https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102326
Pengcheng Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51473|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102394
--- Comment #2 from Rimvydas (RJ) ---
Also with updated toolchain to glibc-2.34 (still not sure if this was not
happening before) noticed that very rarely one test in particular sometimes
fail during parallel check-gcc-fortran. Running explicitl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102394
--- Comment #1 from Rimvydas (RJ) ---
Created attachment 51475
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51475&action=edit
possible generalizations
=== gfortran Summary ===
-# of expected passes 60534
+# of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102394
Bug ID: 102394
Summary: Gfortran testsuite could avoid target specific tests
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87767
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7afcb534239014a713e1f234c8734644245e5c38
commit r12-3644-g7afcb534239014a713e1f234c8734644245e5c38
Author: liuhongt
Date: Sat Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102393
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
that is offset = 0; works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102393
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102393
Bug ID: 102393
Summary: Failure to optimize 2 8-bit stores into a single
16-bit store
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102391
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Failure to optimize 2 8-bit |Failure to optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Failure to optimize out |Failure to optimize a sign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102392
Bug ID: 102392
Summary: Failure to optimize out sign extension when input is
non-negative
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102391
Bug ID: 102391
Summary: Failure to optimize 2 8-bit loads into a single 16-bit
load
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102370
--- Comment #2 from Bill Long ---
I've sent a question back to the original submitter. On completion, the first
argument to MOVE_ALLOC is unallocated, so it does look suspicious to be
printing a component of an unallocated structure. I'll upda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102389
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh according to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355, we need
to require binutils 2.35 or newer to do this now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102389
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Still fails:
conftest.c:6:12: error: variable 'nm_test_var' redeclared as function
6 | extern int nm_test_var();
|^
conftest.c:4:6: note: previously declared here
4 |
| ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102370
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-17
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102390
Bug ID: 102390
Summary: IMPLICIT SAVE not properly implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51166eb2c534692c3c7779def24f83c8c3811b98
commit r12-3639-g51166eb2c534692c3c7779def24f83c8c3811b98
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102270
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1fa2c5a695bb962ffcf8abed49f69cdcc59d0e61
commit r12-3637-g1fa2c5a695bb962ffcf8abed49f69cdcc59d0e61
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102389
Bug ID: 102389
Summary: [12 Regression] --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto
bootstrap is broken due to r12-3491
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In decl.c:match_attr_spec we have:
5818 /* Since Fortran 2008 module variables implicitly have the SAVE
attribute. */
5819 if ((gfc_current_state () == COMP_MODULE
5820 || g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102388
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102388
Bug ID: 102388
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in duplicate, at ipa-prop.c:4436
since r12-2523-g13586172d0b70c9d
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That LGTM, except formatting - && shouldn't be at the end of line per coding
conventions, but on the start of next line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> The problem is gone if I revert r12-3129.
But then it regresses on pr98411. See for yourself compiling with -Wall.
Something like
diff -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100730
--- Comment #2 from Jan-Benedict Glaw ---
Confirmed that I see this as fixed in the logs. (And I need to put that build
host to the datacenter in Münster and announce it publically...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 102200, which changed state.
Bug 102200 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE on a min of a decl and pointer in a loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102200
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102200
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102200
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31e924c52f430d81f030a2fa9f60b73a5a0d2126
commit r12-3629-g31e924c52f430d81f030a2fa9f60b73a5a0d2126
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2578a3870ef849dc77e98796600181b64ae4fd61
commit r12-3623-g2578a3870ef849dc77e98796600181b64ae4fd61
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Fri S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akhilesh.k at samsung dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90721
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102347
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Quickly looking at the rs6000 code, it fails here:
#1 0x11a0993c in rs6000_invalid_builtin
(fncode=MMA_BUILTIN_DISASSEMBLE_ACC_INTERNAL) at
../../gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c:11643
#2 0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102243
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579678.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102242
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for taking care of this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102373
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-17 2:46 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Btw, it works with a cross from x86_64 to hppa64-hp-hpux11, but maybe I'm
> doing
> it wrong?
It's probably caused by a bug in the T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102387
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-17
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102387
Bug ID: 102387
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault since
r12-2429-g62acc72a957b5614
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102329
--- Comment #5 from Hugo van der Sanden ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> For functions like pthread_getspecific() and pthread_setspecific() that do
> not access the object GCC provides attribute access none to suppress the
> warn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102386
Bug ID: 102386
Summary: [12 regression] bogus -Wrestrict for unreachable
memcpy()
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102385
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE: in |[12 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102376
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102375
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102374
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-17
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102242
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |gerald at pfeifer dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
Bug 101145 depends on bug 102364, which changed state.
