[Bug target/81646] i386 SSE2 compilation mode which preserves psABI stack alignment without requiring it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81646 --- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4) > You can use -mstackrealign. I don't want to realign the stack unconditionally for performance reasons. I want to preserve alignment for callback functions, and give

[Bug target/81780] -finstrument-control-flow -mcet is incompatible with __attribute__ ((regparm (3)))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81780 --- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer --- Could we turn calls to regparam (3) functions into noplt calls? Some additional mechanics are probably needed if the address of such a function is taken.

[Bug target/82104] New: __stack_chk_fail should not use lazy binding on ELF

: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- __stack_chk_fail is only called when something is critically wrong with the process. At this point, it is important to minimize the amount of work done by the process

[Bug target/78460] [7/8 Regression] [SH] OOM building glibc string tst-cmp.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78460 --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer --- I see ~500 GiB with GCC 7.0.1 20170501 (prerelease) [gcc-7-branch revision 247430]. This interferes rather badly with cross-compiler-based testing.

[Bug middle-end/13182] -fstack-check probes too distant when allocating on stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13182 --- Comment #7 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6) > That's as expected: the probing mechanism maintains a protection area so the > program can recover from a stack overflow condition by raising an exception. > Tha

[Bug middle-end/81035] New: noreturn leads to worse code due to lack of sibcall optimization

Priority: P3 Component: middle-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: x86-64 Created attachment 41521 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41521&action=edit C te

[Bug sanitizer/81066] sanitizer_stoptheworld_linux_libcdep.cc:276:22: error: aggregate ‘sigaltstack handler_stack’ has incomplete type and cannot be defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81066 --- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Khem Raj from comment #5) > +#ifndef __stack_t_defined > +struct stack_t; > +#endif Where does __stack_t_defined come from? If this is the definition from the glibc headers, that's really brit

[Bug middle-end/78918] missing -Wrestrict on memcpy copying over self

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78918 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug other/81242] New: Clear-to-EOL in diagnostics colorization corrupts output

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org CC: dmalcolm at redhat dot com Target Milestone: --- It appears that GCC suffers from the same issue as grep when it comes

[Bug sanitizer/81066] sanitizer_stoptheworld_linux_libcdep.cc:276:22: error: aggregate ‘sigaltstack handler_stack’ has incomplete type and cannot be defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81066 --- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Khem Raj from comment #7) > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #6) > > (In reply to Khem Raj from comment #5) > > > +#ifndef __stack_t_defined > > > +struct stack_t; > > > +#endif > > > >

[Bug c/78584] Bug in GCC argument parser expandargv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78584 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c/78584] Bug in GCC argument parser expandargv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78584 --- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer --- Hmm. Maybe it is file-system-specific. I don't see the anomalous return values on XFS and tmpfs.

[Bug target/78862] New: tile*: ICE with -fstack-protetor-strong

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: tilepro-glibc-linux Created attachment 40369 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40369&action=edit Test case extracted from glibc Comp

[Bug other/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #16

[Bug sanitizer/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #20 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #19) > As a debugging tool I think asan is a special case also regarding ABI > compatibility. We probably do not want to export the internal symbol and > make it p

[Bug target/79439] New: Missing nop instruction after recursive call corrupts TOC register

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: ppc64le-redhat-linux Consider this test case: int f (void); void g (void) { } void rec (int a) { if (f

[Bug target/79439] Missing nop instruction after recursive call corrupts TOC register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439 --- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1) > What command line options does this need? Sorry, I used -O2 -fpic. Indeed, GCC seems to perform target-independent optimizations based on an assumption th

[Bug middle-end/56727] Recursive call goes through the PLT unnecessarily

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727 --- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > Don't we also inline any beneficial inline functions at -O3 even if they > could be interposed (definitely not suggesting we stop doing that, that > would tot

[Bug sanitizer/79341] Many Asan tests fail on s390

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341 --- Comment #58 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #57) > libsanitizer miscalculates the Pcs in the backtrace: > > #0 0x1000839 in NullDeref > #1 0x10006c1 in main > #2 0x3fff6e23069 in __libc_start_main >

