https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81876
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-08-17 00:00:00 |2017-12-5
Summary|[7/8 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82103
--- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann ---
In that case, shouldn't we also warn if the conditional function call in front
of it wasn't there, or without the '__n != 0' check?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #34 from Xi Ruoyao ---
On 2017-12-04 11:05 +, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
>
> Paolo Carlini changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83272
--- Comment #3 from Mason ---
I think Jakub is right about an interaction between movzbl and shrb.
unsigned long long foo1(unsigned char *p) { return *p; }
foo1:
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
ret
I.e. gcc "knows" that movzbl clears the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83267
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Can't we simply force it public when processing the attribute and let
duplicate-decl complain when merging a previous declaration/definition?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #35 from Florent Hivert ---
I can't help knowing nothing about the internal of GCC, but I'm strongly in
favor having a release with this fix, in particular since it's there and since
there is no good replacement for Cilk. OpenMP task
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82382
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Related to PR82331.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82331
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||witosx at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287
Bug ID: 83287
Summary: ice in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:14884
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82382
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83276
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Component|tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Can't we simply force it public when processing the attribute and let
> duplicate-decl complain when merging a previous declaration/definition?
We can, even gua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mingw64
--- Comment #6 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83284
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83283
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #36 from Paolo Carlini ---
Please ask on the mailing list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83288
Bug ID: 83288
Summary: [8 Regression] polyhedron gas_dyn 2-fold compile-time
regression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83288
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
This is with -Ofast -funroll-loops -march={core-avx2,k8} with release checking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #17 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Initial patch is at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00112.html,
will need to wait until next stage1 to continue on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83248
--- Comment #2 from Michel Morin ---
Ah, I thought that GCC 5-7 and trunk were maintained.
> if it is fixed in GCC 6 please use that.
OK, I'll forward the message to the PR in Boost trac.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42785|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Corresponding diff -upbd for better readability:
--- gcc/match.pd.jj 2017-11-28 09:40:08.0 +0100
+++ gcc/match.pd2017-12-05 11:36:58.855074420 +0100
@@ -1783,9 +1783,8 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83288
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83288
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
We're doing a lot more inlining blowing up the CU. note the bit_speedup thing
below (- is good, + is bad). Not sure if the intent was to "break" things
like this (SPEC 2k6 int also has some compile-time ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83288
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Goes from
textdata bss dec hex filename
58882 20 8001512 8060414 7afdfe gas_dyn.o
to
textdata bss dec hex filename
90002 20 8001512 8091534 7b778e gas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289
Bug ID: 83289
Summary: [8 regression] i386/sse2-init-v2di-2.c,
i386/avx256-unaligned-load-1.c,
i386/avx256-unaligned-store-*.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83284
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Created attachment 42796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42796&action=edit
cmp -bl stage2-libiberty/stack-limit.o stage3-libiberty/stack-limit.o
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please show output and output from before it failed. And/or some
analysis that shows why current is wrong. Etc. Or even better,
make a patch to fix the testcase ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah. It seems to be because the testcases test for /5, /4 etc., which is
now printed as /4 resp. /3, because alternatives start counting at 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82770
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
At least for warnings that require optimizations in order to avoid false
positives like these, I think you need to accept some false positives with
sanitizers, which necessarily cause fewer optimizations (oth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, any progress here?
Has SPEC accepted some fix, or is this still broken?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83283
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 5 13:33:52 2017
New Revision: 255417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83283
* g++.dg/torture/pr83283.C: New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 5 13:34:41 2017
New Revision: 255418
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255418&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/83281
* testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82006
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Any progress on this?
No, I'm under heavy workload at the moment. I don't see how to debug this. I
will bisect to find the commit which causes the issue, hopeful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004
--- Comment #13 from Andrey Guskov ---
Nope. The issue persists.
