https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104756
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107808
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107808
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e304e9283a97e28dc0074d8d30715d3f626b4e87
commit r13-5321-ge304e9283a97e28dc0074d8d30715d3f626b4e87
Author: Rainer Orth
Date: Tue J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104756
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Rainer Orth :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b8f4c85051501e9c804df2de1a08f11aa187e9d
commit r13-5320-g7b8f4c85051501e9c804df2de1a08f11aa187e9d
Author: Rainer Orth
Date: Tue J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108509
Bug ID: 108509
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in add, at hash-set.h:64
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107048
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-December/608723.html and so
on. kees mentioned this is currently in review and a new version is being spun
up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107731
chenglulu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107731
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by LuluCheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5ea0f071aca505c82cc8c062e57bf9892900277
commit r13-5319-gb5ea0f071aca505c82cc8c062e57bf9892900277
Author: Lulu Cheng
Date: Wed Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108508
Bug ID: 108508
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in insert_def_after, at
rtl-ssa/accesses.cc:622
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-val
Fix an obvious copy-and-paste error where ptr1 was used instead of ptr2.
This bug caused the dump file produced by -fdump-ipa-inline-details to
not correctly show the difference in target options when a function
could not be inlined due to a target option mismatch.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* optc-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108488
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107329
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104234
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wendellcraigbaker at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107303
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107329
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:049a52909075117f5112971cc83952af2a818bc1
commit r13-5318-g049a52909075117f5112971cc83952af2a818bc1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107303
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:049a52909075117f5112971cc83952af2a818bc1
commit r13-5318-g049a52909075117f5112971cc83952af2a818bc1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-24
Component|ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
#21 0x00b0ad8b in assign_dfs_numbers (node=node@entry=0x137731a8,
num=num@entry=0x7fffd850) at
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/gcc/dominance.cc:648
#22 0x00b0ad8b in assign_dfs_number
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107267
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30527
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nate Eldredge from comment #8)
> So that makes this into a compatibility issue.
I disagree there. Inline-asm does not need to be compatiable between two
compilers at all. In fact it is just happ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108503
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96089
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-24
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108506
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed.
Internals of what is going on:
Gimple IR
bad (__builtin_bit_cast):
MEM[(struct Foo *)output_7(D) + ivtmp.13_20 * 1] = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(_1);
vs good (memcpy):
MEM [(char * {ref-all})output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108350
--- Comment #36 from Bill Zissimopoulos ---
(In reply to niXman from comment #34)
> (In reply to Bill Zissimopoulos from comment #33)
> > Now that we have a potential patch what are the steps to get it included
> > into the gcc codebase?
>
> gr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107999
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/jit/2022q4/001594.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96089
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107267
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4cbc71691e47b1ca6b64feb0af678606705d2f92
commit r13-5316-g4cbc71691e47b1ca6b64feb0af678606705d2f92
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108448
--- Comment #10 from Gavin Howard ---
I have confirmed that the GCC bug (if it is a bug) also exists in 12.2.1, at
least using the amal.c I have attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108507
Bug ID: 108507
Summary: [13 regression] new test case
gcc.dg/analyzer/SARD-tc841-basic-00182-min.c in
r13-5244-gc6a09bfa03 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107267
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108506
--- Comment #1 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
"that is the only difference between the two funcs"
I mean that deserialize and deserialize2 differ only by the way they perform
store from v32uc to output (bit_cast vs memcpy)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108506
Bug ID: 108506
Summary: bit_cast from 32-byte vector generates worse code than
memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51767f31878a95161142254dca7119b409699670
commit r13-5315-g51767f31878a95161142254dca7119b409699670
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107797
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 107797, which changed state.
Bug 107797 Summary: "warning right operand of comma operator has no effect" for
expressions with no comma operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107797
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107797
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3585e6acdfd5c1793f877476647d2521620c95c
commit r13-5314-ge3585e6acdfd5c1793f877476647d2521620c95c
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108434
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The reported issue should be fixed for gcc-13 and on 12-branch.
There is another potential issue (see comment#1) which might be related
to this one or not. Keeping this PR open until the finaliz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107329
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108434
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea99f8d0f6674de2c2f20a5bc3221ae6325032ea
commit r12-9059-gea99f8d0f6674de2c2f20a5bc3221ae6325032ea
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
--- Comment #8 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > GCC considered this as a flex-array.
>
> do you mean for the following example:
>
> typedef struct {
> char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107303
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108195
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108195
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72e46b3c7ad5e3d2c69868a510c00707c356106a
commit r13-5313-g72e46b3c7ad5e3d2c69868a510c00707c356106a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:771d793df1622a476e1cf8d05f0a6aee350fa56b
commit r13-5312-g771d793df1622a476e1cf8d05f0a6aee350fa56b
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108504
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-23
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code, |ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 54330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54330&action=edit
Patch for the ICE in get_expr_storage_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
--- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> GCC considered this as a flex-array.
do you mean for the following example:
typedef struct {
char pad;
char data[];
} F2;
typedef struct {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-23
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108420
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6669c0a50ed8aee9e5997d61e6271668d149218
commit r13-5311-ge6669c0a50ed8aee9e5997d61e6271668d149218
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108195
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108496
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108496
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b125d01a5d5e601961419396332b74eea2219bb
commit r13-5310-g4b125d01a5d5e601961419396332b74eea2219bb
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108432
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> Unfortunately, some analyzer warnings work better with optimization
> *disabled*. -fanalyzer runs much later than most other static analyzers.
