https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84189
Neil Carlson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84189
Bug ID: 84189
Summary: Internal procedure allowed as type bound procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83871
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84188
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Another test case for the guarantee that "...and moreover no pointers to valid
objects occur in any storage addressed by P."
void* __attribute__ ((malloc, returns_nonnull))
f (unsigned);
void g3 (unsigned n)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84188
Bug ID: 84188
Summary: assume non-null malloc pointers are distinct
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
--- Comment #10 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Oh, I have forgot to ask another question:
In attached reloc-bug.c there is seemingly two functionally identical samples:
extern char glo_u64_middle_hidden[] __attribute__((visibility("hidden")));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81038
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Prospective patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00137.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
--- Comment #9 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Aha, makes sense! Proposed kernel tweak upstream as:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/2/914
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #49 from Campbell ---
I can confirm that the latest gcc 8 snapshot still fails by default, but it
works with 8 cores using Chris's fix above of replacing ln -s with cp. This in
my mind pretty conclusively points to it not being a make
ce with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180202 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84187
Bug ID: 84187
Summary: -O0 fails inline assembly compile
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
Jens-S. Vöckler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens4303 at me dot com
--- Comment #48
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83390
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
.c:4567
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180202 (experimental)
Copyright
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84186
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botc
plate struct S21 {
int a[sizeof(typename N::S2::X*)]; // not OK
};
};
};
That snippet gets accepted by ICC, MSVC, clang, and pretty much every other
compiler I tested on, bug GCC (all versions, up to and including 8.0.1
20180202) reject it [-std=c++14 -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #33 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Mea culpa. I had to recompile the external libraries again. Then those tests
depending on the external libraries did also work (headbang).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181
--- Comment #5 from Benjamin Buch ---
I'm not completely sure anymore whether this is related, another version of the
new bug is:
template < typename ... T >
void sink(T ...){}
template < typename T >
auto var = [](auto ... i){ sink(i + 0 ...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Could gcc generate warning without much of additional effort (or even better
> an error) when it knows it is about to generate broken code?
Generating broken code from invalid C is perfectly OK, but we cou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84126
Benjamin Buch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
ode*, bool,
bool)
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:17874
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180202 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81038
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
The commentary for r248678 reads in part: "Compute costs for doing no peeling
at all, compare to the best peeling costs so far and avoid peeling if cheaper."
Indeed, if you look at the vect dump for r248677,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181
Benjamin Buch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82914
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 43330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43330&action=edit
Patch tested on x86_64-linux.
GCC 9 patch regression-tested on x86_64-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81038
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org|wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82914
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Good suggestion! I will do it.
Could gcc generate warning without much of additional effort (or even better an
error) when it knows it is about to generate broken code?
For this code I guess the patter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
I'd suggest fixing the code instead:
extern struct s glo_s_middle_hidden[] __attribute__((visibility("hidden")));
which makes it valid C and generates correct code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #32 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #31)
> Unfortunately, the problem with our external libraries still persist. Don't
> know how to provide you with a test case for this without providing our
> complete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84178
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #31 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Unfortunately, the problem with our external libraries still persist. Don't
know how to provide you with a test case for this without providing our
complete code and their external complete code. :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
> - large amount of code
Jason pointed out the blowup happens due to byte-level reads (caused by 'char*'
-> 'u64*' required alignment increase) thus it's expected. Only correctness
issue is left.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #27 from Thomas Koenig ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00071.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56750
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84169
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This starts to fail with r249850 (don't know yet what the problem is).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84183
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84108
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84155
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #11)
> There was another test case that I submitted for #84141. It still failed
> after the first preliminary fix.
This one also works with the patch from comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #30 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Yep, that looks good. Paul's fix is now the change in trans-array.c only, or
still the change in trans-io.c ? I guess only the trans-array.c patch. I'll try
it out later tonight.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #29 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #24)
> Created attachment 43322 [details]
> Additional failing test case (after the prelim. fix)
>
> This is still lengthy, and I can reduce it further but maybe the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84155
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter ---
There was another test case that I submitted for #84141. It still failed after
the first preliminary fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #28 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 43329
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43329&action=edit
Shortened test case (after prelim. fix)
This is a shortened test case that still failed after the first prelim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #27 from Paul Thomas ---
Please see PR84155 for a fix that looks somewhat cleaner but note the caveat
associated with it.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84155
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 43328
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43328&action=edit
Patch for the bug
This patch fixes the PR and PR84141. The dejagnuified version of the reproducer
will appear wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84185
Bug ID: 84185
Summary: missing warning when ignoring attribute aligned on a
member
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Feb 2 18:09:32 2018
New Revision: 257343
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257343&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/83954
* lto-symtab.c (warn_type_compatibility_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
Bug ID: 84184
Summary: gcc generates wrong relocations with negative offsets
in struct arrays (but not integral arrays)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Jenner ---
I have committed a patch to the .opt files:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00114.html
I have also submitted a patch to the documentation:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00115.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
--- Comment #24 from Alexander Nesterovskiy ---
Yes, it looks like more time is being spent in synchronizing.
