https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
Bug ID: 85965
Summary: G++ gives cryptic error instead of incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
Bug ID: 85964
Summary: [8/9 Regression] Compile time hog w/ -O3 -ftracer
-fno-guess-branch-probability
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82728
Michael Cortez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcortez at airpost dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85963
Bug ID: 85963
Summary: false positive "set but not used" warning
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joshudson at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85962
--- Comment #1 from Joshua ---
(first three lines is because you don't want bug reports with external header
files--3 lines is a lot better than all of stdint.h and limits.h)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85962
Bug ID: 85962
Summary: spurious warning on right shift constant > integer in
trivially dead code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Try -std=c99 or -fexcess-precision=standard which will get you the behavior
> you want.
This is not what is documented: "By default, -fexcess-precision=fast is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #206 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 85957 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon May 28 21:55:31 2018
New Revision: 260851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-28 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/85840
* i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960
Bug ID: 85960
Summary: -fipa-pta and ifunc are incompatible
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini ---
Should this show up as a P1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try -std=c99 or -fexcess-precision=standard which will get you the behavior you
want.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85961
Bug ID: 85961
Summary: scratch register rsi used after function call
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82721
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> (In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #0)
> > This snippet (clearly invalid) gives a second error message
> > with randomly corrupted text :
> >
> >
> > $ ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85959
Bug ID: 85959
Summary: g++ doesn't show second error
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958
Bug ID: 85958
Summary: Make const qualifier error clear
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
Luke Shumaker changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85950
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lukeshu at lukeshu dot com
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58993
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||achuah at drwsg dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85943
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85951
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
Bug ID: 85957
Summary: i686: Integers appear to be different, but compare as
equal
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85942
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Paul, from my side absolutely no urgency. Just stumbled over this example on
c.l.f. and wanted to play a bit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85952
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Bug ID: 85956
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at
tree.c:1549
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85954
Bug ID: 85954
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at
tree-ssanames.c:266
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85955
Bug ID: 85955
Summary: ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2408
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85953
Bug ID: 85953
Summary: [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at
fold-const.c:2370
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85953
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Just for completeness, this variant works :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
character(:), allocatable :: x(:)
x = [character :: 'a', 'b']
x = [character :: x, 'c']
print *, x
end
$ gfortran-9-20180527
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85954
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Assigned directly :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
character(:), allocatable :: z(:)
call s(z)
contains
subroutine s(x)
character(:), allocatable :: x(:)
x = ['abc']
print *, allocated(x)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85952
Bug ID: 85952
Summary: Bogus -Wunused-but-set-variable warning with array
structured binding
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944
--- Comment #2 from David Stone ---
I have simplified the bug. It does not require a member variable to trigger the
bug, just taking the address of a a temporary bound to a reference function
parameter at global scope:
constexpr bool f(int con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63570
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
--- Comment #23 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #22)
> Assigning this to me in the hope that I'll get to it in gcc 9 stage 1.
It's gcc 9 stage 1 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85939
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85939
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 44197
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44197&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50909
--- Comment #14 from Rudolf ---
Even if the compiler would just use the workaround with pragma-pack() when he
encounters this specific pragma would be fine. (If there is a warning for
that!)
Some Infomrations:
http://www.msg.ucsf.edu/local/progr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85929
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> So somehow we need to enhance the code in VRP that registers additional
> asserts to also handle symbolic ranges and thus register not only
> i_4 < count_8 but als
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85942
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85906
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jan Niklas Hasse from comment #8)
> Thanks! If I understand it correctly this will go into 8.1.2?
Per usual sequence, the next release of the 8 branch will be 8.2. However, some
linux distributi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85951
Bug ID: 85951
Summary: make_signed and make_unsigned are incorrect for
wchar_t, char16_t, and char32_t
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60892
John Simon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at mailinator dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85945
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the problem is that validate_subreg etc. has a restriction like:
/* Subregs involving floating point modes are not allowed to
change size. Therefore (subreg:DI (reg:DF) 0) is fine, but
(s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85950
--- Comment #2 from Allan Jensen ---
Created attachment 44196
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44196&action=edit
Example
To trigger need both a rounding conversion and a conversion to integer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85950
--- Comment #1 from Allan Jensen ---
Sorry forget the example above. I will attached the real code that triggers it.
Note it does not trigger with -fno-signed-zeros, -fno-trapping-math,
-fassociative-math and -freciprocal-math, so it is somethin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85950
Bug ID: 85950
Summary: Unsafe-math-optimizations regresses optimization using
SSE4.1 roundss
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85345
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 85345, which changed state.
Bug 85345 Summary: Missing ENDBR in IFUNC resolver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85345
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85345
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon May 28 13:44:18 2018
New Revision: 260849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260849&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't mark IFUNC resolver as only called directly
Since IFUNC reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85900
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon May 28 13:44:18 2018
New Revision: 260849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260849&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't mark IFUNC resolver as only called directly
Since IFUNC reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85759
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Stefan Talpalaru from comment #16)
> I found a new case that is unrelated to the use of
> -fprofile-generate=directory or the existence of multiple *.gcda files with
> the same name in different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85759
Stefan Talpalaru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefantalpalaru at yahoo dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini ---
Not sure about the first decl_needed_p call in emit_tinfo_decl.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini ---
I meant of course DECL_NOT_REALLY_EXTERN is true.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85945
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Is missing :)
Here it is:
typedef float b;
typedef b __attribute__((vector_size(16))) c;
typedef union {
c d;
b a[4];
} e;
int f;
b g[4];
void h() {
c d;
e i;
i.d = d;
f = 0;
for (; f < 4; f++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
The code is intended to avoid specializations that are done only to possibly
inline the function. When not optimizing this only happens for always inlines
and doing so is just waste of effort.
In this case you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
It seems that for the potentially interesting cases DECL_EXTERNAL is true but
DECL_REALLY_EXTERN is false.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
I see. Then I guess we need an explicit rationale for doing that, beyond the
evidence that we aren't ICEing: the check first blush looks sensible. At least
that was the case back in 2014, when Jason quickly a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
Bug ID: 85949
Summary: __attribute__ ((format (printf,1,1))); improve error
messages
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85948
Bug ID: 85948
Summary: printf format attribute warning line carat inaccurate
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Yes, I would just remove the entire block.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Looking into it: just matter of using DECL_ATTRIBUTES (decl)?
The code is unreachable since the compiler would stop if it was reached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85933
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85933
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 28 10:31:46 2018
New Revision: 260848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260848&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/85933
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85934
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 28 10:28:38 2018
New Revision: 260847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/85934
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85946
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
There is nothing wrong with the insn mnemonic, it converts SImode value from
memory to SFmode float register. This insn is different from vcvtusi2ssq.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85906
--- Comment #8 from Jan Niklas Hasse ---
Thanks! If I understand it correctly this will go into 8.1.2?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85535
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85947
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85947
Bug ID: 85947
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-div-1.c XPASSes
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85946
Bug ID: 85946
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.target/i386/avx512vl-vcvtudq2ps-2.c
FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85946
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85929
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> That is,
> for > UINT_MAX # of elements the code will infintely loop AFAICS (but it will
> not access elements out of bounds).
The way I read the original sour
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85924
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85923
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85942
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85935
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85933
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85922
--- Comment #4 from John Simon ---
> No, it uses a correct instruction, but you have too old assembler that can't
> handle it.
I think in this case the "correct" thing to do would be a check of assembler
during configure and either:
1) only gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
98 matches
Mail list logo
