.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1185028
Title:
drizzle FTBFS due to internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
whilst compiling drizzle on i386|armhf
The difference in *.uninit before/after that commit is small, just:
@@ -78,7 +79,7 @@ fn4 (struct F * x, unsigned int k)
goto bb 7;
bb 7:
- # retval_25 = PHI 0(3), retval_26(6)
+ # err_25 = PHI 0(3), retval_26(6)
_12 = y_9-f;
if (_12 == 0)
goto bb 9;
@@ -89,17 +90,17 @@ fn4
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 7 10:30:13 2013
New Revision: 198671
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198671root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/57149
* tree-ssa-uninit.c (uninit_undefined_value_p): New inline.
(can_skip_redundant_opnd, compute_uninit_opnds_pos,
I'd say the problem comes from the
int retval = retval;
in isr_tr_complete_low, which is supposedly inlined into the function
containing err = istr_tr_complete_low (mEp);
At least replacing that with retval = 0; makes the warning go away.
Reduced testcase for -Os -Wall:
struct A { struct A *a,
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/r190339
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1175744
Title:
[4.8 Regression] wrong -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning with -Os
To manage notifications about
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188526
but it was merely latent before that, so it isn't LRA bug, because it fails
with reload equally.
I think the problem is in combine, where we have:
ax = call ...
flags = r59 != 0
r60 = flags = 0 ? ax : r59
r65 = buf
r68 = 768
rep
Actually, looking more at this, I'd say combiner is innocent here, the problem
is earlier , during ce1 pass, which transforms:
16: ax:SI=call [`output_play'] argc:0
REG_DEAD di:DI
REG_DEAD si:SI
17: r60:SI=ax:SI
REG_DEAD ax:SI
18: flags:CCGOC=cmp(r59:SI,0)
19:
Created attachment 29583
gcc48-pr56484.patch
Untested fix.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1135633
Title:
[linaro regression] alsa-tools FTBFS with error unable to find a
register
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 22:25:43 2013
New Revision: 196478
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196478
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/56484
* ifcvt.c (noce_process_if_block): If else_bb is NULL, avoid extending
lifetimes of hard registers on small register
Fixed.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1135633
Title:
[linaro regression] alsa-tools FTBFS with error unable to find a
register to spill in class ‘AREG’
To manage notifications
Yes, it does, just verified that.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 56405 ***
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1132012
Title:
[4.8 regression] ICE in
Well, perhaps we need to improve documentation, because for calloc the
memory doesn't have undefined contents either, it is well defined to be
all zeros.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
(In reply to comment #6)
Do you think I should revert the patch on the branch nevertheless?
(it was a fix for a missed-optimization regression only ...)
Yeah, missed-optimization regression can wait for 4.8, but just the
tree-ssa-dse.c part + related testcase, not all the other fixes.
--
You
Assuming fixed.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1065122
Title:
kumofs ftbfs on armhf (gcc ICE)
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
4.4 branch is being closed, moving to 4.5.4 target.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/598462
Title:
[PR38292] corrupted profile info with -O[23] -fprofile-use
To manage notifications
Fixed in 4.5+, 4.4 is no longer supported.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/564492
Title:
[PR 44626, armel] ICE: output_operand: invalid expression as operand
To manage notifications
4.4 branch is being closed, moving to 4.5.4 target.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/472056
Title:
[PR42536] crash trying to build portable .net
To manage notifications about this bug
4.4 branch is being closed, moving to 4.5.4 target.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/89408
Title:
gcj-dbtool segfaults on hppa-linux
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
The testcase is invalid C, while x86_64/i?86 will do the expected thing of
doing unaligned loads/stores silently, it won't do that in vectorized code or
for atomic accesses. You need to tell the compiler that ia isn't aligned
through aligned attribute. E.g. typedef int T
Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html, you should provide a self-
contained and if possible small testcase, it could very well be a bug in
the application you are using. If you suspect a gcc bug, you can use
use either a debugger or brute-force - e.g. binary search in between
objects compiled
Dup of PR51915.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 51915 ***
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/910791
Title:
[armhf] trunk 20111223, ICE in output_move_double, at
Ramana (or some other ARM maintainer), could you please try to implement
this? Thanks.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/836588
Title:
armel FTBFS with gcc 4.5 org 4.6 O2 and fPIC
To
Note, can't be reproduced on the trunk, the strcmp isn't DCEd there, but
guess the problem is just latent there.
It looks like a target bug to me. Before RTL loop opts we have:
(insn 91 90 92 13 (set (reg:SI 167)
(unspec:SI [
(const:SI (unspec:SI [
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 8 13:36:40 2011
New Revision: 182112
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182112
Log:
Backport from mainline
2011-12-05 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com
PR
Fixed.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/897583
Title:
Code generation bug with -O2 (-foptimize-sibling-calls)
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 5 08:15:23 2011
New Revision: 182000
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182000
Log:
PR middle-end/51323
PR middle-end/50074
* calls.c (internal_arg_pointer_exp_state): New variable.
(internal_arg_pointer_based_exp_1,
Fixed on the trunk so far.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/897583
Title:
Code generation bug with -O2 (-foptimize-sibling-calls)
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
We have:
bb 4:
# DEBUG this = this_2(D)
reason_15 = reason_10(D);
reason_17 = reason_15;
# DEBUG reason = reason_17
D.137092_16 = this_2(D)-D.122214;
mozilla::net::PWyciwygChannelChild::Send__delete__ (D.137092_16);
D.132395_6 = 0;
and ccp (substitute_and_fold called from ccp_finalize) decides
It is gimple_modified_p and gsi_insert_before does call
build_stmt_operands on it. Still debugging...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/841825
Title:
gcc SIGSEGV when building Firefox
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 22 08:33:37 2011
New Revision: 176617
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176617
Log:
PR c++/49756
* libiberty.h (stack_limit_increase): New prototype.
* stack-limit.c: New file.
* Makefile.in: Regenerate deps.
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 22 09:21:49 2011
New Revision: 176622
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176622
Log:
PR c++/49756
* libiberty.h (stack_limit_increase): New prototype.
* stack-limit.c: New file.
* Makefile.in: Regenerate deps.
More probably the gcc/g++ driver already, because inside of tbe main of a
program it might be too late to increase the stack limits - if something is
already mmapped right below the old smaller stack the increase won't be
effective.
I guess increasing the RLIMIT_STACK in the driver to MIN
Created attachment 24788
gcc47-pr49756.patch
Untested patch. Clueless people will be still able to construct twice or 4
times as large testcases of similar quality when they really should be using an
array, but I guess this can help even with reasonable testcases.
The drawback is I think that
GCC 4.6.1 is being released.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/791327
Title:
codeblocks version 10.05-2 failed to build on armel
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
70 matches
Mail list logo