[Bug c/82528] New: Warning for conversion from bool to enum

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- I think this program should emit a warning in C mode: #define TRUE ((_Bool) 1) #define FALSE ((_Bool) 0) typedef enum { a, b, c } result; result f (int flag) { if (flag) return

[Bug c++/82900] Warn on initialization with self

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82900 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/61118] [6/7/8 Regression] Indirect call generated for pthread_cleanup_push with constant cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] Spurious |[6/7/8 Regression] Indirect

[Bug target/83302] i386 stack_probe has side effects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83302 --- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer --- FWIW, -fstack-clash-protection avoids these issues.

[Bug middle-end/66661] incorrect memory access in optimization with flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #11

[Bug middle-end/66661] incorrect memory access in optimization with flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug ada/77535] New: GNAT.Perfect_Hash_Generators access invalid memory with non-1-based strings

: normal Priority: P3 Component: ada Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 39585 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39585&action=edit phg2.adb Natasha Kere

[Bug ada/77535] GNAT.Perfect_Hash_Generators access invalid memory with non-1-based strings

||2016-09-08 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fw at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1

[Bug tree-optimization/77627] New: Unexpected void * dereference in uninit warning (and missed out-of-bounds warning)

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- This snippet, derived from code provided by Ron Garret: int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { int x[100] = {0

[Bug tree-optimization/77627] Unexpected void * dereference in uninit warning (and missed out-of-bounds warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77627 --- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer --- Observed with the trunk from 2016-09-08.

[Bug target/77729] aarch64 inserts unneeded uxtb after ldrb, orr ...32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug c/77762] New: Incorrect destination buffer length in -Wformat-length warning

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org CC: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 39703 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi

[Bug target/77894] Enable GNU indirect function support by default as it will be used in glibc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77894 --- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to nsz from comment #1) > the ifunc abi still has many problems and i don't think it's possible to > detect > dynamic linker support for cross compilation so if it is enabled do it only > if > the

[Bug c/38295] Support pointer difference as constant in static initializer

||fw at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|WONTFIX |--- --- Comment #10 from Florian Weimer --- This is already implemented for differences between C && label addresses. I think there is no compelling reason why this would not work for the addr

[Bug rtl-optimization/77951] New: Incorrect placement of label which does not affect execution flow

Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 39794 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39794&action=edit label-bug.c The attached te

[Bug c/38295] Support pointer difference as constant in static initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38295 --- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer --- Created attachment 39799 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39799&action=edit label.c (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > Not always since they could be in different sections vi

[Bug libgcc/78064] New: unwind-c.c never users _Unwind_GetIPInfo

Assignee: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- unwind-c.c use a HAVE_GETIPINFO preprocessor conditional, but never includes auto-target.h, so the macro is always undefined. As a result, _Unwind_GetIPInfo is never used. This causes

[Bug libgcc/78064] unwind-c.c never users _Unwind_GetIPInfo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/78091] New: i386: Register allocation failure with -Os

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: i386 Created attachment 39874 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39874&action=edit posix_fallocate.i The attached test case has been ex

[Bug target/78091] i386: Register allocation failure with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78091 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/78091] i386: Register allocation failure with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78091 --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer --- Although I have to admit, the error variable could be a bit nicer, rejecting the register variable definition.

