https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82825
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Feb 6 08:16:22 2018
New Revision: 257405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add upstream svn rev for PR sanitizer/82825.
Modified:
trunk/libsanitizer/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84213
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84223
Bug ID: 84223
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in
assign_parameter_index_in_region, at
graphite-scop-detection.c:1156
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84223
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84224
Bug ID: 84224
Summary: ICE in execute, at gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c:448
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
Bug ID: 84225
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in operation_no_trapping_overflow,
at tree.c:7206
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-2-6
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84226
Bug ID: 84226
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in simplify_const_unary_operation,
at simplify-rtx.c:1974 on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84227
Bug ID: 84227
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at
lra.c:998
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84224
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84212
--- Comment #3 from Jay Foad ---
Here you go:
$ gcc -O3 -flto a.o b.o -Wno-stringop-overflow -v -###
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/7/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nvptx-none
OFFLOAD_TA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84228
Bug ID: 84228
Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-truncation with -g
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84228
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Well, we have a nightly Jenkins job that builds GCC (from scratch) and runs
'make check' on ARM, AArch64, and x86 hosts, and from time to time we see
regression reports on the mentioned tests.
And the next
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
type is a POINTER_TYPE and we ice here:
bool
operation_no_trapping_overflow (tree type, enum tree_code code)
{
gcc_checking_assert (ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type));
Should the find_trapping_overflow() caller
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84223
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84223
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
ICE happens because "name" is an SSA with a pointer type:
static void
assign_parameter_index_in_region (tree name, sese_info_p region)
{
gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (name) == SSA_NAME
&& INTEGRAL_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79975
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Feb 6 10:28:47 2018
New Revision: 257408
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257408&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid cc1 SEGV in gcc.dg/rtl/x86_64/final.c (PR target/79975)
PR targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79975
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Feb 6 10:30:49 2018
New Revision: 257409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257409&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid cc1 SEGV in gcc.dg/rtl/x86_64/final.c (PR target/79975)
PR targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #26 from Christophe Lyon ---
I've manually built or tried to build several revisions:
* 197671: build OK, test fails to run at -fno-vect-cost-model -O3 -g
* 197669: same (!)
* 197815: GCC fails to build
* 197816: same
* 197900: same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79975
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth ---
The testcase is fixed now for GCC 8.1 and 7.4, but the underlying SEGV is still
present and can easily be reproduced, so I'm keeping the PR open.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #27 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #26)
> I've manually built or tried to build several revisions:
> * 197671: build OK, test fails to run at -fno-vect-cost-model -O3 -g
> * 197669: same (!)
> * 1978
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83962
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Here we're trying remove a jump to the next block but fail to adjust the
barrier. This is something that tidy_fallthru_edge would do for us, but we
don't get to the point we can call it, before that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84205
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Index: gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c
===
--- gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c(revision 257382)
+++ gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84223
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The issue is that we record a condition without ever verifying if it is valid -
in this case it is the SESE entry condition which isn't in the region. We
possibly want to gather this (and even more) conditi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84145
--- Comment #2 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
Created attachment 43343
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43343&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84192
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #28 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Tue Feb 6 11:20:55 2018
New Revision: 257410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257410&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-06 Tamar Christina
PR target/82641
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229
Bug ID: 84229
Summary: A valid code rejected with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84230
Bug ID: 84230
Summary: LTO: -Wa argument not passed through to the assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63700
--- Comment #2 from Walter Zimmer ---
We upgraded to gcc 7 and it seems nothing has changed in setting the stack size
(except for Darwin).
One solution would be to add a gomp call to alter the stack size in
gomp_thread_attr after it was initiali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84230
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47785
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84231
Bug ID: 84231
Summary: [8 Regression] cannot bind non-const lvalue reference
of type ‘const char*&’ to an rvalue of type ‘const
char*’
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84232
Bug ID: 84232
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84233
Bug ID: 84233
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE (segfault) in
gimple_assign_rhs_code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84231
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
So the small benchmark spends all the time in the first function:
75.08% lbm_r_peak.gcc7 lbm_r_peak.gcc7-m64 [.]
LBM_performStreamCollideTRT
0.76% lbm_r_peak.gcc7 lbm_r_peak.gcc7-m64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #18 from Andrey Guskov ---
Just in case that was a question to me, inline-[123].c fails are long gone, and
I don`t see any regex.* fails either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #19 from Andrey Guskov ---
So, with all related makecheck and SPEC fails gone, we can most probably close
this one, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #14 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I applied the patches and seem to still get a warning for this:
$ x86_64-linux-gcc-8.0.1 -Wall -O2 -c nmi_int.c
nmi_int.c: In function 'nmi_setup':
nmi_int.c:43:3: warning: 'memcpy' source argument is the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84228
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Feb 6 13:25:54 2018
New Revision: 257411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84228
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (maybe_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #25 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Feb 6 13:27:04 2018
New Revision: 257412
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257412&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/81004
* lto.c: Include builtins.h
(regist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84228
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #15 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #14)
> I applied the patches and seem to still get a warning for this
I also just got the one from comment #9 again and found that the reduced test
case is still affe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84234
Bug ID: 84234
Summary: #pragma omp declare simd is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84235
Bug ID: 84235
Summary: [8 Regression] Miscompilation of floating point code
by dom2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84235
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
> FAIL: context
> but the next build is still running, I don't know yet if it passes.
