https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99421
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed, reduced test-case:
$ cat predict.ii
typedef struct {
int *use
} ssa_use_operand_t;
enum { GIMPLE_PHI, GIMPLE_UNARY_RHS, GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS } gimple_num_ops;
gimple_call_fndecl_addr_0_0, gimple_cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99421
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||85099
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99408
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99411
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99412
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE in |[11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99414
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99448
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99446
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-08
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-08
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99415
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99450
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99419
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99457
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99428
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |ipa
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99446
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99442
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99444
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99440
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99441
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-08
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99443
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
> Can you please reduce it to a valid test-case?
the run took 40 hours. I'll see when I can repeat it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99418
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-08
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99458
Bug ID: 99458
Summary: libgo doesn't build against latest glibc
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #3)
> > Can you please reduce it to a valid test-case?
>
> the run took 40 hours. I'll see when I can repeat it.
I can imagine. Or you can try to somehow "fix" the re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99458
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-08
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99420
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
Bug ID: 99459
Summary: [11 Regression] Many coroutines regressions on
armv7hl-linux-gnueabi
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99457
--- Comment #4 from Jay ---
I thought I stepped far enough, as I showed.
I didn't try current, granted.
And yeah, I don't need -gstabs+ and have now switched to -g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-March/663801.html
r11-7517 was good, while
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-March/663970.html
r11-7537 was already bad.
The coroutines.cc c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99448
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
the compiler is configured with --enable-default-pie.
so this one sometimes fails with different reasons when retrying:
lto1: error: filter/andfiltertest.o: file too short
lto1: fatal error: errors during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
p debug_tree (dummy)
>
side-effects
arg:0
public unsigned type_6 SI
size
unit-size
align:32 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canonical-type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99451
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So perhaps:
2021-03-08 Jakub Jelinek
PR c++/99459
* coroutines.cc (build_co_await): Look through NOP_EXPRs in
build_special_member_call return value to find the CALL_EXPR.
--- gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
It looks likely.
is there a 32b arm box on the cfarm?
I don't have access to one locally either (but maybe it will reproduce on a
cross...)
Both places in the crash logs are
dummy = dummy ? TREE_OPERAND (CA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99457
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So perhaps:
> 2021-03-08 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR c++/99459
> * coroutines.cc (build_co_await): Look through NOP_EXPRs in
> build_special_member_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96464
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
would STRIP_NOPS() be more general?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86826
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think STRIP_NOPS strips the nops only if the outer and inner type have the
same TYPE_MODE, that is not the case here, the outer type is VOID_TYPE, the
inner type is some POINTER_TYPE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91798
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99418
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Asan can't by design detect neither #c0 nor #c1, only ubsan can.
The reason why ubsan has that off by one stuff is that in C/C++,
&mas[n - 1][m] is not undefined behavior, only mas[n - 1][m] is.
And with clas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78710
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90448
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99460
Bug ID: 99460
Summary: [C++20] Template with complex non-type argument
re-uses different specialisation
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98856
--- Comment #36 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #35)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #33)
> > Created attachment 50308 [details]
> > patch
> >
> > I am testing the following.
>
> It FAILs
>
> FAIL: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99461
Bug ID: 99461
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2670 since r11-7526-g9105757a59b89019
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99462
Bug ID: 99462
Summary: Enhance scheduling to split instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99462
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99463
Bug ID: 99463
Summary: GCC gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/hreset-1.c -c
-march=alderlake fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99463
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
I'm able to reduce the amount of object files involved in this ICE. But then
trying to rebuild the package with -save-temps makes the ICE disappear.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99460
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99461
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-08
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99463
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Similarly for:
gcc /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/uintr-1.c -c
-march=sapphirerapids
In file included from
/home/marxin/bin/gcc/lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.0.1/include/x86gpri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99461
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Looks like a dup.
I haven't found a PR that would start with the revision..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98791
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|10.2.1 |
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99464
Bug ID: 99464
Summary: #pragma GCC target("arch=cannonlake") does not work
with a -msha builtin
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99464
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78710
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nicolai Josuttis from comment #0)
> stoi("hello") currently throws an exception where what() only outputs "stoi"
> (nothing else).
The type of the exception is significant too. It can either t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97927
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a6a62614a8ae4544770420416d1632d6c3d3f6e
commit r11-7551-g8a6a62614a8ae4544770420416d1632d6c3d3f6e
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
It's an ABI issue, because all compilers must agree on which parts of an inline
object are dynamically initialized. (gcc-11 does not agree with gcc-10).
consider:
inline Type Var = Expr;
That'll be emitt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99460
--- Comment #1 from mexon ---
Here's a transcript showing the platform (Ubuntu 20.10 in a virtual machine)
and output of g++ -v -save-temps:
$ vagrant init ubuntu/groovy64
$ vagrant up
$ ssh 127.0.0.1
vagrant@ubuntu-groovy:~$ sudo apt install b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85304
Rakesh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rrakesh2 at in dot ibm.com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98856
--- Comment #37 from Richard Biener ---
So my analysis was partly wrong and the vpinsrq isn't an issue for the
benchmark
but only the spilling is.
Note that the other idea of disparaging vector CTORs more like with
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50330&action=edit
gcc11-pr99456.patch
On one side, we have still accepts-invalid issue, e.g. in your testcase:
constexpr inline C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99465
Bug ID: 99465
Summary: Segmentation fault when put lambda into requires
clause
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another thing is that perhaps we should be rejecting reinterpret_cast only in
the
pedantic constant expression evaluation mode, not when we allow extensions and
fold as much as we can. So something like (inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
You're misreading this particular testcase. I don't believe it contains
anything invalid -- the only constexpr is on:
static constexpr unsigned &descRef = desc;
(and I don't think it's necessary there, bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99465
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
Other related ICE:
template requires ([]{}());
auto f() requires ([]{}());
https://godbolt.org/z/8z3PPx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm not misreading the testcase, I'm just reacting on the fact that my patch
changed the behavior of it and looking into related issues when analyzing why.
It is up to the compiler to decide if it can or can'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
Bug ID: 99466
Summary: internal compiler error: in
function_and_variable_visibility, at
ipa-visibility.c:795
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-08
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99463
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e95554dac8284a75c13f4650ef40eea76227282e
commit r11-7553-ge95554dac8284a75c13f4650ef40eea76227282e
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99462
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99463
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> What compiler options do you use?
No compiler options are necessary to reproduce the ICE. The symbol it fails on
is ___emutls_t.tlsvar.
Having a look at where this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50330|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99452
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Reduced valid testcase:
template struct implicit_conversions;
template
using implicit_conversions_t = typename implicit_conversions::type;
template struct response_type;
template
using type1 = response_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99422
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04b4828c6dd215385fde6964a5e13da8a01a78ba
commit r11-7554-g04b4828c6dd215385fde6964a5e13da8a01a78ba
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99422
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I think I fixed the PR. Although there may be necessity for one more patch to
solve other process_address_1 issues. I did not decide this yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.4.0
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm bootstrapping/regtesting it using a package build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63330796
but it will take about 9 more hours to complete given the average arm build
times).
1 - 100 of 207 matches
Mail list logo
