https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, e.g. C99 guarantees that:
"If they are declared, the parameters to the main function shall obey the
following constraints:
— The value of argc shall be nonnegative."
Similarly C++, http://eel.is/c++draf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> That said, I bet the original package code didn't have the warning in main
> but somewhere else.
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45727
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45727&action=edit
original test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks for analysis.
>
> The bogus warning can be avoided in the first case simply by punting on
> offsets that could be in the negative range, but almost certainly not
> without some false negatives.
Yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45728
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45728&action=edit
gcc9-pr89350.patch
Untested patch for the argc range stuff.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89349
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66152
--- Comment #4 from SztfG at yandex dot ru ---
GCC from trunk doing this:
.Ltext0:
.LC0:
.string ""
.ascii "\001\002\003\004\005\006\007"
bar:
.LFB0:
sub rsp, 24
mov rax, QWORD PTR .LC0[rip]
lea rdi, [rsp+8]
mov QWORD PTR [rsp+8], rax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66152
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89360
Bug ID: 89360
Summary: GCC doesn't emit movcc instruction in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88858
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Bug 45375 depends on bug 88858, which changed state.
Bug 88858 Summary: ICE in rtl_verify_fallthru, at cfgrtl.c:2930 in Firefox
build with LTO and PGO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88858
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89349
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That change introduces some differences between C++98 and later modes, but the
testcase use C++14 and C++17. There are no differences in the code. There's
certainly no difference between std::less in the tw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I see this warning even when compiling preprocessed source that was all
produced using -std=c++14 (so the input source code is identical):
g++ -E main.cpp -o main.ii
g++ -E test.cpp -o test.ii
g++ -flto -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This shows it has nothing to do with r243379 at all:
template
struct binary_function
{
typedef _Arg1 first_argument_type;
typedef _Arg2 second_argument_type;
typedef _Result result_type;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66152
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's true that the two bases are defined in different translation units, but
that's irrelevant. What the C++ language requires is that the definitions
consist of the same sequence of tokens, it doesn't matt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Taking just this code:
template
struct binary_function
{
typedef _Arg1 first_argument_type;
typedef _Arg2 second_argument_type;
typedef _Result result_type;
};
template
struct less : p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
--- Comment #11 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89242
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Feb 15 10:59:02 2019
New Revision: 268938
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268938&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r268873
2019-02-15 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89009
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Feb 15 10:58:49 2019
New Revision: 268937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268937&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r268762
2019-02-15 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89009
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.4.0
Summary|[7 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89242
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89349
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89349
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Building gcc 8 with gcc 8 is fine.
OK, thanks.
> Can you please Eric try to reproduce that locally?
Sure, as soon as the compiler builds again for me...
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66152
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835
--- Comment #14 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #12)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #11)
> > Ah, but you mentioned elfutilts, not binutils. I've now downloaded and
> > built elfutils-0.175. It took a bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87210
--- Comment #3 from P J P ---
Similar options under review for LLVM
-> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-November/060172.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89361
Bug ID: 89361
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] s390 broken without
S390_USE_TARGET_ATTRIBUTE, likely since r257489
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89361
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89362
Bug ID: 89362
Summary: [8/9 regression] zlib support breaks libbacktrace on
strict-alignment platforms
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 45730
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45730&action=edit
Untested fix
I'm testing the attached fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89361
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84616
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89363
Bug ID: 89363
Summary: RANK incorrect for unallocated allocatable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45733
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45733&action=edit
Follow up patch that releases memory
Survives GCC LTO bootstrap and can build Inkscape with LTO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89364
Bug ID: 89364
Summary: Assumed rank object with incorrect values for shape
and bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
--- Comment #12 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Sorry for the delay, will look at the patch now.
You can test a single target libgo target by using make to build the /check
target. For example, to test the bytes package, cd to the libgo build
directo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89365
Bug ID: 89365
Summary: Inquiry functions for assumed rank objects fail
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89366
Bug ID: 89366
Summary: Fails to compile BIND(C) interface with assumed-length
character argument
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
--- Comment #13 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Feb 15 14:51:10 2019
New Revision: 268941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/89123
internal/cpu, runtime: add S/390 CPU capab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84616
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 15, 2019 2:37:25 PM GMT+01:00, "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84616
>
>Martin Liška changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
--- Comment #14 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
OK, patch committed. Should we leave this bug report open?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #10 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9)
> The warning is very simple: it just looks for excessive sizes in calls
> emitted in the optimized IL. When the call is there (either because it's in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
Bug ID: 89367
Summary: Constexpr expression is not constexpr in template, but
is constexpr in non-template.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
--- Comment #2 from Frank Secilia ---
I searched for existing bugs. I don't know the codebase, but I think it may be
another repro case for https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53181.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88308
--- Comment #6 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: acsawdey
Date: Fri Feb 15 15:41:25 2019
New Revision: 268942
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268942&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-15 Aaron Sawdey
PR rtl-optimization/88
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88308
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
--- Comment #1 from Frank Secilia ---
Created attachment 45738
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45738&action=edit
verbose compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89368
Bug ID: 89368
Summary: [9 regression] ICE in
go/gofrontend/expressions.cc:4669 after r268923
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88512
--- Comment #8 from Jonny Grant ---
Another example. 9 line file. Gives 48 lines of STL warnings... G++ only
needs to say something clear:
"error: std::string 'str' is const, and as such insert() method cannot be
called"
// g++ -Wall -c -o in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85711
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89369
Bug ID: 89369
Summary: [9 Regression] pseudo-RNG miscompiled on s390x-linux
with -O2 -march=zEC12 -mtune=z13 starting with r266203
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89369
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45739
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45739&action=edit
gcc9-pr89369.patch
Untested fix.
The recently added patterns want to do x |= (unsigned) ((reg:DI) >> cnt), and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89370
Bug ID: 89370
Summary: Output std::string in diagnostics instead of
std::__cxx11::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88512
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's also Bug 53281
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89371
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88512
--- Comment #12 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> It's easy for you to say that after looking at the reason it failed and
> knowing what the code is trying to do (obviously "insert" modifies the
> string, so it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89370
Jonny Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jg at jguk dot org
--- Comment #1 from Jon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88944
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89372
Bug ID: 89372
Summary: Incorrect PMULHRSW
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
--- Comment #17 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #16)
> Regarding the unwanted padding with \0, the following patch seems to
> solve the issue with transfer.
Regtested cleanly and submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84536
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89368
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Feb 15 21:04:58 2019
New Revision: 268948
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268948&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/89368
compiler: write barrier check nil-check pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #35 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Right: 64-bit Solaris/SPARC uses the full 64-bit address space:
>
> https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37838_01/html/E66175/advanced-2.
> html#SSFDGadvanced-5
>
> The gap between the low and high parts cannot b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60920
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84916
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |10.0
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89368
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88512
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's easy for you to say that after looking at the reason it failed and knowing
what the code is trying to do (obviously "insert" modifies the string, so it
can't be const). But the compiler has to try ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88512
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've created bug 89370 to request showing the type as std::string.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89371
Bug ID: 89371
Summary: missed vectorisation with "#pragma omp simd
collapse(2)"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89171
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I don't know what is happening here and I don't have access to a riscv64
machine to test on (there doesn't seem to be one in the compile farm). The
errors are incorrect in that these are not expected depe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89277
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89373
Bug ID: 89373
Summary: macro expansion not counting braces correctly
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
90 matches
Mail list logo