[Bug libgcc/78064] unwind-c.c never uses _Unwind_GetIPInfo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064 --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer --- Author: fw Date: Mon Oct 24 18:25:09 2016 New Revision: 241491 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241491&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libgcc/78064: Add missing include directive to unwind-c.c PR lib

[Bug libgcc/78064] unwind-c.c never uses _Unwind_GetIPInfo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libgcc/78064] unwind-c.c never uses _Unwind_GetIPInfo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064 --- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer --- Author: fw Date: Mon Nov 7 17:08:40 2016 New Revision: 241914 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241914&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libgcc/78064: Add missing include directive to unwind-c.c Backpo

[Bug libgcc/78064] unwind-c.c never uses _Unwind_GetIPInfo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064 --- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer --- Author: fw Date: Mon Nov 7 19:54:05 2016 New Revision: 241929 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241929&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libgcc/78064: Add missing include directive to unwind-c.c Backpo

[Bug libstdc++/65142] std::random_device Ignores Read Return Code (CVE-2015-5276)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65142 --- Comment #15 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14) > Do we want this on gcc-4_9-branch too? Yes, I think so. It's non-invasive, and it's not in templates/inline functions, so those who use dynamic linking wou

[Bug c/67999] Wrong optimization of pointer comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug c/67999] Wrong optimization of pointer comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999 --- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #4) > Am I right that the C standards do not allow for such a limitation (and > hence this should not be reported to glibc as a bug) and gcc is not > standards

[Bug c/67999] Wrong optimization of pointer comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999 --- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Daniel Micay from comment #9) > I don't think there's much of a use case for allocating a single >2G > allocation in a 3G or 4G address space. The main OpenJDK heap (well, it was Java back th

[Bug c/67999] Wrong optimization of pointer comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999 --- Comment #12 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Daniel Micay from comment #10) > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7) > > If this is not a GCC bug and it is the responsibility of allocators not to > > produce huge objects, do we also

[Bug c/63303] Pointer subtraction is broken when using -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63303 --- Comment #14 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Szabolcs Nagy from comment #13) > if gcc treats p-q as (ssize_t)p-(ssize_t)q and makes > optimization decisions based on signed int range then > that's broken and leads to wrong code gen. Than

[Bug c/67999] Wrong optimization of pointer comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/68537] Vectorizer possibly miscompiles dynamic linker with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68537 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/68537] Vectorizer possibly miscompiles dynamic linker with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68537 --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0) > rbp0x7fffa148 0x7fffa148 (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #2) > 1470 <_dl_lookup_symbol_x>: > 1470:

[Bug rtl-optimization/68537] Vectorizer possibly miscompiles dynamic linker with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68537 --- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #5) > Ok. Well, I'm running GHC version 7.10.2, which is the latest. > (Not sure how to report this issue to the ghc folks). To be honest, if Richard thinks th

[Bug rtl-optimization/68537] Vectorizer possibly miscompiles dynamic linker with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68537 --- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7) > Well, only Haskell programs crash. This is a valid point. You can open a GHC ticket in Trac, after registering:

[Bug tree-optimization/68680] New: On-stack VLA does not cause instrumentation with -fstack-protector-strong

: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: x864_64-redhat-linux-gnu This test case int process(char *); int uses_vla(unsigned long sz

[Bug c/69002] New: C front end should warn about undefined access to atomic structure or union

: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The following code currently compiles without warnings (apart from the -Wunused-but-set-parameter warning), but the standard says in

[Bug c/69002] C front end should warn about undefined access to atomic structure or union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69002 --- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1) > I actually wouldn't want to see GCC start issuing warnings for this code > because it has well-defined semantics there. Unfortunately, the generated code is trul

[Bug c/69002] C front end should warn about undefined access to atomic structure or union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69002 --- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4) > The footnote to 6.5.2.3/5 says "Members can be safely accessed using a > non-atomic object which is assigned to or from the atomic object." Does it > mean that

[Bug tree-optimization/69359] New: Warn about constant comparisons between pointers and arrays

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- This code fragment should result in a warning because p < a can never be true. int *f (int *); int g (void) { int a[3]; int

[Bug tree-optimization/69359] Warn about constant comparisons between pointers and arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69359 --- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > I'd find warning about p <= weird, warning about p < a makes sense, as well > as e.g. > int g (void) > { > int a[3], b; > int *p = f (a, &b); > return (p <

[Bug rtl-optimization/8537] Optimizer Removes Code Necessary for Security

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8537 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID --- Comment #5 from Florian Weim

