https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
Bug ID: 106332
Summary: Possible out of bound buffer access in opts-common.c
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The one inside check_offload_target_name (in gcc.cc) will always have at least
one entry in candidates.
The one inside cmdline_handle_error (in opts-common.cc) could in theory be
called with no elements for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106278
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106273
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suppose we could just put a gcc_assert in there to make that assumption
explicit and give an ICE in checked builds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106333
Bug ID: 106333
Summary: Required condition omitted from generated code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
--- Comment #3 from liftdat at protonmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The one inside check_offload_target_name (in gcc.cc) will always have at
> least one entry in candidates.
>
> The one inside cmdline_handle_error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97498
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106333
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106333
--- Comment #2 from Eran Kornblau ---
Thanks Andreas, I understand there's an overflow here, but isn't it a bug that
it affects the second part of the condition?
I mean, any value is legit for the first part of the condition, if the behavior
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99377
--- Comment #13 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
> The workaround of Comment 5 stopped working for my actual use-case some time
> ago.
The `using` declaration works if I move it earlier in the TU.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106333
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eran Kornblau from comment #2)
> Thanks Andreas, I understand there's an overflow here, but isn't it a bug
> that it affects the second part of the condition?
No.
> I mean, any value is le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106333
--- Comment #4 from Eran Kornblau ---
Ok, thank you both.
One last point - maybe it makes sense to at least output a warning in this
case?
I added '-Wall -pedantic -Wextra' to the command, and didn't get any warning
about this.
The end result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106334
Bug ID: 106334
Summary: [13 Regression] lto -g ICE in
dwarf2out_register_external_die at dwarf2out.cc:6072
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106333
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
There was -Wstrict-overflow but many of those warnings are gone in recent
versions of the compiler and it was way too noisy. -fsanitize=undefined should
be able to detect the problem at runtime instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106333
--- Comment #6 from Eran Kornblau ---
Indeed!
/tmp/x.c:18:44: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 9223372036854775807 -
-1 cannot be represented in type 'long long int'
Thanks!
Eran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106334
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106331
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Whole array assignment of |[12/13 Regression] Whole
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106328
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-10.4.0/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-flto
Maybe the automation detection of job server is not working on freebsd
correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i386-linux-gnu
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106323
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC might be better if the first bytes are in cache but the next bytes are not
and then branch is predictable (which it might be).
So this is much more complex than just changing this really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103590
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||104611
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106335
Bug ID: 106335
Summary: struct copies with volatile fields are done using
memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106335
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.0 20220717 (experimental) [master r13-1722-g7bcd7f47359] (GCC)
[571] %
[571] % gcctk -O2 small.c
small.c: In function ‘n’:
small.c:18:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
18 | }
| ^
(insn 41 25 32 8 (set (reg:TI 85 [ D.2008
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106336
Bug ID: 106336
Summary: BLOCK construct and host association are not handled
correctlyThis
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106231
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2907bfc3412dd8aef6c6acc17f2152a4e0ac4979
commit r13-1726-g2907bfc3412dd8aef6c6acc17f2152a4e0ac4979
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon J
29 matches
Mail list logo
