https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #10 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
It would be great if the problem is fixed in later versions.
I observe the error with gcc-12 on my computer yet.
*BUT* compiling with -O instead of -O2 succeeds !?
gcc-12 version.
gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 54837
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54837&action=edit
tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #9 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Thank you for the confirmation for the fix in GCC-12.
Now I have to figure out how GCC-12 seems to miscompile something in
Thunderbird mail client to report a run-time assertion error.
(Compiling Thunderb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #7 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
If I change gcc-11 into gcc-12 in the attached script, I get the different
warning.
My version of gcc-12 is:
ishikawa@ip030:/NREF-COMM-CENTRAL/mozilla$ gcc-12 --version
gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #6 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 54610
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54610&action=edit
The script to produce the warning in the original report with gcc-11.
The source file needs to be in /tmp/sq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #4 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Right, when I replaced gcc-11 with gcc-12 in my script, I got the following
warnings. One of them was there before, the other is new.
/tmp/sqlite3-preprocessed-2.c: In function ‘posixUnlock’:
/tmp/sqlite3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
ishikawa,chiaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
[-Werror=stringop-overflow=]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
--- Comment #18 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
I reported the issue to the following github for a very fast hashing function
library.
https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/issues/800
>From the discussion there, I figured -Og does not define __NO_INLINE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
--- Comment #14 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> (In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #11)
> > What is exactly the compiler-defined macro when "-Og" is used on the command
> > line?
>
> There is not o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
--- Comment #11 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 54484
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54484&action=edit
Script to compile the previous source file.
The previous source file ought to be named
't-failure-always-in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
ishikawa,chiaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98281
--- Comment #5 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> The warning works as designed but the range information it depends on is
> less than perfect. As discussed in pr94021 that's a known limitation of the
> current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98281
--- Comment #4 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> The warning works as designed but the range information it depends on is
> less than perfect. As discussed in pr94021 that's a known limitation of the
> current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98281
--- Comment #2 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 49764
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49764&action=edit
The patch that I had for 94021
Funny I thought this was gone for a while with gcc-9 and an earlier 10 (?)
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98281
--- Comment #1 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
The command to compile the source file uploaded.
(Place it in /tmp)
cd tmp
export TERM=dumb
/usr/bin/gcc-10 -std=gnu99 -o /tmp/Unified_c_libical_src_libical1.o -c
-I/NEW-SSD/moz-obj-dir/objdir-tb3/dist/
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 49763
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49763&action=edit
Code that tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98000
--- Comment #5 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Thank you for the report, it's very likely a different issue.
> I'm reducing that right now..
You are very welcome and
thank you for the reduction to simpler ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98000
--- Comment #2 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
I forgot. The g++-10 version is as follows.
ishikawa@ip030:/NREF-COMM-CENTRAL/mozilla$ gcc --version
gcc (Debian 10.2.0-16) 10.2.0
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98000
--- Comment #1 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
I noticed a similar Bug 97551.
But I seem to be using different options and I think I may be using a different
construct that triggers the ICE, and thus filed this entry.
I believe more reproducible cases
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 49631
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #10 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Thanks.
> I've made a more permanent link here:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s9i_l68CR8UGhqPfq0pdgQTH26G7YEFW/
> view?usp=sharing
>
> I get these numbers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #8 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > (In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #3)
> > > https://send.firefox.com/download/bdf77223953903fa/#WMrJbMY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #7 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> (In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #3)
> > https://send.firefox.com/download/bdf77223953903fa/#WMrJbMYdsL7AXf2vXYm82g
> >
> > I uploaded the file, Unifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #5 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Thank you for your comment.
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> The time-report you attached is mostly flat and I don't see anything
> eye-popping pointing at a regression. With -O0 my GCC9 is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #3 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
https://send.firefox.com/download/bdf77223953903fa/#WMrJbMYdsL7AXf2vXYm82g
I uploaded the file, UnifiedBindings23-v7.cpp, to the link above.
It is huge as I explained. Approximately 28MB.
The compiler o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #1 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
BTW, UnifiedBindings23.cpp is huge. It is about 28MB and more than 3MB
compressed (by gzip). I can send the compressed file by e-mail to anyone
interested in this issue.
As the name suggests, the source fi
: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48380
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #3 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 47965
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47965&action=edit
A short program that does NOT produce the error/warning.
A simple problem that does NOT produce error/warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #2 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 47964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47964&action=edit
The script to issue gcc-9 with the original option setting.
This is the command to invoke gcc-9 on my PC with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #1 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 47962
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47962&action=edit
This is the full compiler log I got.
The is the full compiler error/warning log I got.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47961
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47961&action=edit
preprocessed input file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79342
--- Comment #6 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Sorry, forgot to mention that Redhat bugzilla has a one line C source program
that does not trip the compiler (no ICE), but obviously generates a wrong dwarf
info. These certainly look related to me.
TIA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79342
ishikawa,chiaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70578
--- Comment #8 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
As for gcc-5 ICE, I observe an important thing after a little experimentation.
This is a shortened command line that causes the ICE.
/usr/bin/gcc-5 -std=gnu99 -o vp9_dsubexp.o -c -DNDEBUG=1 -DTRIMMED=1 \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70578
--- Comment #7 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 40643
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40643&action=edit
preprocessed file that caused gcc-5 to experience the similar ICE.
The uploaded file was created by passing -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70578
--- Comment #6 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #5)
> I have found that g++-5 can compile this without ICE.
> So this is a regression in gcc-6.
>
> The version that worked is:
>
> g++-5 -v
> Using built-in spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70578
--- Comment #5 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
I have found that g++-5 can compile this without ICE.
So this is a regression in gcc-6.
The version that worked is:
g++-5 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-5
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70578
--- Comment #4 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
I found that the following simplified command line causes ICE while the next
command line where I have removed "-fno-exception" does not cause ICE even
though I still keep -gdwarf-output. Hope this may shed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70578
--- Comment #3 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
I noticed that in my case, it could be related to a name space issue since
U_NAMESPACE_END "}}" is to close the corresponding U_NAMESPACE_BEGIN "extern
"C++" "{ namespace U_ICU_NAMESPACE {".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70578
ishikawa,chiaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
41 matches
Mail list logo