[Bug c++/41874] Incorrect "dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules" warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug other/39933] make clean fails in libgcc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39933 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/19351] operator new[] can return heap blocks which are too small

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19351 --- Comment #24 from Florian Weimer 2011-05-24 19:54:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #23) > Florian, your patch seems to have gone unreviewed, could you ping it? Jason reviewed it and Ian, too (off-list). I haven't yet gotten around to incorpor

[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug c/72783] New: Fortify scanf %s, %[ conversion specifiers

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org CC: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- A somewhat common source of buffer overflows are %s and %[ conversions in scanf parsers, where the input string (and the extracted region) are

[Bug target/72788] New: Stack unwinding fails since GCC 4.9 on i686 without -fexceptions

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: i686-redhat-linux-gnu The tst-cleanupx4 test case used to test stack unwinding (for thread cancellation processing) for

[Bug c/72783] Fortify scanf %s, %[ conversion specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72783 --- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer --- Martin and I discussed this for a bit. The %ms hack does not work due to embedded NULs, which are copied to the destination buffer by scanf, do not terminate the string, and are (in most cases) detectable b

[Bug middle-end/77407] New: Optimize integer i / abs (i) into the sign of i

Priority: P3 Component: middle-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- I found this gem in some glibc test case: if (c != 0) c /= abs (c); This could turn into: if (c < 0) c = -1; else

[Bug c/99587] warning: ‘retain’ attribute ignored while __has_attribute(retain) is 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99587 --- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer --- The problem is that if GCC is not configured for SHF_GNU_RETAIN, __has_attribute (retain) should not be true. That is, __has_attribute needs to reflect the actual attribute support status, and not what happ

[Bug c/99587] warning: ‘retain’ attribute ignored while __has_attribute(retain) is 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99587 --- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer --- For retain, something along these lines might work: diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-attribs.c b/gcc/c-family/c-attribs.c index c1f652d1dc9..cdae464ab8a 100644 --- a/gcc/c-family/c-attribs.c +++ b/gcc/c-family/c

[Bug libstdc++/100117] FAIL testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++1998/49745.cc with trunk glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100117 --- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer --- This looks like the old C++ _GNU_SOURCE issue. But I do not really see why includes . Is this some PCH test? Should really include all the C headers?

[Bug libstdc++/100117] FAIL testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++1998/49745.cc with trunk glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100117 --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer --- I was looking at the 17_intro/headers/c++1998/49745.cc file contents and can't make sense of the error message in that context. There's no in it.

[Bug target/97250] Implement -march=x86-64-v2, -march=x86-64-v3, -march=x86-64-v4 for x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97250 --- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4) > x86-64-v2 includes CMPXCHG16B, aka CX16. But -mcx16 doesn't define __CX16__. It's called __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_16, I think. Is this good enough?

[Bug target/97250] Implement -march=x86-64-v2, -march=x86-64-v3, -march=x86-64-v4 for x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97250 --- Comment #7 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6) > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #5) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4) > > > x86-64-v2 includes CMPXCHG16B, aka CX16. But -mcx16 doesn't define > > >

[Bug tree-optimization/97424] New: Warn on invalid shift amount after inlining

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Consider this program: #include static inline uint32_t _dl_hwcaps_subdirs_build_bitmask (int subdirs, int active) { /* Leading

[Bug tree-optimization/97424] Warn on invalid shift amount after inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424 --- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer --- Indeed, Martin Sebor has suggested that it would have to be coupled with __builtin_warning: https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01015.html

[Bug tree-optimization/97424] Warn on invalid shift amount after inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424 --- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5) > The above commit implements it as an analyzer warning. Should I close this > out, or should we keep it open for the __builtin_warning approach? Thanks for the

[Bug tree-optimization/98110] [11 Regression] dl-lookup.c in glibc is miscompiled by r11-5029

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98110 --- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > on the mov %fs:0x10,%rax perhaps %fs isn't initialized yet? Yes, that's why the access is guarded by flags & DL_LOOKUP_GSCOPE_LOCK. During initial relocation, _