r256990 really changes the way autopar works:
For r253679...r256989 the most of work was in main thread0 mostly (thread0
~91%, threads1-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
--- Comment #23 from Alexander Nesterovskiy ---
Created attachment 43326
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43326&action=edit
r253678 vs r256990
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So MIPS fundamentally needs this feature to work correctly; whether AArch64
> needs it or may just benefit from it depends on a lot of detailed knowledge
> of the ISA and architecture. Given Richard Sandif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84182
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84108
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 2 16:42:46 2018
New Revision: 257339
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257339&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84181 - ICE with lambda parm in template argument.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77712
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-09-23 00:00:00 |2018-2-2
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84169
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed. Does not happen with a compiler a few months old.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #16 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Feb 2 15:07:37 2018
New Revision: 257333
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257333&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr83362.c: Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82734
--- Comment #3 from Sylvestre Ledru ---
For people who are getting these error, we fixed it with:
static_cast::type>(INT32_MAX)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
--- Comment #6 from Chris Hall ---
Created attachment 43325
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43325&action=edit
Summary of results using Compiler Explorer: for v5.4.0, 6.3.0 and 7.2.0.
Setting -O2 or -O3 on the command line ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84153
--- Comment #4 from Brett Neumeier ---
Created attachment 43324
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43324&action=edit
Patch to add rpath for GMP, MPC, MPFR, ISL when needed
OK. I'm just going to leave this patch here -- tested a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59865
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57438
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #7 from Adam Conrad ---
(In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #6)
>
> > the discussion about names is probably more appropriate on the libc side
>
> Adam, do you agree?
I agree with this statement, sure. But I don't agree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
...
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr80969-4.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr80969-4a.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr80969-4b.c execution test
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 3
# of unexpected failures3
/export/build/gnu/gcc-test/build-x86_64-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #6 from Javier Serrano Polo ---
> As long as the new behavior is optional (not the default), the patch stands a
> chance of being accepted.
Thank you. I will change the status of the report if you do not mind.
> the discussion about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82711
--- Comment #3 from Sylvestre Ledru ---
Jonathan, if I write a patch to implement the change, will you accept it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46989
Sylvestre Ledru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84183
Bug ID: 84183
Summary: internal compiler error: in initialize, at
alloc-pool.h:257
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84179
Bug ID: 84179
Summary: -save-temps breaks implicit-fallthrough comment
heuristic
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ---
> How is this any different from 32-bit operations in say MIPS? The only
> difference seems to be that MIPS sign-extends 32-bit operations to 64 bit
> while AArch64 zero-extends. If that's correct for MIPS i
se include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180202 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83370
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #5 from Adam Conrad ---
(In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #1)
> Adam, if you had to come up with multiarch interpreter names for traditional
> architectures, which would be the proper place to discuss?
As Andrew says, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
mpf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83370
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84181
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Buch ---
Same with:
template < int ... I >
struct A{};
template < typename T >
void f(){
[](auto ... i){
return A< decltype(i)::x ... >{};
};
}
int main(){
f< int >();
}
$ g++ -std=c++14 main
include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180202 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #15 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Feb 2 11:36:54 2018
New Revision: 257327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81913.c: Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84180
Bug ID: 84180
Summary: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2 heuristic fails when
condition in the case
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84066
--- Comment #8 from itsimbal at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: itsimbal
Date: Fri Feb 2 10:06:39 2018
New Revision: 257326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR84066 Wrong shadow stack register size is saved for x32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84167
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 1, 2018 8:05:26 PM GMT+01:00, LpSolit at netscape dot net
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84167
>
>Frédéric Buclin changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84178
Bug ID: 84178
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in release_bb_predicate
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #26 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Paul, let me know whether you want me to reduce the "Additional failing test
case" any further. Really have to go to sleep now.
92 matches
Mail list logo
