https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Oh you mean fcmla.
> Never mind.
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> it is easier to understand what is going wrong with:
> #include
>
> void
> foo (_C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #5 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-28
Summary|[12 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note st2 does the opposite of ld2 while doing the storing of the vector.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102979
Bug ID: 102979
Summary: GCC gives wrong error for struct definitions without
semicolon, despite G++ doing so
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102978
Bug ID: 102978
Summary: Function/Struct declaration with absent semicolon that
is put before including standard header results in
wall of errors with no indication of the actual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f9ef1339e9d0d709af6a70b60e584bf7decd761
commit r12-4758-g5f9ef1339e9d0d709af6a70b60e584bf7decd761
Author: Xionghu Luo
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9222481ffc69a6c0b73ec81e1bf04289fa3db0ed
commit r12-4757-g9222481ffc69a6c0b73ec81e1bf04289fa3db0ed
Author: Xionghu Luo
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66928
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||40883
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79093
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80760
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||40883
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90041
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, easyhack
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90160
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90182
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90164
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90179
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93852
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93854
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||40883
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93855
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94698
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Bug 40883 depends on bug 93759, which changed state.
Bug 93759 Summary: Invalid % in param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93759
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93759
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90183
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79183
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||40883
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90148
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||trivial_translation_nits
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58798
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102946
--- Comment #6 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Hi Rainer and Richard,
Thanks for working on this PR.
The intention of these test cases (pr101145*) is to test if the number
of iterations can be calculated for the loop with the 'until wrap'
condition.
So,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #8)
> Actually, there is a (possibly pre-existing) diagnostics issue:
>
> $ cat proto.c
> static void __attribute__((cf_check)) foo(void);
> static void __attribute__((unu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51672|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102976
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Bug ID: 102977
Summary: [GCC12 regression] vectorizer failed to generate
complex fma.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102944
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91497
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102976
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102976
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chip.kerchner at ibm dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102976
Bug ID: 102976
Summary: MMA test case emits wrong code when building a vector
pair
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Cooper ---
Actually, there is a (possibly pre-existing) diagnostics issue:
$ cat proto.c
static void __attribute__((cf_check)) foo(void);
static void __attribute__((unused)) foo(void)
{
}
void (*ptr)(void) = foo;
$ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51684|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Cooper ---
Yes to both.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96441
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
mp .LIND0
.LIND1:
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
mov %rax, (%rsp)
ret
int3 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Is this needed?
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1:
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.0 20211027 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-tgl-2 pr102952]$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #4)
> > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > > There might be another bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #15)
> So this is the irritating corner case where the two options are linked.
>
> *If* we are using -mindirect-branch-cs-prefix, then we intend to rewrite
> `jmp __x86_in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Cooper ---
So this is the irritating corner case where the two options are linked.
*If* we are using -mindirect-branch-cs-prefix, then we intend to rewrite `jmp
__x86_indirect_thunk_*` to `jmp *%reg` or `lfence; jmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to peterz from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > (In reply to peterz from comment #9)
> > > Created attachment 51683 [details]
> > > kernel patch to test -mharden-sls=all
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #13 from peterz at infradead dot org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> (In reply to peterz from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 51683 [details]
> > kernel patch to test -mharden-sls=all
> >
> > $ make O=defconfig CC=gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102975
Bug ID: 102975
Summary: Local alias diagnosed as unused when used in failing
constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102969
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to peterz from comment #9)
> Created attachment 51683 [details]
> kernel patch to test -mharden-sls=all
>
> $ make O=defconfig CC=gcc-12.0.0 arch/x86/entry/common.o
> ...
> arch/x86/entry/common.o: war
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51679|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102966
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #4)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > There might be another bug about _addcarryx_u64 already.
> >
> > This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > There might be another bug about _addcarryx_u64 already.
>
> This is 32 bit addcarry.
but yeah. GCC does not perform opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> There might be another bug about _addcarryx_u64 already.
This is 32 bit addcarry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102960
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
#include
#include
struct ul32x2
{
std::uint_least32_t low,high;
};
inline constexpr std::uint_least32_t umul_least_32(std::uint_least32_t
a,std::uint_least32_t b,std::uint_least32_t& high) noexcept
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974
Bug ID: 102974
Summary: GCC optimization is very poor for add carry and
multiplication combos
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102971
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
#include
std::uint64_t umul_naive(std::uint64_t a,std::uint64_t b,std::uint64_t& high)
noexcept
{
std::uint32_t a0(static_cast(a));
std::uint32_t a1(static_cast(a>>32));
std::uint32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102969
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102970
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The gimple level looks correct:
[local count: 8209314308]:
# __cur_2 = PHI <__cur_149(5), _141(3)>
# __first_156 = PHI <__first_148(5), &D.24777(3)>
# prephitmp_155 = PHI
# prephitmp_153 = PHI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58798
Olaf van der Spek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olafvdspek at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102970
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102973
Bug ID: 102973
Summary: possible inconsistency in procptr_assignment handling
when matching ASSOCIATE
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102970
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|stable_sort uninitialized |[11/12 Regression]
|v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102972
Bug ID: 102972
Summary: [OpenMP] Strictly-nested diagnostic missing
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102971
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
Here is clang
https://godbolt.org/z/7YjW1Ezrx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102971
Bug ID: 102971
Summary: GCC cannot understand >>32 pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99250
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #10 from peterz at infradead dot org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> Created attachment 51679 [details]
> A patch to add -mindirect-branch-cs-prefix
>
> It adds CS prefix to call and jmp to thunk when converting indirect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #9 from peterz at infradead dot org ---
Created attachment 51683
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51683&action=edit
kernel patch to test -mharden-sls=all
$ make O=defconfig CC=gcc-12.0.0 arch/x86/entry/common.o
..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner ---
Namely this:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
index 1c8b1ebb86e..0d9a3ba67ce 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #17 from Peter Bergner ---
Here's a compile time only test case that correctly FAILs using the unpatched
compiler and passes using the patched compiler (requires a small change to
target-supports.exp to add the rop_ok test):
/* { dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to peterz from comment #7)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 51678 [details]
> > A patch to add -mharden-sls=
> >
> > x86: Add -mharden-sls=[none|all|return|indirect-branch]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
peterz at infradead dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peterz at infradead dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102968
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-27
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102761
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> Not a regression, so let's not backport this too far.
>
> Fixed for gcc-11.3+.
Actually, gcc-10.4+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102917
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102761
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9644864791547f8ecca23f23a8c6a64cfa79905c
commit r10-10239-g9644864791547f8ecca23f23a8c6a64cfa79905c
Author: Uros Bizjak
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102761
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102917
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5782bacacada41c0240f5aceb42dcdf78e7042da
commit r11-9191-g5782bacacada41c0240f5aceb42dcdf78e7042da
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102968
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Oh wait it's been pushed to trunk now:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582716.html
So, is that good, or should we leave open for backports?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102966
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-27
Known to wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Cooper ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> The warning is intended: it points out that the second operand of the
> conditional expression is necessarily true:
>
> if ( !(pa ? &pa->c : NULL) )
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69419
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=102970
Bug ID: 102970
Summary: stable_sort uninitialized value with -funroll-loops
-fno-tree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102966
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Cooper ---
Thankyou. I've tried these two patches and they do appear to be behaving as
intended.
I've put together a slightly extended version of the original test. Compile
with gcc -Wall -fno-pic -Os -fcf-protectio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102969
Bug ID: 102969
Summary: [12 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C
fails after r12-4726
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102968
Bug ID: 102968
Summary: macOS Monterey not yet supported in configure
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