Bug 102364 Summary: [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on
x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-3136-g3673dcf6d6baeb67
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102364
What|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100740
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 102364 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Seems it changed with r12-3129-gf95946afd160e2a1f4beac4ee5e6d5633307f39a
The problem is gone if I revert r12-3129.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78903
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
The problem is an ordering problem.
Namely:
* toplev.c calls:
lang_hooks.init_options (save_decoded_options_count, save_decoded_options);
which in turn is:
gfc_init_options (
{
...
SET_OPTION
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102382
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102382
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Not to mention, for calloc like the above
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102347
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Right for aarch64, most people won't use +simd/+nosimd combo (though it might
show up inside the kernel) but they might use +sve/+nosve ...
So the aarch64 bug should be fixed ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102382
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not to mention, for calloc like the above where size is non-constant, it
wouldn't know how many there are (it would need some magic for all).
Anyway, even constant number of 0s at the end of string > 1 would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78584
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102347
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
I found i386 port seems doesn't have this issue.
#include
#include
typedef union
{
__m128 x;
float a[4];
} union128;
#pragma GCC target("sse")
int main() {
union128 u;
__m128 a = _mm_set_ps (24.43,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78333
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just for future reference if anyone goes digging, this also fixes the use case
of -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 and printf inside
__cyg_profile_func_enter/__cyg_profile_func_exit .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78333
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel at totalueberwachung
dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||6.2.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #23 from pnewell0705 at gmail dot com ---
To Andrew Pinski:
Thank you for the additional post about the fix
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101941
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, this one seems to have regressed with
r12-2591-g2e96b5f14e4025691b57d2301d71aa6092ed44bc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101941
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31035
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102382
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> There's a missed optimization w/o vectorization, strlenopt seems to remove
> the p[0] = '\0' store but not the stores to elements 1 to 3.
strlen pass doesn't h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102306
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
306
* combine.c (try_combine): Abort the combination if we are about to
duplicate volatile references.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/sparc/20210917-1.c: New test.
ion/102306
* combine.c (try_combine): Abort the combination if we are about to
duplicate volatile references.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/sparc/20210917-1.c: New test.
ion/102306
* combine.c (try_combine): Abort the combination if we are about to
duplicate volatile references.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/sparc/20210917-1.c: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101900
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16cca1806d2ac6f03cdc8942edd8762dab1851c4
commit r12-3614-g16cca1806d2ac6f03cdc8942edd8762dab1851c4
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed Sep 1
306
* combine.c (try_combine): Abort the combination if we are about to
duplicate volatile references.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/sparc/20210917-1.c: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102383
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102326
Pengcheng Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51459|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #21 from pnewell0705 at gmail dot com ---
Andrew Pinski:
Thank you for the reply so I understand what happened
Best,
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to pnewell0705 from comment #19)
> To "Pinskia" and/or whoever:
>
> The last entry on this issue was in 2011. Tonight, in 2021, I have just
> gotten 5 emails that imply "something is happening". I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102384
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
The issue also exists for -O3.
__attribute__((noinline))
void foo4 (int * a)
{
int * _20;
[local count: 10737416]:
_20 = a_10(D) + 12;
__builtin_memset (_20, 255, 400);
__builtin_memset (a_10(D),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #19 from pnewell0705 at gmail dot com ---
To "Pinskia" and/or whoever:
The last entry on this issue was in 2011. Tonight, in 2021, I have just gotten
5 emails that imply "something is happening". I open the bugzilla and there are
no n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102382
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
The issue also exists for -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102383
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
The issue also exists for -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
pnewell0705 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pnewell0705 at gmail dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102361
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to DAC324 from comment #13)
> Sorry for duplicate reporting. For me, the error message
> Please apologize for the inconvenience.
It is ok, it is good that you filed the bug. I have been doing a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102385
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48730
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-17
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102361
--- Comment #13 from DAC324 ---
Sorry for duplicate reporting. For me, the error message
'__write_overflow' declared with attribute error: detected write beyond size of
object passed as 1st parameter
and its counterpart
'__read_overflow2' d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102385
Bug ID: 102385
Summary: ICE: in single_pred_edge, at basic-block.h:350 under
"-O2 -fno-toplevel-reorder -fno-tree-ch -fno-tree-dce
-fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-dse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38679
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
