https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100412
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100419
Bug ID: 100419
Summary: Arm: arm_mve.h generates warning when compiled with
-Wsystem-headers.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I have traced a bit where (insn 2275) and (insn 2287) come from.
In _.ira, we have:
613: r125:QI=r2067:DI#0
...
659: zero_extract(r2080:DI,0x8,0x8)=r125:QI#0
And in _.reload, a DImode reload is insert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
FYI, this whole analysis was done with Fedora 33 system compiler:
gcc version 10.3.1 20210422 (Red Hat 10.3.1-1) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100420
Bug ID: 100420
Summary: unspecified VLA bound formatted as [0] instead of [*]
in -Wvla-parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: min
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100412
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61601
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at current 10 branch (previously looked at 11), I see:
(insn 2741 1965 368 2 (set (reg:DI 42 r14 [orig:2067 u128_0 ] [2067])
(mem/c:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 7 sp)
(const_int 56 [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100411
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> My hope is to implement the warning in the middle end (I actually have a
> prototype but it's not ready for GCC 11).
So... do you want to take over the "assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95005
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|egallager at gcc dot gnu.org |gcc at ikkoku dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100411
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100418
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And there is one more important insn in between 2737 and 2275, in particular
(insn 2911 2867 2853 2 (set (reg:DI 42 r14 [2223])
(const_int 72057594037927935 [0xff])) "pr100342.c":68:12 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
--- Comment #40 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #39)
> Martin - this is another one, is there sth simple safe that can be done on
> the 8 branch?
The patch series that resolved this while also avoiding the otherwis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100421
Bug ID: 100421
Summary: Internal compiler error when overload resolution fails
for prospective destructors.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100422
Bug ID: 100422
Summary: [12 regression] g++.dg/gomp/clause-3.C fails after
r12-438
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100423
Bug ID: 100423
Summary: Internal compiler error when evaluating a
requires-expression referencing variables from outer
scope in a function invocation.
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100422
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
I wonder why 'git add' did not work for this one ?
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/clause-3.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/clause-3.C
@@ -59 +59 @@ foo (int x)
-#pragma omp p reduction (&&:d) // { dg-err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100422
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100166
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68703
--- Comment #10 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
(In reply to ncm from comment #9)
> This bug appears not to manifest in g++-8, 9, and 10.
Of the three code samples in comment 4, the first and
third fail to compile because N is undefined. What
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #18 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> (In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #7)
> > >
> > > Most likely the issue is that sout/sfrom are misal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100417
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org|msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:158cdc7bd97d7ccca5bc8adaaf80fe51eacdc038
commit r12-445-g158cdc7bd97d7ccca5bc8adaaf80fe51eacdc038
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] spurious |[11 Regression] spurious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95983
--- Comment #11 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Thank you so much!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100411
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 50752
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50752&action=edit
Tentative fix
Please give it a try in your setup when you get a chance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99921
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-04
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100424
Bug ID: 100424
Summary: Inline virtual function not emitted with
-fsanitize=undefined -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: link-failu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100167
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100418
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(gdb) p debug(x1)
(set (reg:DI 444)
(plus:DI (reg:DI 444)
(const_int -32 [0xffe0])))
Looking at the generated code, I see:
switch (GET_CODE (x4)) → (reg:DI 444)
case REG:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100417
--- Comment #2 from John Marshall ---
See also https://github.com/samtools/htslib/pull/1275#issuecomment-831799708
(onwards) and https://github.com/samtools/htslib/pull/1280 for the initial
observation of this in James's original code. The diagn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100425
Bug ID: 100425
Summary: missing -Walloca-larger-than with -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Your testcase does not compile with the C compiler:
pr100402.c:4:8: error: unknown type name 'bool'
4 | static bool stop = false;
|^~~~
pr100402.c:4:20: error: 'false' undeclared here (not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Indeed something does not work with -O:
@ ./pr100402.exe
$ echo $?
127
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100426
Bug ID: 100426
Summary: missing warning for zero-size VLA
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100373
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
master @r12-438 doesn't fail compare debug (maybe some later change masks this)
I think this will reproduce on a stage 1..
reduced:
a;
_Thread_local b;
c() {
long d = b;
a = 0;
b = 0;
}
cc1 -fpreproc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100373
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
of course, this could be exposing some prexisting problem (but i did check that
the previous revision did not show the problem). -fno-ipa-ra makes no
difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99686
--- Comment #5 from Steven Sun ---
I learn a little about gcc recently. I think I got a vague idea of what's going
on inside.
In c++17 mode with concepts, and with my code in comment 1.
The compiler decides to instantiate from the concept const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99686
--- Comment #6 from Steven Sun ---
While in C++20, the complier thinks it's unnecessary to instatiate a new
template. Just use the full specialization! Thus, this bug wouldn't exist at
first place.
Intuitively, I am in favor of the compiler's C+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Summary|Crash in longjm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 50754
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50754&action=edit
Tentative fix
Please give it a try if you can rebuild the compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100411
--- Comment #6 from Liu Hao ---
Thanks for the quick fix. It has resolved this issue on my setup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100427
Bug ID: 100427
Summary: canadian compile for mingw-w64 copies the wrong dlls
for mingw-w64 multilibs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100427
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
I think this is probably the reason why I got the last error, because canadian
cross toolchains install the wrong multilibs for dlls.
I personally suggest libstdc++-6.dll should install in /lib just like Linux o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100427
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
about gcc itself.
since gcc is compiled with -static-libgcc -static-libstdc++, it should not be a
problem tbh.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100427
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 50755
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50755&action=edit
config.log
config log file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94669
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom Tromey :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96deddca2e535d09db1d244a96a1efc20e24b673
commit r12-473-g96deddca2e535d09db1d244a96a1efc20e24b673
Author: Tom Tromey
Date: Tue May 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100418
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I suspect the RTL generation in builtins.c is off somehow. Can you trace the
insn to one of those?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 May 2021, vgupta at synopsys dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
>
> --- Comment #18 from Vineet Gupta ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
301 - 358 of 358 matches
Mail list logo