[Bug tree-optimization/98110] [11 Regression] dl-lookup.c in glibc is miscompiled by r11-5029

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98110 --- Comment #9 from Florian Weimer --- And we should not end up in the add_dependency part, either because l_type won't be lt_loaded and the DL_LOOKUP_ADD_DEPENDENCY flag hasn't been set, either. The inline asm is marked as volatile, and that sh

[Bug tree-optimization/98110] [11 Regression] dl-lookup.c in glibc is miscompiled by r11-5029

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98110 --- Comment #12 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11) > Ah, RTL loop_invariant. Perhaps because the inline asm is buggy? > asm ("mov %%fs:%c1,%0" : "=r" (__self) : "i" (__builtin_offsetof (struct > pthread, header.

[Bug tree-optimization/98110] [11 Regression] dl-lookup.c in glibc is miscompiled by r11-5029

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98110 --- Comment #17 from Florian Weimer --- Jakub's glibc test failures were due to --prefix=/usr/local, so that glibc wouldn't find the installed system libgcc_s in /usr/lib64.

[Bug target/98121] New: __attribute__ ((used)) should not imply SHF_RETAIN_SECTION

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The used attribute has already a defined meaning. I think it's wrong to cause it to change section attributes because people use it to inte

[Bug tree-optimization/98110] [11 Regression] dl-lookup.c in glibc is miscompiled by r11-5029

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98110 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/98121] __attribute__ ((used)) should not imply SHF_RETAIN_SECTION

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98121 --- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Jozef Lawrynowicz from comment #4) > GAS merges the "R" flag state in .section declarations, silently, and with > logical OR, and GCC should do the same. So if you have: > > int __attribute__((

[Bug target/97250] New: Implement -march=x86-64-v2, -march=x86-64-v3, -march=x86-64-v4 for x86-64

: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: x86_64-*-* x86-64-v2, x86-64-v3, x86-64-v4 have been added to the psABI as new micro-architecture levels: https

[Bug target/97250] Implement -march=x86-64-v2, -march=x86-64-v3, -march=x86-64-v4 for x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97250 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-09-30 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug target/97250] Implement -march=x86-64-v2, -march=x86-64-v3, -march=x86-64-v4 for x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97250 --- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer --- First patch committed (preparatory only): https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=92e652d8c21bd7e66c Second patch posted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/555174.html

[Bug target/97250] Implement -march=x86-64-v2, -march=x86-64-v3, -march=x86-64-v4 for x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97250 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/98512] New: “#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored” ineffective in conjunction with alias attribute

: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org CC: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The following test case has been

[Bug target/98618] aarch64: oob adrp offset causes relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_PG_HI21

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618 --- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer --- Is the test case really valid? It involves an out-of-bounds array access, after all.

[Bug rtl-optimization/98788] New: simplify_replace_fn_rtx crash on riscv64-glibc-linux-gnu for glibc sincos32.c

: ice-on-valid-code Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: fw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 50026 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi

[Bug target/97683] [11 Regression] nios2 assembler branch offset errors building glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97683 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug rtl-optimization/98788] simplify_replace_fn_rtx crash on riscv64-glibc-linux-gnu for glibc sincos32.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98788 --- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer --- Indeed, thanks, seems to be working again.

[Bug target/97683] [11 Regression] nios2 assembler branch offset errors building glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97683 --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer --- Thanks. The -Werror failure you reported is due to PR98512. Martin has posted a patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564060.html Should I open a binutils bug with the generated .s f

[Bug target/97683] [11 Regression] nios2 assembler branch offset errors building glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97683 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug tree-optimization/98512] [11 Regression] “#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored” ineffective in conjunction with alias attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512 --- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer --- Note, patch has been superseded: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564060.html

[Bug c++/58118] Local variables specified with asm("reg") may not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58118 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/33661] template methods forget explicit local register asm vars

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33661 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nate at verse dot com --- Comment #20 f

<    1   2   3   4   5   >