Next build completed, and:
PASS: context
Did something change wrt this test since yesterday?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #28 from Christophe Lyon ---
It's possible that my bisect script got confused by the fact the GCC started
ICEing at -O2 on this test at r197671.
Investigating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84235
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43345
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43345&action=edit
gcc8-pr84235.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84237
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84237
Bug ID: 84237
Summary: [8 Regression] xen build faiulre only zero
initializers are allowed in section
'.bss.page_aligned.const'
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84238
Bug ID: 84238
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE tree check: expected integer_cst,
have plus_expr in to_wide, at tree.h:5527
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84238
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84238
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84217
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Tentative patch:
...
diff --git a/gcc/omp-expand.c b/gcc/omp-expand.c
index 90e0631..bb20490 100644
--- a/gcc/omp-expand.c
+++ b/gcc/omp-expand.c
@@ -1433,6 +1433,8 @@ expand_oacc_collapse_init (const struct o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84217
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
C testcase:
...
void
foo (void)
{
#pragma acc parallel loop tile (2, 3)
for (short i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
for (short j = 0; j < 10; ++j)
;
}
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] linking|[7 Regression] linking
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84237
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43348
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43348&action=edit
gcc8-pr84237.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84239
Bug ID: 84239
Summary: Reimplement rdssp[d|q] and incssp[d|q] CET intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84238
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Untested fix:
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
@@ -1899,7 +1899,10 @@ maybe_diag_stxncpy_trunc (gimple_stmt_iterator gsi, tree
src, tree cnt)
{
tree range[2];
get_ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84145
--- Comment #3 from itsimbal at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: itsimbal
Date: Tue Feb 6 15:25:31 2018
New Revision: 257414
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257414&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix checking -mibt and -mshstk options for control flow pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84240
Bug ID: 84240
Summary: Error in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2246
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84177
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
And I see very similar problem for -falign-loops, ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Feb 6 15:44:51 2018
New Revision: 257416
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257416&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84225
* tree-eh.c (find_trapping_ove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But -Weffc++ also warns about members that don't need to be initialized, so is
useless in detecting uninitialized data.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83828
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Kirill Yukhin from comment #10)
> HJ, I cannot reproduce this fail on recent SDE.
>
> Here's what I have in gcc.log:
>
> spawn -ignore SIGHUP /export/kyukhin/gcc/bld-svn/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Jenner ---
I have committed another small patch to the .opt files:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00247.html
and updated my docs patch per Joseph's feedback:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57547
--- Comment #2 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The gcc.pdf documentation states the following:
-maltivec=be
Generate AltiVec instructions using big-endian element order, regardless
of whether the target is big- or little-endian.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84241
Bug ID: 84241
Summary: [8 regression] test case g++.dg/torture/pr67600.C
fails starting with r257412
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57547
--- Comment #3 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oops. Sent that comment to the wrong bugzilla. Please disregard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78303
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84241
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84242
Bug ID: 84242
Summary: [8 Regression] g++.dg/torture/pr67600.C at r257412
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84242
--- Comment #1 from James Greenhalgh ---
Also gcc.target/i386/mvc9.c on x86-64-none-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84242
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #29 from Christophe Lyon ---
I still haven't found a commit where the test passes with -fno-vect-cost-model
(before -O3).
I went back to r193053 (Nov 1, 2012), where I was able to build GCC but the
test fails.
With a revision 1 month
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84241
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
Bug ID: 84243
Summary: [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at
r257414
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Feb 6 17:11:01 2018
New Revision: 257420
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257420&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84225
Add test for previous commit for PR84225.
Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||79078
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #30 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #29)
> I still haven't found a commit where the test passes with
> -fno-vect-cost-model (before -O3).
>
> I went back to r193053 (Nov 1, 2012), where I was able to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84244
Bug ID: 84244
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in
recompute_tree_invariant_for_addr_expr, at tree.c:4535
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the test case in comment #14. I've reproduced the warning and will
look into it.
The false positive from comment #9 isn't fixed yet. I'm assuming it's due to
the same root cause as bug 83456 tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84245
Bug ID: 84245
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in delete_root, at
fortran/bbt.c:150
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84246
Bug ID: 84246
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in conv_caf_send, at
fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:1950
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82210
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
I've reduced the test case from comment #14 to the one below. I'm inclined to
think the warning is justified. As you say, the code clearly does use the same
pointer for both the source and the destination,
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
