https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93097
Arjen de Korte changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93098
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93099
Bug ID: 93099
Summary: Multiple definition error while linking libobjc.dll.a
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93099
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Emrich ---
That's with revision 279747.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93100
Bug ID: 93100
Summary: gcc -fsanitize=address inhibits -Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92961
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Dec 30 10:34:11 2019
New Revision: 279762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Catch division by zero errors in array sizes.
2019-12-30 Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91541
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Dec 30 10:43:38 2019
New Revision: 279763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove KIND argument from INDEX so it does not mess up scalarization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92961
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.0|9.2.1
Summary|[8/9/10 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91651
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Dec 30 10:43:38 2019
New Revision: 279763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove KIND argument from INDEX so it does not mess up scalarization.
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93101
Bug ID: 93101
Summary: [regression] ICE - aggregate initialization of base
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91541
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91651
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Dec 30 10:47:39 2019
New Revision: 279765
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279765&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91651
Fix PR num
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91651
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
>
> --- Comment #6 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Could you share how you build clang with PGO, and train workload?
It needs a lot of patience. If you have patch I can try it since I
still have the train data and corresponding gcc tree.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
>
> --- Comment #6 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Could you share how you build clang with PGO, and train workload?
It needs a lot of patience. If you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93102
Bug ID: 93102
Summary: [optimization] is it legal to avoid accessing const
local array from stack ?
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92833
Kerem Kat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||keremkat+gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92833
--- Comment #4 from Kerem Kat ---
Please assign to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93102
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93103
Bug ID: 93103
Summary: Generic function syntax does not check return concept
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91541
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #12)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #11)
>
> *sigh* corrected in the original PR.
Please add a 'fixup' to the bugdb.py file in the gcc-conversion repo,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91541
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And please also fix the comment in the new test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93104
Bug ID: 93104
Summary: [8/10 Regression] Current trunk can not build gcc 8
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91541
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> And please also fix the comment in the new test.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #12)
> > (In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91651
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Dec 30 12:35:05 2019
New Revision: 279766
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279766&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91651
* gfortran
ntf("x = %d\n", x);
}
--
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra test.c && ./a.out
x = 2
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -O3 test.c && ./a.out
x = 1
--
gcc x86-64 version: gcc (GCC) 10.0.0 20191230 (experimental)
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93102
--- Comment #2 from vfdff ---
do you mean the optimization memtioned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47980
Yes, it can be with optimized option '-fmerge-all-constants', but it doesn't
active in default.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79412
Kerem Kat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||keremkat+gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #29 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #28)
> I see the same even with pure pointers. I guess RTL doesn't care about such
> differences but it means the problem could bite a relatively innocent c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92961
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Dec 30 13:10:37 2019
New Revision: 279767
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279767&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Catch division by zero errors in array sizes.
2019-12-30 Thomas Koenig
-
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -O3 test.c && ./a.out
diff = 0
eq = 0
--
gcc x86-64 version: gcc (GCC) 10.0.0 20191230 (experimental)
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92833
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92961
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||93104
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
printf("x = %d\n", x);
}
--
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra test.c && ./a.out
x = 2
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -O3 test.c && ./a.out
x = 1
--
gcc x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #30 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
Sure, I've filed pr93105. Thanks for the analysis!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93104
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93104
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/10 Regression] Current |[10 Regression] Current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93104
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
See A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
Bug ID: 93106
Summary: [c++2a] Deleted move constructor is not selected when
returning an automatic variable
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93107
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Meant to add the StackOverflow link:
https://stackoverflow.com/q/59517774/2069064
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93107
Bug ID: 93107
Summary: unable to deduce initializer_list from function
template
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93101
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92961
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|93104 |
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92896
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92961
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Dec 30 15:27:08 2019
New Revision: 279769
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279769&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-30 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92961
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Dec 30 15:29:30 2019
New Revision: 279770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279770&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Catch division by zero errors in array sizes.
2019-12-30 Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92961
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31016
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Excellent news: The __builtin_memcpy cases have been fixed in the
meantime, and using __builtin_memset for values of more than one
byte doesn't work.
I will commit a test case and then close.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31016
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Correction: The rank-1 copying cases are now handled by the middle end,
the two-dimensional case isn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93091
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libfortran |fortran
Summary|Ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47568
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47568&action=edit
gcc10-pr90677-2.patch
Untested fix for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92833
--- Comment #6 from Kerem Kat ---
Created attachment 47569
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47569&action=edit
fix ice
PR c/92833
* parser.c (c_parser_consume_token): Fix peeked
token stack pop to support 4 available tokens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93104
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #28 from fdlbxtqi ---
Created attachment 47570
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47570&action=edit
Testsuite
Testsuite :
cqwrteur@DESKTOP-7H7UHQ9:~/libstdcpp_testsuite$ runtest --tool libstdc++
Using ../gcc/libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #29 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #17)
> (In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #15)
> > What I am worried about is that whether revamping these functions would be
> > a new wave of ABI breaking.
>
> I don't fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #30 from fdlbxtqi ---
Created attachment 47571
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47571&action=edit
Here is my stl_algobase.h after patch. You can try it directly.
Here is my stl_algobase.h after patch. You can try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #31 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yes, you usually need to make a full bootstrap / make check twice
which the same svn revision one with and one without your patch.
You also should make sure that the test case actually is able to fail
befor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
--- Comment #37 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 30/12/2019 10.51, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
>> Obviously, it could be used to fold `a + i == b` to `0` if `a` and `b`
>> are two different known arrays and `i` is unknown
>
> That's indeed t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92923
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon Dec 30 20:23:25 2019
New Revision: 279772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix builtin functions needlessly using VIEW_CONVERT_EXPRs on their opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92923
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93066
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Dec 30 20:33:17 2019
New Revision: 279773
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279773&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/93066
* inclhack.def (hpux_c99_inttypes3)
--with-sysroot=/usr/mmix --disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c --disable-nls
--with-native-system-header-dir=/include CFLAGS=-O0 CXXFLAGS=-O0
Thread model: single
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.0 20191230 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93108
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 47573
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47573&action=edit
min-bug.c
The bug initially discovered on gcc-9.2.0. creduce managed to shrink it down to
min-bug.c.
On i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93108
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Commenting out 'GETA $2,LC:0' makes assembler get past the error.
'LC:0' is defined in '.rodata'. If I change '.rodata' manually to '.text'
assembler can assemble ELF file from modified source.
I guess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #32 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #31)
> Yes, you usually need to make a full bootstrap / make check twice
> which the same svn revision one with and one without your patch.
> You also should make sure tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93066
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93095
fdlbxtqi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93108
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|hp at b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79412
--- Comment #8 from Kerem Kat ---
^ correction> not reproducible with 9.2.1, reproducible with gcc-10 trunk as:
$ gcc z1.c
79412-ice.c:6:5: error: conflicting types for ‘a’
6 | int a[] = {2};
| ^
79412-ice.c:1:5: note: previous dec
[BUG: 93065] libgomp: destructor missing to delete goacc_cleanup_key
libgomp constructor creates goacc_cleanup_key on dlopen but doesn't delete key
on dlclose.
dlopen and dlclose of libgomp.so exhausts pthread keys, which results in
pthread_key_create failure.
pthread_key_delete needs to be call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
fdlbxtqi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47559|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #34 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #33)
> Created attachment 47574 [details]
> copy_backward bug fixed for the last patch
>
> going to further run testsuite
Your test does not contain any test cases.
76 matches
Mail list logo
