https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86296
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah I tested back to 7.3 but not 5.4
The _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS checks were added in GCC 6.1 and I don't think ASan
diagnosed stack-use-after-return in 5.x either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86331
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab ---
In general, the value of errno is undefined unless you know the previous system
call failed. In this case the SIGCHLD signal handler has modified errno. This
has nothing to do with VM or arm64 or whatever.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86350
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe the frontend can adjust the defaults for -ffinite-math-only /
-fsigned-zeros in case the IEEE module is not in scope (or whatever constraints
apply here from the language standard). That certainly allo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86353
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86355
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.3.1, 8.1.1, 9.0
--- Comment #1 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86357
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86359
Bug ID: 86359
Summary: Internal error when compiling lambda with constexpr
and function with variadic arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86359
Mariusz Chilmon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmario1986 at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86360
Bug ID: 86360
Summary: "inline" (and neither static nor extern) function not
emitted.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86360
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
"The remainder of this section is specific to GNU C90 inlining." and you're
compiling with the defaultoptions, which means -std=gnu99 so you get C99
inlining.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86360
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86360
--- Comment #3 from David Woodhouse ---
Thanks for the prompt response.
I'll stick with my original "compiler isn't required to emit" comment in my
referenced patch submission, which everyone had questioned...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86360
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
More than that, I don't think it's allowed to. See 6.7.4 p7 in the C11
standard.
"An inline definition does not provide an external definition for the function,
and does not forbid an external definition i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86360
--- Comment #5 from David Woodhouse ---
Well, it's *allowed* to emit it inline. But if it doesn't then it mustn't emit
it out-of-line. At least, from your citation, it mustn't emit it out-of-line
such that it can be seen from another translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86360
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Woodhouse from comment #5)
> Well, it's *allowed* to emit it inline. But if it doesn't then it mustn't
> emit it out-of-line. At least, from your citation, it mustn't emit it
> out-of-lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86357
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86263
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Jun 29 10:57:00 2018
New Revision: 262247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix bit-test expansion for single cluster (PR tree-optimization/86263).
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86263
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
> Created attachment 44333 [details]
> proof of concept patch
>
> I ran into the same problem with guality test-case pr54200.c, which fails
> for Og.
>
> The rel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Interesting. Do I understand that correctly that it's due to increasing
addresses of the 3 load instructions: 0x8(%rdx), 0x18(%rdx), 0x30(%rdx) vs.
0x18(%rdx) 0x30(%rdx) 0x8(%rdx) ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Ahoj,
jeste jedna vec je to, ze by asi slo udelat konzervativni slejvani pro VPT -
testovat
jen jestli stejna hodnota vyhraje ve vsech runech co maji nenulovy count. To by
melo
byt stabilni vuci poradi.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86138
--- Comment #25 from Christian Franke ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #23)
> What if you test with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS ?
>
> (I expect you'll get a crash for either c++14 or c++17)
Yes.
Fixed with patch from r262167.
New Cygw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86361
Bug ID: 86361
Summary: Compilation failed while other compiler(clang) able to
compile code in question
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86242
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
The IPA (and first tree) dumps look all normal. But even when I patch IPA-CP
to create a clone but not to modify it in any way, I still get the segfault.
I'll look where we start diverging next.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86242
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Slightly reduced test case:
module test
implicit none
type :: output
end type
type :: tester
integer, allocatable :: wrap
procedure(proc1), pointer, nopass :: ptr
en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86242
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Duplicate of/related to pr82969 (pr66679?).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86242
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> Duplicate of/related to pr82969
Yes, I think this is the same problem.
> (pr66679?).
But this one certainly not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86362
Bug ID: 86362
Summary: Members of enum class in .debug_gnu_pubnames without
scope, leading to gdbindex issues
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86331
--- Comment #10 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks. The documentation for the syscall function say that it only sets errno
on failure, but I forgot about signal handlers. That is definitely a problem.
