https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82946
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82946
Bug ID: 82946
Summary: member pointer defeats strlen optimization involving a
string literal
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82886
--- Comment #5 from Fritz Reese ---
Author: foreese
Date: Sat Nov 11 00:47:53 2017
New Revision: 254648
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254648&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-10 Fritz Reese
PR fortran/82886
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> IMO turning random hot block into cold is not safe operatoin after
> bbro is finished and thus Martin's patch preventing it is good. We can
> indeed track down the real cause (I plan to iterate over profi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I know you have some skill. Do you think problem is in traces how are traced
> (more precisely why are the problematic blocks selected as hot)?
> Or merging of the traces? I know it's problematic to reprod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82917
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82945
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Nov 10 22:48:43 2017
New Revision: 254641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254641&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR c/81117
* config/darwin-c.c (framewor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82917
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:43:24 2017
New Revision: 254638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/82917 add missing returns in
PR libstdc++/82917
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82886
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Fritz Reese -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82945
Bug ID: 82945
Summary: add warning for passing non-strings to functions that
expect string arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82917
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82924
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > No, I disagree, the patch only papers over the problem.
> >
> > > I wonder how we ended up with such contradictory block at the first
> > > place? Was
> > > it introduced by someone between the last exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #8)
> > Thanks for working this out! The patch looks good to me.
>
> No, I disagree, the patch only papers over the problem.
>
> > I wonder how we ended up with such c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82944
Bug ID: 82944
Summary: missing -Wstringop-truncation on strncpy due to system
header macro
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82333
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82928
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82880
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82942
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> > return TARGET_AVX && !TARGET_AVX512F
>
> Should !TARGET_AVX512F be changed to !TARGET_AVX152ER in gate function?
Yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82942
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 42584
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42584&action=edit
An untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82942
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> return TARGET_AVX && !TARGET_AVX512F
Should !TARGET_AVX512F be changed to !TARGET_AVX152ER in gate function?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82942
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 42583
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42583&action=edit
An untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82942
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
class pass_insert_vzeroupper : public rtl_opt_pass
{
public:
pass_insert_vzeroupper(gcc::context *ctxt)
: rtl_opt_pass(pass_data_insert_vzeroupper, ctxt)
{}
/* opt_pass methods: */
virtual bool gat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Fri Nov 10 17:14:28 2017
New Revision: 254632
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254632&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-10 Tamar Christina
PR target/82641
* conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943
Bug ID: 82943
Summary: Error derived type-bound procedure PASS(this)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82942
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
uot;GCC: (GNU) 8.0.0 20171110 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-6 vzeroupper-skx-1]$
lign 4,,15
.globl foo
.type foo, @function
foo:
.LFB4897:
.cfi_startproc
vmovapd y(%rip), %zmm0
vmovapd %zmm0, z(%rip)
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE4897:
.size foo, .-foo
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 8.0.0 20171110 (experimental)&qu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82597
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Nov 10 16:35:26 2017
New Revision: 254630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81117 - Improve buffer overflow checking in strncpy
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79885
Jeffrey Walton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||noloader at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Thanks for working this out! The patch looks good to me.
No, I disagree, the patch only papers over the problem.
> I wonder how we ended up with such contradictory block at the first place?
> Was
> it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82929
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82932
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #1)
> This draft patch fixes the ICE:
... and regtests cleanly!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82940
Bug ID: 82940
Summary: Suboptimal code for (a & 0x7f) | (b & 0x80) on powerpc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manfred99 at gmx dot ch
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82938
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82702
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Nov 10 15:23:24 2017
New Revision: 254629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
GCOV: create one intermediate file per a gcno file (PR gcov-profile/82702)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82939
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> Is that during stage 1 or in a later stage?
stage 1.
