https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83602
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Sorry about the breakage.
Patch looks reasonable to me. Maybe cpp_macro_definition_location should gain
an assertion that CPP_HASHNODE_VALUE_IDX (node) == NTV_MACRO ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
Bug ID: 83653
Summary: GCC fails to remove a can't-happen call on ia64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83649
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Note you lost the regression marker when this was made a duplicate of 21161.
So it's unlikely anyone would have looked at it until the next release cycle.
My understanding from Florian is that at least so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83654
Bug ID: 83654
Summary: -fstack-clash-protection probes below the stack
pointer for VLA with constant size
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83654
--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer ---
I forgot to mention that I used “-O2 -fstack-clash-protection”, but there's a
valgrind warning with -O0, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83586
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83649
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Domi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83654
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
I forgot to add a compiler barrier to f2 for the executable test case, so it is
not strictly equivalent.
With it, valgrind reports:
==375147== Invalid read of size 4
==375147==at 0x8048403: f2 (in /roo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I've deliberately avoided doing this ... (turning SSA propagator UNDEFINED
> into a random value rather than keeping it effectively VARYING during
> propagation/si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83655
Bug ID: 83655
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE on an invalid call to memcpy
declared with no prototype
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83655
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83656
Bug ID: 83656
Summary: missing -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch on declaration
without prototype
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83657
Bug ID: 83657
Summary: detect invalid calls to built-ins declared without
prototype
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
--- Comment #28 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Thanks all for very insightful comments and sorting out
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS ambiguity! I've understood quite a bit on how RTL does
it's magic.
I still have a few related questions to clarify thing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83650
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Jan 2 23:03:11 2018
New Revision: 256113
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256113&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-02 Thomas Koenig
Backport from 7-branch
PR f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83650
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
Bug 45689 depends on bug 83650, which changed state.
Bug 83650 Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] Wrong simplification in cshift with
negative shifts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83650
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83655
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83658
Bug ID: 83658
Summary: any::emplace deletes invalid memory when an overloaded
operator new() throws
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
20180102 (experimental) [trunk revision 256110] (GCC)
$
$ g++-6.4.0 small.cpp
$ icc small.cpp
$ clang++ small.cpp
$
$ g++tk small.cpp
small.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
small.cpp:7:42: internal compiler error: in tree_to_shwi, at tree.c:6821
reinterpret_cast < int * > (&a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83656
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
--- Comment #29 from Jim Wilson ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #28)
> 1. Is it directly visible for you from RTL dumps which bits GCC assumes as
> non-zero or you just know RTL invariants? I had to patch gcc locally to
> verify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
You know, I wonder if we're missing something bigger here.
ISTM we're potentially missing CSEs in memory addresses as well as forward
propagation opportunities in MEM_REF expressions.
I strongly suspect D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
--- Comment #20 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #19)
> Note you lost the regression marker when this was made a duplicate of 21161.
> So it's unlikely anyone would have looked at it until the next release cycle.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
No problem Eric. I'm monitoring on behalf of Florian who'd really like to see
this fixed for gcc-8.
Actually just noticed it still wasn't showing up in the queries. It didn't
have a target milestone set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83620
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83636
--- Comment #1 from YunQiang Su ---
and we found a new problem of libffi:
https://github.com/libffi/libffi/pull/401
/* lui $12,high(codeloc) */
tramp[2] = 0x3c0c | ((unsigned)codeloc >> 16);
/* jr $25 */
+#if !define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
--- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva ---
We do have such constant propagation on such ports as x86* and arm, but not on
avr. Presumably (I haven't checked) it has to do with available addressing
modes, and gimple's avoiding, even in MEM_REFs, ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
Bug ID: 83660
Summary: ICE with vec_extract inside expression statement
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83661
Bug ID: 83661
Summary: sincos does not handle sin(2x)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83661
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83662
Bug ID: 83662
Summary: std::aligned_alloc() not available
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
