gcc-10-20210730 is now available

2021-07-30 Thread GCC Administrator via Gcc
Snapshot gcc-10-20210730 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20210730/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch

Re: Are some builtin functions (for example log() vs. sqrt()) more equal than others?

2021-07-30 Thread Stefan Kanthak
"Joseph Myers" wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2021, Stefan Kanthak wrote: > >> Joseph Myers wrote: >> >> > None of these are valid constant expressions as defined by the standard >> > (constant expressions cannot involve evaluated function calls). >> >> That's why I ask specifically why GCC bugs on

Re: Failures building glibc with mainline GCC

2021-07-30 Thread Joseph Myers
On Fri, 30 Jul 2021, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote: > There's a new jump threader in GCC which is much more aggressive, and > may trigger latent problems with other warning passes, especially > -Warray-bounds, -Woverflow, and -Wuninitialized. > > Do your problems go away if you take out commit 2e9

Re: Are some builtin functions (for example log() vs. sqrt()) more equal than others?

2021-07-30 Thread Joseph Myers
On Fri, 30 Jul 2021, Stefan Kanthak wrote: > Joseph Myers wrote: > > > None of these are valid constant expressions as defined by the standard > > (constant expressions cannot involve evaluated function calls). > > That's why I ask specifically why GCC bugs on log(log(...)), but not on > log(s

Re: Are some builtin functions (for example log() vs. sqrt()) more equal than others?

2021-07-30 Thread Stefan Kanthak
Joseph Myers wrote: > None of these are valid constant expressions as defined by the standard > (constant expressions cannot involve evaluated function calls). That's why I ask specifically why GCC bugs on log(log(...)), but not on log(sqrt(...) ...)! GCC also accepts following initializers an

Re: Failures building glibc with mainline GCC

2021-07-30 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc
On 7/30/21 10:45 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote: On 7/30/2021 10:19 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Libc-alpha wrote: There's a new jump threader in GCC which is much more aggressive, and may trigger latent problems with other warning passes, especially -Warray-bounds, -Woverflow, and -Wuninitialized. [ .

Re: Failures building glibc with mainline GCC

2021-07-30 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 10:53:28AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote: > On 7/30/21 9:30 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > There are a lot of failures building glibc with mainline GCC right now > > > > (previously, there were ICEs buil

Re: Failures building glibc with mainline GCC

2021-07-30 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc
On 7/30/21 9:30 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: There are a lot of failures building glibc with mainline GCC right now (previously, there were ICEs building glibc on various architectures, so these might be hard to bisect): * x86_64

Re: Failures building glibc with mainline GCC

2021-07-30 Thread Jeff Law via Gcc
On 7/30/2021 10:19 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Libc-alpha wrote: There's a new jump threader in GCC which is much more aggressive, and may trigger latent problems with other warning passes, especially -Warray-bounds, -Woverflow, and -Wuninitialized. [ ... ] Ugh.  First attempt got blocked as messag

Re: Failures building glibc with mainline GCC

2021-07-30 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 04:38:58PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > In addition to failures building glibc, for those configurations for which > glibc builds there's a failure building the testsuite: > > tst-thread_local1.cc:177:5: error: variable 'std::array char*, std::function >, 2> do_thread_X' h

Re: Failures building glibc with mainline GCC

2021-07-30 Thread Joseph Myers
In addition to failures building glibc, for those configurations for which glibc builds there's a failure building the testsuite: tst-thread_local1.cc:177:5: error: variable 'std::array >, 2> do_thread_X' has initializer but incomplete type 177 | do_thread_X | ^~~ -- Jo

Re: Are some builtin functions (for example log() vs. sqrt()) more equal than others?

2021-07-30 Thread Joseph Myers
None of these are valid constant expressions as defined by the standard (constant expressions cannot involve evaluated function calls). Some might be accepted as an extension, but I expect that since the optimization for constant arguments is intended for valid calls that would otherwise be ex

Re: Failures building glibc with mainline GCC

2021-07-30 Thread Jeff Law via Gcc
On 7/30/2021 10:19 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Libc-alpha wrote: There's a new jump threader in GCC which is much more aggressive, and may trigger latent problems with other warning passes, especially -Warray-bounds, -Woverflow, and -Wuninitialized. Do your problems go away if you take out commit

Re: Failures building glibc with mainline GCC

2021-07-30 Thread Aldy Hernandez via Gcc
There's a new jump threader in GCC which is much more aggressive, and may trigger latent problems with other warning passes, especially -Warray-bounds, -Woverflow, and -Wuninitialized. Do your problems go away if you take out commit 2e96b5f14e? I have notes throughout the commit analyzing variant

Are some builtin functions (for example log() vs. sqrt()) more equal than others?

2021-07-30 Thread Stefan Kanthak
Hi @ll, both the IEEE 754 and the ISO C standards define the (constant) expressions 1.0/0.0 and 0.0/0.0 to yield the floating-point constants INFINITY and NAN alias INDEFINITE, to be provided as macros (ISO/IEC 9899:1999 7.12/4 INFINITY and 7.12/5 NAN) in math.h. JFTR: the statement "NAN is a GNU

Failures building glibc with mainline GCC

2021-07-30 Thread Joseph Myers
There are a lot of failures building glibc with mainline GCC right now (previously, there were ICEs building glibc on various architectures, so these might be hard to bisect): * x86_64-linux-gnu: "error: array subscript 0 i

Re: daily report on extending static analyzer project [GSoC]

2021-07-30 Thread David Malcolm via Gcc
On Fri, 2021-07-30 at 18:11 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote: > > > > On 30-Jul-2021, at 5:35 AM, David Malcolm > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2021-07-29 at 18:20 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote: [..snip...] > > > > > > > > > @@ -1242,6 +1243,17 @@ exploded_node::on_stmt (exploded_graph &eg, > > > unk

[WIP][not for GCC main branch] CHERI/Morello work in GCC update.

2021-07-30 Thread Matthew Malcomson via Gcc
Hello, In our last email we mentioned that there was work not yet going upstream. This is to mention that the work that was still internal at that stage has now gone up to the vendor branch. The main difference after this change is that our initial work of adding the concept of CHERI capabilities

Re: Named address spaces on x86 GNU/Linux

2021-07-30 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 6:09 PM Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jul 2021, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > > > On GNU/Linux, SEGFS is used to implement the thread pointer, to avoid > > dedicating a general-purpose register to it. At address zero with the > > SEGFS prefix, the offset itself is s