https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87602
Bug 87602 depends on bug 83472, which changed state.
Bug 83472 Summary: Signed Integer Overflow - 38176028
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83472
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83472
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79111
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||security-tps at google dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83472
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 85660 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83472
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wcventure at 126 dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87602
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87822
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
The easiest would be to make __pair_base a template so it is different for
different pairs and doesn't affect the layout when nesting pairs. But that
won't help for existing releases, especially when 6-branch j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79696
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78829
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Alignment.html should discuss the
> relationship between GCC's __alignof__ and C11's _Alignof. Are they
> identical? Should _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41423
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68571
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58372
--- Comment #24 from Terry Guo ---
Created attachment 44934
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44934&action=edit
case to reproduce problem related to sanitize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58372
--- Comment #23 from Terry Guo ---
Hi Uroš:
With your fix, I identified two regressions so far: one is that we should run
the case you provided with c++ standard newer than c++11. The 'noexcept' was
introduced in c++14. Guess we need a directive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87823
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87823
Bug ID: 87823
Summary: strcpy() has bug ???
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87489
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Spurious -Wnonnull warning |[8/9 Regression] Spurious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87489
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Church ---
Would it be reasonable to have the FE warning trigger only on a literal null
value and not on variables whose values are known to be null? I don't know the
history behind -Wnonnull warning at two separate po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87822
Bug ID: 87822
Summary: [regression 6/7/8/9] Binary incompatibility in
std::pair introduced by PR 86751
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87821
Bug ID: 87821
Summary: pdp11 ICE on overaligned local variable: REG_POINTER
used with unexpected rtx code 'const_int' in
mark_reg_pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87820
Bug ID: 87820
Summary: Explicit user-defined casting inside a template class
working in implicit conversion inside function
template
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85896
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85896
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Oct 30 23:04:10 2018
New Revision: 265649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265649&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/85896
* simplify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, mte.zych at gmail dot com wrote:
> ../gcc-source/configure --build=x86_64-linux-gnu \
> --host=x86_64-linux-gnu \
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #10)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> > > Thanks, I'm just going to try building it now.
> >
> > didn't get muc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87041
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87041
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Oct 30 21:58:35 2018
New Revision: 265648
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265648&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/87041 - -Wformat reading through null pointer on unreachabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
--- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> > Thanks, I'm just going to try building it now.
>
> didn't get much further - kinda looks like something isn't working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87507
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why isn't this handled in subreg1 already? Sorry if that is obvious :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87795
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87507
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
So Vlad is hesitant (probably rightly :) on accepting my patch. Looking
closer, on BE, lower subreg2 is able to break the TImode accesses into 2 DImode
accesses which helps tremendously. On LE (power8), spl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
--- Comment #2 from Mateusz Zych ---
Hi Andrew ;)
Thanks for your reply.
You are right that, in order to create standalone GCC,
I need to provide C standard library,
because GCC can work with various C standard library implementations.
The GNU C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87795
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87708
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Oct 30 19:49:36 2018
New Revision: 265639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
xfail ira-shrink-wrap-prep tests (PR87708)
After r265398, the ira-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #8)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> >
> > hmm - isn't there a way to put it in the non-default category instead so
> > that someone trying to make it work do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87789
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |d
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44646
Bug 44646 depends on bug 83064, which changed state.
Bug 83064 Summary: DO CONCURRENT and auto-parallelization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83064
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83064
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87789
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87818
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I poking through /usr/include, I find
% find /usr/include -type f | xargs grep ___wchar_t
/usr/include/x86/_types.h:typedef int ___wchar_t;
/usr/include/stddef.h:typedef ___wcha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85896
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87819
Bug ID: 87819
Summary: failure during bootstrap, fails to build libdruntime
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87818
Bug ID: 87818
Summary: D runtime does not build on FreeBSD.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
--- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
>
> hmm - isn't there a way to put it in the non-default category instead so
> that someone trying to make it work doesn't need to hack configure?
>
> and then just n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> > > > Thanks, I'm just going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #5)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> > > Thanks, I'm just going to try building it now.
> >
> > didn't get much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87702
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE5459:
.size f22, .-f22
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.0 20181030 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$ gcc -O -mbmi2 f.c -S
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$ cat f.s
.file "f.c"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87702
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Mihail Zenkov from comment #7)
> http://www.knk.uwebweb.com/glibc-segfault-2.tar.xz
>
> I put full command line into exit.cmd and vfscanf.cmd.
Hm, it looks that for the first case __GI_exit gets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86626
--- Comment #4 from G. Steinmetz ---
Exploring variations of the last print statement in z1.f90,
where "fun" is the interface and "f" is the function/procedure :
z1: print *, len(g(['abc'], '_'//fun(['xyz']))) ! ICE
z2: print *, g(['abc']
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86626
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #3 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> > Thanks, I'm just going to try building it now.
>
> didn't get much further - kinda looks like something isn't working r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87489
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Andrew Church from comment #5)
> Simpler testcase (based on the testcase in bug 87041):
This is a case of the warning being issued by the front end well before dead
code elimination has had a cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> Thanks, I'm just going to try building it now.
didn't get much further - kinda looks like something isn't working right with
Version() such that the OSX/Darwin versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87330
--- Comment #10 from sameerad at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, it can be marked as fixed. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87788
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
Thanks, I'm just going to try building it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87816
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
I've received patches here for aarch64.
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/744
I'll push them in once tested.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87795
--- Comment #6 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #4)
> I added myself as a CC because I want to see if these become errors or
> warnings. For core parts of RTEMS, I can see wanting these to be errors
> sin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87816
Bug ID: 87816
Summary: D runtime fails to build on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86944
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87815
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87812
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87815
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87815
Bug ID: 87815
Summary: ICE in DSE with -march=armv8-a+sve while trying to
replace load with previously stored value
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87809
--- Comment #7 from Viktor Ostashevskyi ---
I confirm that fix works on real codebase with GCC9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87563
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87812
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Without AVX, v32qi should be passed the same way before AVX was
> added to compiler. For example,
>
> If there were AVX1024, GCC would pass y in vector register. When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87330
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87813
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The sprintf pass doesn't do any optimization at -O0 but it still runs to
diagnose the subset of mistakes that are detectable even without optimization.
For instance, the buffer overflow due to the off-by-one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86944
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87702
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87787
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2018-10-29 00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87647
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87812
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Without AVX, v32qi should be passed the same way before AVX was
added to compiler. For example,
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 tmp]$ cat z.c
typedef int __attribute__((mode(SI))) si;
typedef si __attribute__((vector_size (128)))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87542
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87148
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87814
Bug ID: 87814
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15962
with range-v3
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87541
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87430
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87246
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87809
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87809
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87148
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86293
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87072
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86944
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I cannot reproduce this on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86988
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86944
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86905
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87812
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86823
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86569
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85925
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
