https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #9)
> Does anyone have some time to do this backport for GCC 12?
I sofar refrained from doing this because of the large amount of fallout and
followup changes and I thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106841
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kenneth Hoste from comment #9)
> I seem to be running into the same problem using GCC 11.3 (when compiling
> OpenMM 7.7.0 with CUDA support). Is there a reason why the fix wasn't
> backported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107178
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy R. ---
The easy solution is to mention both the bitfield and "hey maybe you meant to
use a ;"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107178
Bug ID: 107178
Summary: Diagnosis for colon vs semi-colon in a member function
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86426
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 107177 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107167
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> You already filed this one.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 103550 ***
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is a reassociation,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107177
Bug ID: 107177
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected type_argument_pack or
nontype_argument_pack, have integer_type in
unify_pack_expansion, at cp/pt.cc:23912
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60014
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107094
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
I believe this is now fixed via
commit r13-3105-g5fc4d3e1837ea4850aac6460f563913f1d3fc5b8 for PR 107088
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105783
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100971
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just from a purely technical point, the following would allow to trigger the
proper check, as it allows to look into arrays, and regtests OK:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107176
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107170
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107176
Bug ID: 107176
Summary: Wrong code at -O0/-Os on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107170
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49b9a8c8cc498b1ed2f566bee858e651e14ba37b
commit r13-3139-g49b9a8c8cc498b1ed2f566bee858e651e14ba37b
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68942
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||physhivam at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107175
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107175
Bug ID: 107175
Summary: overloaded resolution has a bug incase of deleted
functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106000
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105887
Bug 105887 depends on bug 106000, which changed state.
Bug 106000 Summary: RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about memory accesses that
are definitely out-of-bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106000
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106625
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107158
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
I believe the above patch fixes the remaining ICEs on the attachment. Please
let me know if you find other ways to crash it.
Keeping this open to track the memory leak false +ves.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107158
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:629b4813e91aba0a8fc9b18434ec1808776a4b3d
commit r13-3138-g629b4813e91aba0a8fc9b18434ec1808776a4b3d
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107169
--- Comment #2 from Eugene Rozenfeld ---
When -gstatement-frontiers is on, the IR coming from the front end may be
different with and without debug information turned on. That may cause e.g.,
different discriminator values and -fcompare-debug fa
Hello,
This mailing list is for automated mail from Bugzilla. Emails sent
directly to this list are liable to be missed or just ignored.
Please report bugs to Bugzilla instead, see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
Patches should be sent to the gcc-patches mailing list, not gcc-bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107075
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried the following patch, which however regresses on a couple testcases:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
index d9d101775f6..cfc6fc055bd 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107171
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> /* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */
> might be better if it is just __int128 that is causing the issue.
Good point! Thanks Andrew.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that 554.roms_r from spec2017 also fails after this commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107171
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
--- Comment #2 from Andr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107115
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> We need a solution that works for combine too — is it possible to invent a
> representation for a no-op in-place MEM "move" that only changes its alias
> se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107171
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-06
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107174
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fsanitize=undefined catches this at runtime:
/app/example.cpp:10:28: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 20 -
-10 cannot be represented in type 'int'
/app/example.cpp:7:28: runtime erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107174
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107174
Bug ID: 107174
Summary: [ARM] Wrong opcodes *.f64.s32 (signed) in conversion
[unsigned ->double] with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107170
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code with "-O1|[13 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107075
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There is a check in expr.cc:2623 that is reached if one changes the
testcase to a subroutine, but not if it is a program:
4615 if (!attr.save && rvalue->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE
4616
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107173
Bug ID: 107173
Summary: ICE: unspellable token PRAGMA_EOL on
type_traits:1446:26
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
--with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.0 20221006 (experimental) [master r13-3101-g966010b2eb4] (GCC)
[597] %
[597] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[598] %
[598] % gcctk -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107140
--- Comment #3 from Kip Warner ---
If you click the Save button in Godbolt's CE, you can download a compressed
archive. I've attached it for you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107140
--- Comment #2 from Kip Warner ---
Created attachment 53673
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53673&action=edit
Minimal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107170
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 53672
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53672&action=edit
untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
Kees Cook changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qing.zhao at oracle dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106933
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107170
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107171
Bug ID: 107171
Summary: New test case gcc.target/powerpc/pr105586.c fails
after its introduction in r13-2525-gbec35caafae8db
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106933
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
JFTR, I've just got an ICE that I presume to be another manifestation of the
same issue. The current gcc trunk snapshots ICE the way reported in comment 0
on the following testcase w/ -msse4 -Os:
__int128
Source: gcc-12
Version: 12_12.2.0-5
Severity: important
Tags: patch
User: debian-h...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: hurd
Affects: gcc-11, gcc-snapshot
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-h...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
gcc-12-12.2.0-4/5 in sid FTBFS on hurd-i386 due to failing linkage of
pthread_once (same error for gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107170
Bug ID: 107170
Summary: ICE on valid code: in as_a, at value-range.h:381
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105660
--- Comment #9 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Romain Dolbeau from comment #8)
> Hello,
>
> I only posted the patch to the (web) bug report, I'm not sure if that
> automatically notify the ML or not...
