https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94163
Bug ID: 94163
Summary: internal compiler error: in set_ptr_info_alignment, at
tree-ssanames.c:671
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94026
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think part of this optimization should be done on the tree level.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90119
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94026
--- Comment #2 from Fei Yang ---
The test case is reduced from spec2017 benchmark.
int FastBoard::count_pliberties(const int i) {
return count_neighbours(EMPTY, i);
}
// count neighbours of color c at vertex v
int FastBoard::count_neighbour
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94162
Bug ID: 94162
Summary: ICE [neg] bad return type in defaulted <=>
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94161
Bug ID: 94161
Summary: Implement DR 228: Use of template keyword with
non-member templates
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94161
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94057
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(We accept it when the template keyword is added: "typename A::template
B".)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Jakub, thank you for the analysis. I've been working on this PR too. I hope
the patch will be ready on Friday or at the beginning of the next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92010
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5)
> The ICE seems to be revealing a latent issue: In the following example
> (which GCC accepts), according to the static_assert labelled (1), the type
> of t is con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92010
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
The ICE seems to be revealing a latent issue: In the following example (which
GCC accepts), according to the static_assert labelled (1), the type of t is
const int*, but according to the static_assert labell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94160
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-12
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94160
Bug ID: 94160
Summary: std::pmr::pool_options::max_blocks_per_chunk=1 causes
pool resources to return null pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94158
--- Comment #7 from Parker Thompson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> GCC assumes pointers returned by malloc are at least MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT
> bytes aligned. That is because:
> "The pointer returned if the allocation succeeds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94158
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC assumes pointers returned by malloc are at least MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT bytes
aligned. That is because:
"The pointer returned if the allocation succeeds is suitably aligned so that it
may be assigned to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94158
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Parker Thompson from comment #3)
> > As for alloc alignment, glibc strdup() does not use aligned_alloc, just
> > malloc. Which by my read of the spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94158
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94159
Bug ID: 94159
Summary: parse error on a declaration of a dependent class
using a class-key instead of typename
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE: in |[8/9 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92071
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #14 from Eric Bot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94158
--- Comment #3 from Parker Thompson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Also aligned_alloc normally does not allow alignment of 1.
>
> So GCC is doing the correct thing.
The replacement of strdup here is just to illustrate the iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94158
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94158
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
A pointer returned from strdup has to be valid to be able pass to free.
Your testcase makes that invalid.
rap --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.1 20200312 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
rs6000: Fix -mpower9-vector -mno-altivec ICE (PR87560)
PR87560 reports an ICE when a test case is compiled with -mpower9-vector
and -mno-altivec. This patch terminates compilation with an error when
this co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #28 from cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at gnu dot org ---
email to gcc DASH bugzilla AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
--- Comment #27 from cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at gnu dot org ---
This time with no directory mods.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69778
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #21 from cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at gnu dot org ---
Test with directory permissions set.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #20 from cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at gnu dot org ---
YA test via email.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78286
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michele.caini at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89636
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> I've got a patch candidate, will send it to GCC patches mailing list.
Sorry for the breakage, and thanks for taking a look!
Regards,
Prathames
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64924
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate, will send it to GCC patches mailing list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
commit r9-8369-g7ef07b622d8c2fca35813bf50669dcd663fe5cf2
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Thu Mar 12 17:39:05 2020 +
libstdc++: Handle type-changing path concatenations (PR 94063)
The filesystem:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
commit r8-10119-g3d46f4875c6c50e8095294b6b700d6678a7e2f1e
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Date: Fri Mar 6 10:04:51 2020 +
arm: correct constraints on movsi_compare0 [PR91913]
The peephole that detec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
commit r9-8364-g08f00a213f8a1b99bbf3ad3c337dea249a288cf1
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Date: Fri Mar 6 10:04:51 2020 +
arm: correct constraints on movsi_compare0 [PR91913]
The peephole that detect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64259
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Version|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 Regression] error: |[10 Regression] error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93566
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
void
foo (int *x)
{
int c[10] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
int bar (int i) { return c[i]; }
#pragma omp parallel for reduction(+:x[:10])
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
x[i] = bar (i);
}
ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
Bug ID: 94157
Summary: [10 Regression] error: lto-wrapper failed with
-Wa,--noexecstack -Wa,--noexecstack
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53102
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54164
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94156
--- Comment #1 from Michał Urbański ---
This discussion looks related:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2003-09/msg00984.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94057
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
The root cause isn't the C++20 feature it seems. The following version with
explicit 'typename' is rejected, but compiles fine with clang/icc:
template class A {
template class B {
B(typename A::B&)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94057
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Not relate to parameter packs. Also happens with normal member functions:
template class A {
template class B {
B(A::B&);
void fn(A::B &);
};
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94135
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Both subfic and neg are 1-2 if run on the integer units. neg can run on
more units, but it is always 2 cycles then! (And the conditions where you
*can* have 1 cycle are not very often satisfied, anyway
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Last reconfirmed|2010-09-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-06-19 00:00:00 |2020-3-12
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79163
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 79163, which changed state.
Bug 79163 Summary: Access-checking not done in template argument list of
partial specialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79163
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 66475, which changed state.
Bug 66475 Summary: Access checking in templates circumvented with 'using'
(C++11)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66475
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The resolved address can only change before the first call to it, so we
could even automatically insert code checking that, perhaps.
My other concern is not slowing down the code if LD_BIND_NOW is in u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92010
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94129
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
@Richi: Can you please enable zstd for our nvptx cross compiler:
$ x86_64-suse-linux-accel-nvptx-none-gcc-10 -v
...
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
We'll need to add
BuildRequires: libzstd-devel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94156
Bug ID: 94156
Summary: Multiple definition of destructor and non-virtual
thunk for classes that use multiple inheritance when
building static library
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it doesn't show up for gcc-9 because there are also std::tuple changes
on master that make the bug show up.
And I think what's happening is another instance of PR 41437. When
std::optional is inst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a fix for master, I'm just trying to figure out why we aren't seeing
this on the gcc-9 branch too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #9 from Avi Kivity ---
Thanks. I'll test 9.3 as soon as it hits koji.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
5c7938eb3f1a116b1cf9a28090f2cc5e08814ce4 is a different change to
58487c21b6a47c3fff6c6958684de866216a5593
The gcc-9 commit that corresponds to 58487c21b6a47c3fff6c6958684de866216a5593
is d9940358fa463060
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94155
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93805
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Reduced test case:
$ cat 93805.C
struct B
{
B() {}
};
struct C
{
B b = B();
};
C c;
$ g++ -Wnoexcept 93805.C
93805.C:11:3: warning: noexcept-expression evaluates to ‘false’ because of a
call to ‘B::B()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94153
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Slava Barinov from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Well, it's ICE on invalid code which is very common case.
> Hm. So no need to report them?
Well, we have a bazilli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #7 from Avi Kivity ---
That commit is in gcc 9.3, so I'm guessing 9.3 is affected too.
5c7938eb3f1a116b1cf9a28090f2cc5e08814ce4 tags/releases/gcc-9.3.0~221
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > OTOH CSEing the load from the PLT once it is resolved _would_ be an
> > optimization.
>
> Possibly. Sometimes mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94148
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94155
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
--- Comment #1 from Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
1 - 100 of 328 matches
Mail list logo