Backtraces, for reference:
(gdb) bt
#0 trace_include [inlined] () at
/Users/ericgallager/gcc/libcpp/line-ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82929
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 10 14:43:13 2017
New Revision: 254628
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82929
* gimple-ssa-store-merging.c (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82939
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Is that during stage 1 or in a later stage?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82939
Bug ID: 82939
Summary: genmatch fills up terminal with endless printing of
periods
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82938
Bug ID: 82938
Summary: Speed regression in internal read
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78063
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Now manifests itself for LTO bootstrapped compilers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82934
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> The test gives the expected result with gfortran 4.8 and 4.9. The change in
> behavior occurred between revisions r221412 + 3 patches (2015-03-13, works)
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42581
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42581&action=edit
bbro rtl dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> Thanks for working this out! The patch looks good to me. I wonder how we
> ended up with such contradictory block at the first place? Was it introduced
> by someone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82863
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
So problem is that in pass_reorder_blocks::execute we reorder blocks so that
they are separated to cold and hot partitions. Then cleanup_cfg
(CLEANUP_EXPENSIVE); is called (bb-reorder.c:2593) and we end here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82934
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 10 12:24:24 2017
New Revision: 254624
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254624&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82934
* trans-stmt.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82934
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82937
Bug ID: 82937
Summary: [F03] associate non-standard bounds are lost for
associating entity
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41455
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
We could do that I suppose. Of course memcpy will expand to alias-set zero
block copies while aggregate assignment can use better info.
So in the end this means doing full block-copy expansion on GIMPLE ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82933
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Summary|valgrind error i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82928
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82925
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82918
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82927
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82933
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
A non-valgrind recent version of gcc does this:
$ ~/gcc/results.254608/bin/gcc -g -c gcc.dg/rtl/x86_64/into-cfglayout.c
during RTL pass: final
gcc.dg/rtl/x86_64/into-cfglayout.c: In function ‘test_1’:
gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82936
--- Comment #4 from lizhenhuan1019 ---
On Windows 10, MSYS2 in Mingw-w64 mode:
The error output of g++ main.cpp -v -save-temps:
***The output begins
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=D:\Program_Files\mysy64\mingw64\bin\g++.exe
COLLECT_LTO_WR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82936
lizhenhuan1019 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42577|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82936
--- Comment #2 from lizhenhuan1019 ---
Simplified the test case more:
int fun(int i)
{
return 0;
}
template
struct outer;
template
struct outer
{
template
struct callable
{
};
};
outer::callable f;//this line triggered the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, clang uses a tail call, and we don't. And the reason why we don't is
that the call is introduced only during expansion and doesn't therefore have
the
GF_CALL_TAILCALL flag set (CALL_EXPR_TAILCALL on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41455
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect what we can do is "lower" assignments to memcpy in a pass right
before tail call to optimize this case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82936
--- Comment #1 from lizhenhuan1019 ---
Created attachment 42578
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42578&action=edit
The preprocessed file main.ii on Arch Linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41455
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82936
Bug ID: 82936
Summary: segment fault crash for non-type template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
We keep
*a1_2(D) = *a2_3(D);
and only at expansion time turn it into a call to memcpy, so the gimple pass
that detects tail calls doesn't have a chance to notice this case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82916
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82916
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 10 10:31:34 2017
New Revision: 254623
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254623&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/82916
* gimple-ssa-store-merging.c
(p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #2)
> Because Clang does not generate them.
So, the Earth is flat because someone says, too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
> Why do you think these instructions are not needed?
Because Clang does not generate them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Why do you think these instructions are not needed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82902
--- Comment #5 from John Buddery ---
Thanks for the quick fix - this resolves the ICE in 8.0 for me, and applying to
7.2 fixes the invalid code generation I was seeing there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82597
--- Comment #8 from Arseny Solokha ---
Is it safe to close this PR now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935
Bug ID: 82935
Summary: Unnecessary "sub rsp, 8", "call" and "add rsp, 8"
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82934
Bug ID: 82934
Summary: Segfault on assumed character length in allocate
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82928
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42571|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82824
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've now submitted the patch upstream: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39888.
Let's see how this goes.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82933
Bug ID: 82933
Summary: valgrind error in set_cur_line_info_table with -g
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82932
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82932
Bug ID: 82932
Summary: [8 Regression] [OOP] ICE in update_compcall_arglist,
at fortran/resolve.c:5837
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82931
wilhelm.me...@hs-kl.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42574|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82895
--- Comment #6 from Arjen Markus ---
Thanks for the explanation and the adjusted example. This is clear enough.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79015
Ralf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||allizgubccg at reallysoft dot
de
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82931
--- Comment #1 from wilhelm.me...@hs-kl.de ---
Should compile with -Os to reproduce the result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82931
Bug ID: 82931
Summary: Missing Optimization for Bit-Transfer (AVR Target)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
94 matches
Mail list logo