I don`t know whether anyone reported this to SPEC already, but even if so I
share Richard`s pessimism.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82974
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82964
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83290
Bug ID: 83290
Summary: Expressions in anonymous unions inside class templates
can't reference the union's members
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82964
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83290
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279
--- Comment #2 from T B ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to T B from comment #0)
> > However, when I compiled it with GCC 5.4.0 (g++ -std=c++14 *.cpp *.h
> > -lstdc++fs) everything works fine and I can copy files with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83277
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 5 15:10:23 2017
New Revision: 255424
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255424&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/83277
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|amker at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83162
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Both warnings are emitted starting with r235980. The first one appeared with
r226901.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
sergey.shalnov at intel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergey.shalnov at intel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83291
Bug ID: 83291
Summary: [8 regression]
libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-dbl.c,
libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83291
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 5 16:17:09 2017
New Revision: 255427
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255427&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/83289
* gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It really depends on the growth necessary to expose the thread. I haven't
tried to evaluate that -- clearly if the code growth is unacceptable then
threading is the wrong answer.
In general we should start
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83026
--- Comment #4 from Qing Zhao ---
Note, this optimization is only valid when the result of the strcmp is used to
compare with zero.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82248
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Dec 5 16:32:55 2017
New Revision: 255428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch ARM] Fix probe_stack constraint.
The probe_stack pattern u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
The test was changed to link-only (to exercise LTO) in r244385.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78117
Chris Metcalf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cmetcalf at mellanox dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
--- Comment #37 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
There are no plans to backport any additional Cilk+ changes/fixes to the
release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
In general we can't know if we're going to have a single argument PHI after
threading. If the block has multiple preds that thread to the same final
destination, then we create a single copy and vector al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82770
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82770
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So remove the xfail from the test and keep some (non-regression?) PR where you
track the rest?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> This libstdc++ patch helps avoid both the warning and the bogus memset. if
> Jonathan isn't opposed to this kind of annotation I think there might be
> other pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't have a huge problem with closing this as won't fix. I do hope to get
around to pr79265 and eliminate some of the unnecessary instrumentation to
improve the efficiency of the instrumented code. If tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Dec 5 17:29:58 2017
New Revision: 255429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR C++/83287] Mark lookup for keeping
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On December 5, 2017 4:23:17 PM GMT+01:00, "sergey.shalnov at intel dot com"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
>
>sergey.shalnov at intel dot com changed:
>
> Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83292
Bug ID: 83292
Summary: __builtin_apply() triggers x87 stack exception on
32-bit x86
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279
--- Comment #3 from T B ---
I recompiled the GCC 7.2.0 with this configuration:
--enable-threads=posix --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu
--target=x86_64-linux-gnu --enable-checking=release --enable-languages=c,c++
--program-suffix=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #10)
> The test was changed to link-only (to exercise LTO) in r244385.
I think you meant r244537
(https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr787
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, r244537 is the revision I meant, thank you. The test still isn't quite
correct, though, because, as pr79062 and pr82770 point out, it fails to detect
the missing sprintf warning in separate compilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82331
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Dec 5 18:05:23 2017
New Revision: 255430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82331 - ICE with variadic partial specialization of auto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83292
Andrew Church changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|__builtin_apply() triggers |__builtin_apply(),
|x8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83292
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect __builtin_apply, __builtin_return and should most likely be
deprecated and removed latter on. They are less useful and don't work for most
things. libffi is more useful than them now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81876
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Richi.
I do worry about cases where we exploit strict-overflow semantics. It'd be
nice to be able to warn about them, but I certainly agree that stability is a
problem. With instability, messaging to and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82103
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It should. It may not though because one the n != 0 test is removed, the
resulting range of N is probably VR_VARYING rather than ~[0,0] at the call to
memset.
The former signifies we know nothing about the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What does this output, for both gcc-5 and gcc-7?
#include
int main()
{
std::cout << "Large file support: "
#ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_LFS
"enabled"
#else
"disabled"
#endif
"\n";
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279
--- Comment #5 from T B ---
Both seem to have large file support enabled, it outputs both times enabled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83293
Bug ID: 83293
Summary: [8 regression] ICE: in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at
gimple-iterator.c:278
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It was pointed out to me that the allocator in my example should not allocate
more than its max_size, so the example isn't reasonable. So the invariant in
Martin's patch is OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK I'll try to reproduce it as soon as I can.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82331
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Double checked that both the bugs I resolved as duplicates are also fixed.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Sorry. I shouldn't have closed this.
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
