https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82348
Bug ID: 82348
Summary: make[4]: Circular runtime.lo <- bytes.gox dependency
dropped.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82302
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82349
Bug ID: 82349
Summary: float INFINITY issue with division by zero in
regression with compiler option '-ffast-math'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82350
Bug ID: 82350
Summary: float INFINITY issue with division by zero in
regression with compiler option '-ffast-math'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82351
Bug ID: 82351
Summary: float INFINITY issue with division by zero in
regression with compiler option '-ffast-math'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82349
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82349
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 82350 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82350
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82349
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 82351 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82351
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82349
--- Comment #4 from Marcello Presulli ---
Thats clear, but why are the 2 terms different each.
If so, they should output the same, because what would be the difference
between 1.0/denom and 1.0/0 in case of fast-math ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82349
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
Undefined means anything can happen, not even consistently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82344
--- Comment #1 from Yulia Koval ---
Created attachment 42252
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42252&action=edit
RSQRT disable patch
Performance can be fixed on new architectures by disabling Newthon-Raphson.
Unfortunately it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82302
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42253
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42253&action=edit
UBSAN errors
Well, the issue is fixed on trunk by r247277, which is a revision that changes
inlining decisions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In gcc-6 and later the condition is different:
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
...
#if _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDIO
So the changes in glibc won't affect std::to_string() (but you will be
missing functionality in i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5.5 Regression] String is |[5.5 Regression] to_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56260
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56260
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasper at mezzo dot de
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82288
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 82288, which changed state.
Bug 82288 Summary: Defining a type in a parameter type of a lambda calling an
undefined function results in a Segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82288
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82327
--- Comment #4 from Gianfranco ---
Tested with r253234
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-7/7.2.0-7ubuntu4
same issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82258
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 42254
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42254&action=edit
tree dump for testcase of comment # 9
The output in comment #9 has left me totally perplexed.
I cannot for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65213
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67036
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67445
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68615
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69215
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82013
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #0)
> It's especially confusing when the prototype is the last in the include
> file, because then the errors appear in another file.
Yes, that's PR c++/68615
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68615
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-09/msg00126.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm not sure there *should* be a warning here.
I find -Wunused-parameter most useful to know when I can remove the name of the
parameter, but you can't do that here (because it still needs a name to pass i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> I'm not sure there *should* be a warning here.
>
> I find -Wunused-parameter most useful to know when I can remove the name of
> the parameter, but you can't d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65834
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62316
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70924
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69777
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Those aren't portable, so aren't a good general solution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70618
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64679
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71852
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70065
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70047
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67276
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2016-08-17 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67776
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77430
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77618
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352
Bug ID: 82352
Summary: link error 'defined in discarded section'
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
Qing Zhao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qing.zhao at oracle dot com
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-O1 produces an extra zero extend.
-O2 and above produces an extra move instruction.
The zero extend is not needed as the add does an implicit zero extend already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67036
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70047
--- Comment #2 from Jaak Ristioja ---
Perhaps the simplest example for x86_64 would be something like:
void f(long a1, long a2, long a3, long a4, long a5, long a6, long a7);
According to the ABI all seven arguments are classified as INTEGER-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
Bug ID: 82353
Summary: runtime ubsan crash
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Babokin ---
Created attachment 42256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42256&action=edit
original test case
I'm also attaching original test case, just in case. For the bug to reproduce
it's importan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67036
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> VC++ prints:
>
> main.cpp(7): warning C4297: 'useless::~useless': function assumed not to
> throw an exception but does
> main.cpp(7): note: destructor or dea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67036
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
--- Comment #5 from Joshua T, Fisher ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> It's rare that my reaction to a -Wunused-parameter warning is to change the
> function to remove the parameter entirely. YMMV.
Totally reasonable, I too rar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81481
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
In IRA we have
(insn 9 8 24 2 (set (reg:V2DI 100 [ MEM[(const __m128i_u * {ref-all})_1] ])
(mem:V2DI (plus:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 99 [ i ])
(reg:SI 87))
(const:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82354
Bug ID: 82354
Summary: semi-colon instead of comma in parameter list produces
confusing diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82355
Bug ID: 82355
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in outermost_loop_in_sese, at
sese.c:301
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82342
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 28 18:35:58 2017
New Revision: 253261
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253261&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82342
* gcc.target/i386/pr82260-1.c: Add -mno-bm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82354
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Note: the pertinent extension appears to be documented here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.2.0/gcc/Variable-Length.html#index-parameter-forward-declaration
(see @cindex parameter forward declaration w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70047
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59793
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58589
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2014-08-20 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65253
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #3 from Qing Zhao ---
the zero extension "uxtw" insn is generated even without any optimiation, the
additional "mov" insn generated in -O2 is introduced by -fschedule-insns,
please see the following:
***/home/qinzhao/Install/latest/b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59793
--- Comment #2 from Eugene Zelenko ---
Something like that:
class Class
{
private:
int Data;
public:
int GetData() const;
};
int Class::GetData() const {
return Data;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64743
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|qing.zhao at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58589
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59793
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80600
--- Comment #12 from Krister Walfridsson ---
Author: kristerw
Date: Thu Sep 28 19:17:51 2017
New Revision: 253263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
Backport from mainline
2017-05-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #4 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #3)
> 1. the zero extension comes from the language standard naturally. for
> aarch64, due to the fact that the register W0 to X0 implicitly zero
> extension, the explicitly zero e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56973
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Sep 28 19:39:45 2017
New Revision: 253266
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/56973, DR 696 - capture constant variables only as needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44515
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
The patch kit I proposed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01744.html
and adds a fix-it hint and improves the location, making the successor token be
a secondary location within the diagno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #5 from Qing Zhao ---
Hi, wilco,
thanks for the comments.
see me reply below:
> On Sep 28, 2017, at 2:13 PM, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
>
> --- Comment #4 from Wilco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80600
Krister Walfridsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #5)
>
> don’t quite understand your above. what’s your mean by “the mov and uxtw are
> in fact the same instruction”?
In aarch64 assembly mov and uxtw are alias of each o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77480
Krister Walfridsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #7 from Wilc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82338
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting this, especially for reducing the test case. The bug
is not dangerous, it does not result in wrong code generation but it might
result in worse code.
I reproduced it. It seam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79488
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
--- Comment #6 from Joshua T, Fisher ---
(In reply to Joshua T, Fisher from comment #5)
> https://github.com/nvpro-pipeline/VkHLF/commit/b6646c4773e8aef49c40e8684eca1382bf2e9d50
Apologies this one doesn't apply. Just took another look and I just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82356
Bug ID: 82356
Summary: auto-vectorizing pack of 16->8 has a redundant AND
after a shift
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58589
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> There's nothing showing the location of the "a = a" expression that requires
> the deleted Y::operator=(const Y&).
IMHO, the problem is the instantiation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79488
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Sep 28 21:18:36 2017
New Revision: 253270
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253270&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-28 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/79488
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79488
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I see no need to keep it open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82354
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79488
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 79488, which changed state.
Bug 79488 Summary: [7 Regression] ICE from lambda that has invalid return type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79488
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65834
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Maybe someone might want to put something else after TEST. I think both are
> correct to warn. clang error location might be more useful in some cases
> b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64339
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65011
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drazen.kacar at tereo dot hr
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78183
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
