https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92184
Bug ID: 92184
Summary: [ASAN] errors in bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68781
Mitsuru Kariya changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92053
Kamlesh Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kamleshbhalui at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 49574, which changed state.
Bug 49574 Summary: Give a warning for insane overloading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49574
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49574
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92183
Bug ID: 92183
Summary: gcc tries to create a relocation in a mergeable
section
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92172
--- Comment #2 from Seth LaForge ---
Good point on frame pointers vs a frame chain for unwinding. I'm looking for
the unwindable frame chain.
Wilco:
> Why does this matter? Well as your examples show, if you want to emit a frame
> chain using st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:22:42PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:30:14PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
> apl.washington.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:30:14PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> Cutting the -ftree-dump-original down to the 'call' statement
> gives
>
> MAIN__ ()
> {
> {
> integer(kin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91548
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks.
Reduced (no templates, no lambda):
constexpr int& impl(const int (&array)[10], int index) {
return const_cast(array[index]);
}
struct A {
constexpr int& operator[](int i) { return impl(elems, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Forget comment#8 and comment#9. The standard declares the default kind
of LEN_TRIM to be that of default integer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:03:42PM +, vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
>
> --- Comment #4 from Vladimir Fuka ---
> It would be really strange if e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Fuka ---
It would be really strange if even expressions like below were not possible.
implicit none
integer, allocatable :: a(:)
allocate(a, source=[1])
call assign(a, (min(a(1)**2,0)))
print *, alloca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following may be necessary in addition to the patch in comment#8:
Index: gcc/fortran/simplify.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/simplify.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 07:32:59PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> The effect of the intent(out) in assign is to deallocate the code on entry to
> assign. This is done with the if-block. The side-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91826
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92182
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92182
Bug ID: 92182
Summary: No way to silence ''A::TKind' is too small to hold all
values of 'enum Kind''
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
--- Comment #11 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Ugh!
What to do next?
Well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
--- Comment #12 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Created attachment 47087
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47087&action=edit
attachment-60399-1.eml
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 92174, which changed state.
Bug 92174 Summary: runtime error: index 15 out of bounds for type 'gfc_expr
*[15]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Oct 22 18:38:30 2019
New Revision: 277298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-22 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/92174
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91548
--- Comment #6 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
To make the test only complain about the current issue, change line 20 in
include/seqan3/std/span to
```
#if 0
```
Regards,
Hannes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Oct 22 18:18:59 2019
New Revision: 277297
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277297&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-22 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/92174
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91548
--- Comment #5 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hannes Hauswedell from comment #2)
> > Any news on this issue? We are using this pattern in some rather central
> > files in our library and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86248
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Bill,
If you look at pr44265, I took over the patch from Ian Sandoe and
fixed one or two of the wrinkles associated with it. I do not seem to
have given it as much thought as I shou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92106
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92106
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Oct 22 17:46:12 2019
New Revision: 277296
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277296&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91548
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Hannes Hauswedell from comment #2)
> Any news on this issue? We are using this pattern in some rather central
> files in our library and the bug literally breaks 90% of our unit tests so
> we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92180
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
For x86 it may be because targetm.class_likely_spilled_p is true for ax, and
then indeed cant_combine_insn_p is true. See r53531, the mail thread for that
patch starts at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92180
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is cant_combine_insn_p that returns true on insn 14
(insn 5 2 6 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 84)
(unspec_volatile:DI [
(const_int 0 [0])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92180
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Combine *does* combine setters of hard registers.
nonzero_bits is not reliable, it depends on the order things are tried in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92181
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91979
--- Comment #4 from Kamlesh Kumar ---
patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01585.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92181
Robrecht Dewaele changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://godbolt.org/z/baRg-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92159
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92181
Bug ID: 92181
Summary: initializer_list & string_view result in "modification
of '' is not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 02:56:01PM +, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> > Problem is that the compiler invoke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92180
Bug ID: 92180
Summary: Missed optimization on casting __builtin_ia32_rdtsc
result to int32
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92159
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
My apologies, I tested with the correct test case and it already does not
compile in C++ as desired, so no -Wenum-conversion required.
#include
typedef enum {brandon, jon, mitch} name_t;
typedef enum {fred,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Oct 22 15:46:47 2019
New Revision: 277295
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277295&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92062 - ODR-use ignored for static member of class templ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92158
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
Hello
Implicit conversion can introduce bugs. I would like to detect implicit enum
conversions to other types in C and C++. How about just adding the C++ warnings
first to match clang in example below?
The fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91891
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bindels ---
For posterity,
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
template
std::future make_ready_future(T t);
struct y
{
intv;
std::function v2 = [this]() { v; };
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92179
Bug ID: 92179
Summary: [10 regression] r277288 causes ICEs compiling several
test cases
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92106
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Oct 22 15:21:34 2019
New Revision: 277294
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277294&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Fuka ---
It also crashes with passing just a(1) instead of (a(1)) and when removing the
value attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
Bug ID: 92178
Summary: Segmentation fault after passing allocatable array as
intent(out) and its element as value into the same
subroutine
Product: gcc
Version: 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91971
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > Confirmed. Can you please send the patch to mailing list?
>
> I have sent the patch to gcc-patches several weeks ago, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91971
--- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Confirmed. Can you please send the patch to mailing list?
I have sent the patch to gcc-patches several weeks ago, and pinged twice
already:
https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> Problem is that the compiler invokes an undefined behaviour for the source
file.
More precisely, it's an out of bounds array access.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #3)
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 02:14:55PM +, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 22 14:52:52 2019
New Revision: 277293
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277293&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85887
* decl.c (expand_static_init):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is no cutoff for 9.x (well, in about 2 years from now the branch will be
closed), but the branch is used by people in the wild, so especially for
regressions from recent releases the sooner it is fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90476
--- Comment #9 from Jonny Grant ---
Maybe it could say
warning: line number out of range 1 - 2147483647
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Tue Oct 22 14:42:38 2019
New Revision: 277292
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277292&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85746: Don't fold __builtin_constant_p prematurely
2019-10-22 Marc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90476
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92154
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Tue Oct 22 14:25:38 2019
New Revision: 277291
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277291&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Arm: Fix arm libsanitizer bootstrap failure
Glibc has recently intr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 02:14:55PM +, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
I plan to submit a patch for GCC 10 and (hopefully) also GCC 9.x. What's the
cutoff for 9?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #0)
> > Happens with UBSAN build in:
> >
> > $ ./xgcc -B.
> > /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr91802.f90
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92174
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92109
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92166
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92173
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 22 13:08:53 2019
New Revision: 277288
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277288&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92173
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91826
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90415
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91969
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91100
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91891
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91816
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Bug ID: 92177
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-22.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91623
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90476
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Grant ---
Could someone confirm this please.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91241
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] GCC: O2 |[8/9 Regression] GCC: O2 vs
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