Since there is no generic way to detect whet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85759
--- Comment #22 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Jun 29 14:03:36 2018
New Revision: 262251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
When using -fprofile-generate=/some/path mangle absolute path of file (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86242
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regression] [OOP] |[6/7/8/9 Regression] [OOP]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
--- Comment #11 from Fredrik Tolf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> That is, it is reasonable to lose track of z in
>
> int a = (x + z) + b;
>
> but only after x + z is computed.
Just for the record, I disagree that it's ok
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
After a more careful look: The testcase from comment #5 calls
__builtin_alloca(1) and then tries to vnsprintf into that memory, so I
decided I'd go back to the original testcase.
It indeed does segfaults whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55860
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Doesn't matter much to me either way. I review all the jump threading PRs
every release.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
As early as the ssa dump we have, in the same function,
:
__len_13 = _12;
__builtin_va_end (&__args);
std::allocator::allocator (&D.122645);
_1 = (sizetype) __len_13;
_2 = __s_7 + _1;
std::__c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86242
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
And in the previous dump (fixup_cfg1), we have
:
__len = D.127713;
__builtin_va_end (&__args);
std::allocator::allocator (&D.122645);
_1 = (sizetype) __len;
_2 = __s + _1;
std::__cxx11::basic
/binary-trunk-262240-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180629 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86184
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Jun 29 15:25:14 2018
New Revision: 262254
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86184
* tree.c (cp_save_expr): Don't call save_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86184
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82086
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I am back on this. If I simply remove the check for repeat count the case
given runs fine. The original code doing this check goes way back in history
and there is one case in namelist_19.f90 that fails wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55860
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|law at redhat dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #16 from Eric Galla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86364
Bug ID: 86364
Summary: strnlen before strlen of same argument not folded
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86364
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82086
--- Comment #11 from jsberg at bnl dot gov ---
Presumably the "repeat count too large" test fails.
The basic requirement is that the number of input values cannot exceed the
number of number of items in the designator to the left; the repeat coun
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser | Share it
You are seeing this Email in Plain Text Version; Switch to HTML or Click this
link http://dits.ws/a/43002 to View it properly.
http://www.me-trk.com/url/u8nGvGl8lXiHmHF2j8vKzICxt7y5gcK3cXaPesa9wcCtrZGHiIJ8dg==
i...@esse.me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86208
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86353
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86353
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
...which doesn't look like something we should backport to 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86358
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86138
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christian Franke from comment #25)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #23)
> > What if you test with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS ?
> >
> > (I expect you'll get a crash for either c++14 or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86355
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86355
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
An ICE started with r245340 but that was a different one:
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
using check2 = mp_all..., mp_all<>>>;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86355
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
The new ICE started with r249080.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86365
Bug ID: 86365
Summary: Backported fortran test case
gfortran.dg/dec_type_print_2.f03 in r262224 problems
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86208
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86365
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86359
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86361
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86366
Bug ID: 86366
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.dg/profile-dir-3.c fails starting
with r262251
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86365
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865
--- Comment #12 from Fritz Reese ---
Author: foreese
Date: Fri Jun 29 20:29:34 2018
New Revision: 262260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert r262224 (backport of r262221) as PDTs are not supported in 7-branc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
Bug ID: 86367
Summary: FRE1 tree pass deletes code in
gcc.target/powerpc/nan128-1.c when long double is IEEE
128
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 44340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44340&action=edit
Ealias tree pass (pass before FRE1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 44341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44341&action=edit
Fre1 tree pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
BTW, I compiled the same code on the x86 with both -mlong-double-80 and
-mlong-double-128 options, and FRE1 deletes the code, but returns 0 instead of
calling abort.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
If I change the __builtin_nanq calls to __builtin_nanl and the __builtin_nansq
calls to __builtin_nansl when __float128 and long double use the same type, the
test works fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 44342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44342&action=edit
Patch to map 'q' builtins to 'l' instead of 'f128'
This patch 'fixes' the problem by changing the __builtin_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The values created for the four NaNs are
7fff8001
7fff8002ab3c
7fff8001
7fff8002ab3c
with -mabi=ieeelongdouble
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86064
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Jun 30 04:16:16 2018
New Revision: 262268
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR86064] split single cross-partition range with nonzero locviews
We
77 matches
Mail list logo
