On 8/3/21 3:00 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 10:20:49AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
On 8/3/21 9:54 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
As discussed, this is a bug indicating that the code generating that
warning fails to check targetm
On 8/3/21 11:21 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
Yes, we know about that one. What I'm asking for is the translation
units with the other warnings you showed with the latest GCC (including
the threader patches) on the other targets (including i686 and pow
Off-topic...
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 09:00:20PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > But you do have a cfarm account :-)
>
> And build-many-glibcs.py is designed to be self-contained
[ snip ]
Yes, it's great :-)
> which will check out all the sources n
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 10:20:49AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
> > On 8/3/21 9:54 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > >As discussed, this is a bug indicating that the code generating that
> > >warning fails to check targetm.addr_space.zero_address_val
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 10:20:49AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
> On 8/3/21 9:54 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >As discussed, this is a bug indicating that the code generating that
> >warning fails to check targetm.addr_space.zero_address_valid to determine
> >whether zero or small constant addre
Joseph Myers, le mar. 03 août 2021 17:21:59 +, a ecrit:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Yes, we know about that one. What I'm asking for is the translation
> > units with the other warnings you showed with the latest GCC (including
> > the threader patches) on the othe
On 8/3/21 9:54 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
On 7/30/21 2:52 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
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 warni
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
> On 7/30/21 2:52 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > 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
On 7/30/21 2:52 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
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 g
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
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.
[ .
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
> > <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-testresults/2021q3/008335.html>
> > (
On 7/30/21 9:30 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
There are a lot of failures building glibc with mainline GCC right now
<https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-testresults/2021q3/008335.html>
(previously, there were ICEs building glibc on various architectures, so
these might be hard to
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
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
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
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
this could
happen. Perhaps we'll have to come up a way to reduce the false
positives.
Aldy
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 5:31 PM Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> There are a lot of failures building glibc with mainline GCC right now
> <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-testresults/2021q3
There are a lot of failures building glibc with mainline GCC right now
<https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-testresults/2021q3/008335.html>
(previously, there were ICEs building glibc on various architectures, so
these might be hard to bisect):
* x86_64-linux-gnu: "error: array
19 matches
Mail list logo
