https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81960
Bug ID: 81960
Summary: gcc doesn't compile on MAC OS X
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81159
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52960
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25814
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61961
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|RESOL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57170
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81850
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81959
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81959
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81959
Bug ID: 81959
Summary: PowerPC __float128 optimization fails with integer
PRE_INC addresses
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Romain from comment #6)
> Hi,
>
> > It might be an interesting exercise to encrypt the APFS volume and see if
> > that
> throws just enough additional filesystem overhead in to make the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81958
Bug ID: 81958
Summary: spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning in gcc-8, or
with -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81957
Bug ID: 81957
Summary: ICE decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81953
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's a good idea to move it to inside the conditional, just not
to behind the function call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81956
Bug ID: 81956
Summary: [7 regression] calling a null procedure is not skipped
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80969
--- Comment #5 from dansan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dansan
Date: Wed Aug 23 21:46:14 2017
New Revision: 251321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80969 - Fix ICE with -mabi=ms -mavx512f, reduce wast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81282
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78840
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE|[5 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, comment 1 was from Richard. And the warning already exists, and it says
that a nonnull argument (i.e. something that can never be null) is compared to
null. The only thing I'd change would be to change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81955
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81955
Bug ID: 81955
Summary: corrupted double-linked list (not small)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
Matthieu Brucher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WORKSFORM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #19 from Matthieu Brucher ---
That was my original comment... Thanks for quoting me...
The issue is that the warning doesn't tell me what you told me, that "this" is
never equal to nullptr in that context. This is what the warning sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #17 from Matthieu Brucher ---
Not everyone runs this sanitizer, and not everyone has unit tests that can find
this error (the application I woked on that had this has numerous unit tests,
but this was not tested because the guy that w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60972
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fsanitize=undefined will catch the NULL pointer at runtime.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #15 from Matthieu Brucher ---
Thanks, finally something relevant, yes it's a bug that can be easilly checked
by gcc and that GCC can easilly warn about. (lowering the bar here). Yes, the
user should chase the bug because they screwep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72804
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72804
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Wed Aug 23 20:03:46 2017
New Revision: 251318
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251318&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2017-08-17 Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthieu Brucher from comment #11)
> Oh, and if this is always false, why isn't it the case in debug mode? It is
> then a bug according to what you said.
It is always false in a valid program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60212
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See comment 1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81932
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
Matthieu Brucher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #11 from Matthieu Brucher ---
Oh, and if this is always false, why isn't it the case in debug mode? It is
then a bug according to what you said.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #10 from Matthieu Brucher ---
If it is always false, what impeds you for warning as such? Because numerous
people are checking this (and I agree that they shouldn't), as proven by my 2
links.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81947
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81908
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #8 from Matthieu Brucher ---
In a header:
class Foo
{
public:
void bar();
};
Inthe corresponding source:
#include
void Foo::bar()
{
if(this)
{
std::cout << "Pointer is not null";
}
else
{
std::cout << "Pointer i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Matthieu Brucher from comment #6)
> I never said that the test alone should be banned. Please read the original
> message first.
I had done so before I replied. And it seems that I'm not the on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
--- Comment #6 from Matthieu Brucher ---
I never said that the test alone should be banned. Please read the original
message first.
I said that if(!this) in the context of a method gives "unexpected" behavior
(according to the standard and the di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
It will be in GCC 8 but nobody backported it to the GCC 7 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
--- Comment #5 from martin ---
I'm sorry for the trouble, I thought Bugfix 81449 is contained in the gcc 7.2.
release of Aug 14, 2017.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81947
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81954
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81928
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81954
Bug ID: 81954
Summary: gcc8 too aggressively reorders memory access beyond
condition
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On August 23, 2017 6:52:40 PM GMT+02:00, "vries at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
>
>--- Comment #13 from Tom de Vries ---
>I've tried to see if I co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81449
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
*** Bug 81946 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #13 from Tom de Vries ---
I've tried to see if I could workaround the problem by disabling the assert:
...
diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.c b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
index 0c339bd46f0..b2df3b89c2e 100644
--- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c
+++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81953
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81953
Bug ID: 81953
Summary: Code sinking results in increased use of callee saved
registers
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81931
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Fixes testcase. Untested otherwise.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssanames.c b/gcc/tree-ssanames.c
> index 676
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81952
Bug ID: 81952
Summary: copy elision used when constructor needs to be called
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80503
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59922
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80598
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81951
Bug ID: 81951
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE returning 16 byte struct on s390x
with -mno-lra
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56763
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
--- Comment #3 from martin ---
The ‘__sem_lock’ struct is contained in:
struct semt {
struct __pthread_fastlock __sem_lock;
int32_t __sem_value;
void* __sem_waiting;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
--- Comment #2 from martin ---
Created attachment 42031
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42031&action=edit
generated runtime.inc
contains the incomplete type __sem_lock.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950
Judy Ward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|_GLIBCXX17 macro not used |_GLIBCXX17_INLINEmacro not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81950
Bug ID: 81950
Summary: _GLIBCXX17 macro not used consistently
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81949
Bug ID: 81949
Summary: DOM fails to simplify conditional
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r251306 PASS for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81948
Bug ID: 81948
Summary: vectorize exp2 using exp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78388
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
What is the full definition of the failing struct in the generated runtime.inc
file? That is, look at line 782 of TARGET/libgo/runtime.inc and show us the
complete type definition. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81947
Bug ID: 81947
Summary: variadic template specialization doesn't compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78330
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81946
Bug ID: 81946
Summary: runtime.inc:782:28: error: field ‘__sem_lock’ has
incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68827
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81912
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexbaroni68 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81944
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> > And then we run into the next ICE:
> Shit happens ;)
Heh, it does :)
> Is that now the offload compiler?
Nope, still the host compiler, we're ICE-ing d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56556
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
>
> --- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
>
> --- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79996
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
> but found it doesn't work because flag_generate_offload is actually false.
>
> I'm now trying this (code snippet copied from symbol_table::compile), but
> I'm not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81642
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81936
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> Ah, yeah. And we can have both, right?
I'd say so. There's f.i. libgomp.c/target-9.c, which contains '#pragma omp
target' and uses -flto.
> So we'd either n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945
Bug ID: 81945
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80733
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80681
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81940
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 23 12:11:03 2017
New Revision: 251306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-23 Richard Biener
PR lto/81940
* dwarf2out.
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