No, you will need to submit the patch y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106841
Kenneth Hoste changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kenneth.hoste at ugent dot be
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105660
--- Comment #8 from Romain Dolbeau ---
Hello,
I only posted the patch to the (web) bug report, I'm not sure if that
automatically notify the ML or not...
Cordially,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105660
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107115
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Just optimizing out the redundant store seems difficult because on some targets
scheduling is invoked from reorg (and it relies on alias sets).
We need a solution that works for combine too — is it poss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107115
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If we don't want to treat such copies as noop moves, then either we need to
change rtx_equal_p such that it will say MEMs aren't equal if the the alias
sets are different, or should tweak in the same spirit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107115
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104433
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One of the compilation commands:
/home/seurer/gcc/git/install/gcc-test/bin/g++ -c -o auto_derivative_function.o
-DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -Iinclude -DBOOST_DISABLE_THREADS -Ddeal_II_dimension=3
-m64 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107158
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks; I can reproduce the ICE using the attachment. Looks like I reduced
the reproducer too much; sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107161
--- Comment #2 from Ivan Sorokin ---
> Do constexpr/consteval work in such circumstances?
Yes, constexpr works for variables like "p.a":
extern constexpr mytype p = {1, 2};
int foo()
{
constexpr int t = p.a + 10;
return t;
}
foo():
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87191
--- Comment #6 from creeon ---
#0 0x401191 in bar (/home/marxin/Programming/testcases/a.out+0x401191)
#1 0x40122a in main https://stemhave.com/programming-help.html
(/home/marxin/Programming/testcases/a.out+0x40122a)
#2 0x76c71fea in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87191
creeon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Dmitriy.Poterukha at uvoteam
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56826
creeon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Dmitriy.Poterukha at uvoteam
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107115
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
The bug in instruction scheduling remains (if it is really there).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107169
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107115
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0af8d957d5911fc7659b4174cfc2213289bbed23
commit r13-3131-g0af8d957d5911fc7659b4174cfc2213289bbed23
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56549
creeon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Dmitriy.Poterukha at uvoteam
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107169
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-06
Ever confirmed|0
n/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r13-3128-20221006123905-gdb2f5d66123-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20221006 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107168
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong errors for concepts |[11/12/13 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107162
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I suppose the better diagnostic would point out that
if (num > 20)
return num * num;
else
return num + num;
is unreachable?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107161
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
GCC relies on 'p' being in .rodata for the folding which of course cannot be
the case with a mutable member. Note the frontend clears the 'const' from the
declaration because of the mutable member and we h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] GDB |[12 Regression] GDB jumping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107153
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107148
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.0
Summary|[10/11/12/13 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107147
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107107
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85333b9265720fc4e49397301cb16324d2b89aa7
commit r13-3126-g85333b9265720fc4e49397301cb16324d2b89aa7
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107140
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107138
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|[12 regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107089
JohnDoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107127
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107120
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107117
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, we only avoid inexact constant foldings for -frounding-math, not with
-ftrapping-math (which guards FP exception state). See do_mpfr_ckconv.
So we could do better here if we want (but then if at runti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107115
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So possibly expand_assignment is eliding the store somewhere downthread
(it's operand_equal_p check shouldn't fire). It's
rtx
store_expr (tree exp, rtx target, int call_param_p,
bool nontempor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107114
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107107
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
The issue is how we value-number for tail-merging. We do
Processing block 1: BB4
Value numbering stmt = MEM[(long int *)_3] = 2;
RHS 2 simplified to 2
No store match
Value numbering store MEM[(long int *)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107099
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-06
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] wrong|[11/12/13 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107168
Bug ID: 107168
Summary: Wrong errors for concepts with default lambda not-type
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08b51baddc53d64aa4c5e7a81ef3c4bf320293be
commit r13-3106-g08b51baddc53d64aa4c5e7a81ef3c4bf320293be
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
100 matches
Mail list logo
