https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 51654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51654&action=edit
proposed patch
Does this fix the problem on aarch64?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6)
> Created attachment 51654 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Does this fix the problem on aarch64?
I get:
Running
/home/ubuntu/src/upstream-gcc-aarch64/gcc/gcc/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51655
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51655&action=edit
Dump files for aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51654|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 51654 [details]
> > proposed patch
> >
> > Does this fix the problem on aarch64?
>
> I get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> Created attachment 51656 [details]
> proposed patch 2
>
> How about this?
I can confirm the patch works on aarch64-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Thank you for your help on this (and the myriad of other PRs ;-)).
I'll submit upstream.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 11:06 AM pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102892
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-23
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9262
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d891ab1bc87bc5d855f6ee18337e517a2a90d759
commit r12-4640-gd891ab1bc87bc5d855f6ee18337e517a2a90d759
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat Oct 23 05:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102908
Bug ID: 102908
Summary: [12 Regression] go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16095.go
hangs again
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Does sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_freebsd.cpp need any header
files from GCC?
If yes, why aren't they needed in compiler-rt?
If no, can you filter out these -I options in Makefile?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102716
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bec9e43e1611b62732bf29763c3e8bddea480f62
commit r10-10231-gbec9e43e1611b62732bf29763c3e8bddea480f62
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102716
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102891
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Adding to main the lines
print *, size (transfer ( w%z%re ,[1.0_dp]))
print *, size (transfer ([w%z%re],[1.0_dp]))
prints
4
2
whereas e.g.
print *, size (transfer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909
Bug ID: 102909
Summary: Missing -Wunused-but-set-variable warning
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102903
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-23
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #9 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> Does sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_freebsd.cpp need any header
> files from GCC?
>From what I found, that does not appear to be the case.
> If yes, why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102900
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102901
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #11 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
Created attachment 51657
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51657&action=edit
$WRKDIR/i586-unknown-freebsd11.4/libsanitizer/Makefile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #12 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
Created attachment 51658
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51658&action=edit
$WRKDIR/i586-unknown-freebsd11.4/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/Makefile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51659
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51659&action=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|go |tree-optimization
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102908
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This might be a bug in simple_dce_from_worklist which does not check
> stmt_unremovable_because_of_non_call_eh_p .
>
> Let me check if that solves the issue.
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102904
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84007
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71703
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65819
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36854
Bug 36854 depends on bug 65819, which changed state.
Bug 65819 Summary: overzealous checking in gfc_check_dependency for
identical=true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65819
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 65819, which changed state.
Bug 65819 Summary: overzealous checking in gfc_check_dependency for
identical=true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65819
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102729
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100194
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102641
Bug 102641 depends on bug 102729, which changed state.
Bug 102729 Summary: Assumed rank: ICE when passing noncontiguous to CONTIGUOUS
assume rank (assumed-rank loop handling)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102729
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
Bug ID: 102910
Summary: cf-descriptor-5-c.c fails to build
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-freebsd
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This fixes the issue. The assumption that alloca.h is available on
all systems is likely not a good idea. The function alloca() lives
in stdlib.h on at least FreeBSD.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911
Bug ID: 102911
Summary: AddressSanitizer: CHECK failed:
asan_malloc_linux.cpp:46
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102867
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] Waddress|[12 Regression] -Waddress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909
--- Comment #2 from Iru Cai ---
So it looks something like https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677
GCC thinks ``a`` is set but not used in ``a = 1 + b;``, but is used in ``a = 1;
a += b;``.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909
--- Comment #3 from Iru Cai ---
Looks like this kind of things are detected in the front-end. The GNAT
front-end can warn on the similar things:
procedure Main is
A : Integer;
B : constant Integer := 1;
begin
A := 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102802
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from TC --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92701
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mytbk920423 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 102909, which changed state.
Bug 102909 Summary: Missing -Wunused-but-set-variable warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102851
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Do you have the C++ preprocessed source that produces this mangled symbol?
The lambda part might be causing the difference between LLVM and GCC and such.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
53 matches
Mail list logo