Understood.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
--- Comment #3 from Srinath Parvathaneni
---
I introduced the bug, working on the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
--- Comment #2 from Srinath Parvathaneni
---
/media/sripar01/2tb_work/trunk_gcc_13/src/gcc/configure'
'--target=arm-none-eabi'
'--prefix=/media/sripar01/2tb_work/trunk_gcc_13/build-arm-none-eabi/install'
'--with-gmp=/media/sripar01/2tb_work/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
How did you configure GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #15 from Adam Stylinski ---
(In reply to Adam Stylinski from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> > Ok, this seems wrong:
> >
> > New sequence of 1 stores to replace old one of 10 stores
> > # .MEM_102 = VDE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
Bug ID: 108505
Summary: Arm: arm-none-eabi toolchain build failing with
compiler error.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
dhekir at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54328|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #14 from Adam Stylinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> Ok, this seems wrong:
>
> New sequence of 1 stores to replace old one of 10 stores
> # .MEM_102 = VDEF <.MEM_101>
> MEM [(void *)&insn] = "\x02\x00\xff\x03\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108504
Bug ID: 108504
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in cp_lexer_handle_early_pragma,
at cp/parser.cc:675
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108503
Bug ID: 108503
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in get_array_or_vector_nelts, at
cp/constexpr.cc:4119
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502
Bug ID: 108502
Summary: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at
fortran/dependency.cc:1295
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
Bug ID: 108501
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at
fortran/interface.cc:2941
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Adam Stylinski from comment #11)
> It's possible's a glibc bug and clang avoids it by simply not needing it but
> it seems doubtful a small memcpy like this would have an issue that didn't
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #11 from Adam Stylinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> The only thing is memcpy could be broken ...
>
> I can't find anything wrong with the generated code.
>
>
> 17cc: 38 a0 00 44 li r5,68
> ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
oh wait there is no store to 124 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
The only thing is memcpy could be broken ...
I can't find anything wrong with the generated code.
17cc: 38 a0 00 44 li r5,68
...
17d8: 3c 00 02 00 lis r0,512
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108182
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108405
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
Bug ID: 108500
Summary: -O -finline-small-functions results in "internal
compiler error: Segmentation fault" on a very large
program (700k function calls)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108480
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47b269caf87904fd0112e8c9e96884dd0313ed15
commit r13-5308-g47b269caf87904fd0112e8c9e96884dd0313ed15
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108182
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47b269caf87904fd0112e8c9e96884dd0313ed15
commit r13-5308-g47b269caf87904fd0112e8c9e96884dd0313ed15
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108447
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 54327
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54327&action=edit
possible patch
There's another infrastructure patch which precedes this one which turns
existing relation_un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108405
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcc023e2b4dd0dc1fd1fca3ea12664d5bdade4dc
commit r13-5307-gbcc023e2b4dd0dc1fd1fca3ea12664d5bdade4dc
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107678
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108476
--- Comment #3 from Alex Henrie ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note the warning should really be split into two different options. One for
> the return type of the declaration and one for the missing return in
> non-void case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108432
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> Many warning messages are also dependent on optimisation level. And the
> actual generated code is as well ;-)
>
> -O0 means do the least possible work to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108499
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Adding:
if (!theSize)
__builtin_unreachable();
After the declaration of theSize, fixes the warning.
I don't know if in the original code there was a check for zero theSize or not
but the warning di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #8 from Adam Stylinski ---
Here's the code GCC emits:
17a0 <.emit_test>:
17a0: 7c 08 02 a6 mflrr0
17a4: fb e1 ff f8 std r31,-8(r1)
17a8: 3d 42 ff fe addis r10,r2,-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #7 from Adam Stylinski ---
Err wait, my bad, I had added the workaround in that source code. The bug
still exists when I take out that pragma to push no store-merging.
adam@g5box ~ $ valgrind ./test.out
==27014== Memcheck, a memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #6 from Adam Stylinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> maybe a stack sharing issue? Can you try -fstack-reuse=none?
So that does fix it, at least when the struct is backed by the stack. And also
valgrind is no l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108047
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108047
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #4 from Adam Stylinski ---
Also I strongly suspect valgrind is correctly identifying the unitialized bits
because the underlying bug it produces is a "sometimes" bug, depending on
what's on the heap. Sometimes insn.sat is 0 (when it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108491
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This error is from sysv4.h SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS. -msecure-plt is
unconditionally required.
It looks like an oversight that it is not required in the assembler you
used (which is that?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108499
Bug ID: 108499
Summary: False positive -Warray-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
