https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does it work on non changed gcc 7.2 on arm?
And with arm do mean arm-linux-gnueabi as the target or aarch64-linux-gnu?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208
Bug ID: 84208
Summary: fsanitize-address-use-after-scope Not working for ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53679
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71635
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71396
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68420
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84207
Bug ID: 84207
Summary: Hard coded plural in gimple-fold.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
-forwprop -c tt.c
during GIMPLE pass: ifcvt
tt.c: In function 'r8':
tt.c:4:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
r8 (long int mu, int *jr, int *fi, short int dv)
^~
0xc97d0f crash_signal
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/gcc/to
/var/tmp/portage/cross-powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:205
0x13fc5e5 translate_isl_ast_to_gimple::set_codegen_error()
/var/tmp/portage/cross-powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/gcc/grap
o-tree-fre -w -c isyp3qtx.c
during RTL pass: sched1
isyp3qtx.c: In function 'b8':
isyp3qtx.c:21:1: internal compiler error: in get_all_loop_exits, at
sel-sched-ir.h:1138
}
^
0xbf8740 get_all_loop_exits
/var/tmp/portage/cross-powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gc
et_codegen_error()
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:205
0x723140 translate_isl_ast_to_gimple::set_codegen_error()
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/gcc/tree.h:3246
0x723140 translate_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84203
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||58689
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84202
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||58689
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #51 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The patch in comment 45 is not acceptable for all platforms.
I'll entertain a patch that only affects the broken platforms, but not
something that will end up being carried around forever and for platform
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84203
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84203
Bug ID: 84203
Summary: add -Wsuggest-attribute=returns_nonnull
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84202
Bug ID: 84202
Summary: missing -Wnonnull on a returns_nonnull function
returning null
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
Bug ID: 84201
Summary: 549.fotonik3d_r from SPEC2017 fails verification with
-mprefer-vector-width=256 or 512 on Zen
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #50 from Chris Johns ---
I raised an Apple bug report last December, the number is 36163995. Nothing
useful has happened. I will ping the bug and ask what is happening.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
Bug ID: 84200
Summary: r256888 causes 30% performance regression of 519.lbm_r
at -Ofast generic tuning on Zen
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84199
Bug ID: 84199
Summary: Error building gcc 7.3.0 on Odroid XU4 (ARM, Ubuntu):
cannot load liblto_plugin.so
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #32 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, run "make -k check" (add -jN to taste if you have multiple CPUs).
And then run contrib/test_summary. See if that is as expected (compare
it to previous powerpc-darwin results on gcc-testresults@;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #31 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #29)
> The patch has never been sent to gcc-patches. It also still never was
> properly tested. Can you do that?
Or you’re bout sending it to “gcc-patches” b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #30 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #29)
> The patch has never been sent to gcc-patches. It also still never was
> properly tested. Can you do that?
Like doing ‘make check’ after it completes 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The patch has never been sent to gcc-patches. It also still never was
properly tested. Can you do that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I suspect we could likely show a similar codesize and performance regression on
other targets. ppc & arm come to mind. aarch64 as well, but it wouldn't be a
regression there since it didn't exist when thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80865
Douglas Mencken changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dougmencken at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25892
--- Comment #10 from postmas...@welsh-buck-org.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient.
Bummer!
What to do next?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #28 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #27)
> Yes.
Wow, it compiles
So I suggest to push patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/txtnZhWiDkC4z.txt after checking
on other rs6000 system
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #27 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #26 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #25)
> Please test https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/txtnZhWiDkC4z.txt
Okay, and as I got it, it is supposed to apply upon fresh GCC with that “Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #25 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please test https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/txtnZhWiDkC4z.txt .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #24 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #23)
> GCC 7 was released more than nine months ago, and yet no one has noticed
> that it does not build at all on powerpc-darwin. We cannot do magic.
Well, y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||84149
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #22)
> as for https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg02040.html
> I think that optimizing epilogues is a good idea, but not of a cost of
> unbuildability
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #22 from Douglas Mencken ---
So yet I have fully workin’
$ /Developer/GCC/7.3patched/PowerPC/32bit/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/Developer/GCC/7.3patched/PowerPC/32bit/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/Developer/GCC/7.3pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Feb 4 17:15:36 2018
New Revision: 257367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/79966
* gfortran.dg/pr79966.f90: New testca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] run time |[6/7 Regression] run time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80899
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
The problem here is that after gimplification we make no distinction between
original pointer and pointer returned by placement new. If one can placement
new different type to object into arbitrary field of st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
--- Comment #5 from Bruno Haible ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4)
> You need to use -fexcess-precision=standard (or -msse2 -mfpmath=sse) for
> predictable results from double arithmetic on 32-bit x86. If you do that,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393
--- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Do we care though? Does this bug pose a big enough problem on non
MIPS16 that we would like addressed? Just curious
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM, law at redhat dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
One more tidbit here. I noted that we got "reasonably" close to having enough
state in the combiner to attack this in c#7. The problem is there's a REG
object that we really need to be a CONST_INT.
It tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
I'm having some trouble reproducing this bug. I'm a little rusty on cross
builds, so perhaps someone can lend a hand.
I have a set of combined sources which I'm using to build a toolchain like
this:
~/sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
--- Comment #7 from Chris Hall ---
And here's a funny thing...
... if I compile "-O3 -falign-functions -falign-loops=32" I get the alignment I
ask for.
... if I compile "-O3 -falign-functions -falign-loops=32 -fno-tree-vectorize"
I get the ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #10)
> This report is about the patch that will be submitted with multiarch names.
If you intend to send a patch, you can send it directly to
gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84198
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #10 from Javier Serrano Polo
---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #9)
> Not a bug. The appropriate time to raise such an issue is if in future
> there is otherwise consensus to have a major libc ABI break and move to
> libc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
You need to use -fexcess-precision=standard (or -msse2 -mfpmath=sse) for
predictable results from double arithmetic on 32-bit x86. If you do that,
do you still see such a problem? If not,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33234
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-stf=f* and passing |Confusing diagnostic when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84094
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sun Feb 4 13:44:52 2018
New Revision: 257364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257364&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-04 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/84094
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84166
Thanassis Tsiodras changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84115
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] ICE: tree|[8 Regression] Failure in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84115
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Feb 4 13:18:33 2018
New Revision: 257363
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257363&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-04 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/84115
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84094
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84198
Bug ID: 84198
Summary: Illegal program accepted, storing an anonymous
access-to-subprogram value
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #2 from Wilc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84197
Bug ID: 84197
Summary: Segmentation fault when setting -g
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #21 from Douglas Mencken ---
Created attachment 43334
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43334&action=edit
Reverting patch
I fully reverted that commit on top of gcc-7_3_0-release, and build succeeds
62 matches
Mail list logo
