at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-29
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Rachel Mant from comment #0)
> Created attachment 48408 [details]
> A simple f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94849
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I think it is undefined behavior and just doesn't crash because the pathname
> is passed to a syscall which will fail then.
> So IMHO nothing we should support.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94856
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Summary|[10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94856
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94856
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
class a {
public:
virtual ~a() {}
};
class b {
public:
virtual void c();
};
class C : a, public b {};
class d : C {
~d();
void c();
};
d::~d() { ((b *)this)->c(); }
void d::c() {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94856
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
So the GNU TM is involved only very slightly as it prevents one inlining
candidate:
Without -fgnu-tm:
Enqueueing calls in d::~d()/9.
Estimating body: c.constprop/34
Known to be false: not inlined
si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94856
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
With the patch, minimal options are:
g++ pr47218.ii -fno-tree-dse --param uninlined-function-insns=0 --param
early-inlining-insns=3 -O2 -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94881
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-04
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks for the report, I'll take a look.
|NEW
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
-gbce54ed494fd0e61
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail||10.0, 11.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-04
,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail||10.0, 11.0, 9.3.0
Summary|[9 regression] invalid use |[9/10/11 regression
|1
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-04
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
All releases I have tend to have the problem (4.8.0).
,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|ICE: Segmentation fault (in |ICE: Segmentation fault (in
|check_return_expr) |check_return_expr) since
||r10-8016-gbce54ed494fd0e61
--- Comment
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
But the attachment was removed.
: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
It&#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48436
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48436&action=edit
Original test-case
$ gcc -c -O2 -Werror=array-bounds intelvf2.i -m32
intelvf2.i: In function ‘intelvf_mbox_poll’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94849
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you for the analysis, I'm gonna report that to qemu guys.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48444
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48444&action=edit
Semi-reduced test-case
I'll carry on with the reduction, but it goes down slowly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with if constexpr (in |[10/11 Regression] ICE with
: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs-reduction
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jason at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94946
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94946
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48448
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48448&action=edit
Reduced test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #3)
> https://send.firefox.com/download/bdf77223953903fa/#WMrJbMYdsL7AXf2vXYm82g
>
> I uploaded the file, UnifiedBindings23-v7.cpp, to the link above.
>
Sorry, the
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since the revision the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.0|11.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Easiest to reproduce:
runspec --config=spec2006 --size=test --iterations=1 --no-reportable --action
run --tune=peak 403.gcc -D
...
Contents of cccp.err
***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
objfolderdiff.py /tmp/good/ /tmp/bad
19/ 155: c-typeck.o: different
61/ 155: flow.o: different
95/ 155: loop.o: different
109/ 155: real.o: different
124/ 155: sched-deps.o: diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> 19/ 155: c-typeck.o: different
This one is miscompiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94949
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
The patch works for me!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92565
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 92565, which changed state.
Bug 92565 Summary: trunk/libgcc/config/libbid/bid_internal.h: 2 * useless
assignments ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92565
What|Removed |Adde
|--- |FIXED
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
I hope all pieces are fixed now.
|RESOLVED
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Fixed on master.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 92472, which changed state.
Bug 92472 Summary: enhancement: 5 * constify some parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 89860, which changed state.
Bug 89860 Summary: liboffloadmic/runtime/offload_target.cpp:332]: (style) Array
index 'i' is used before limits check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89860
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94330
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Quite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-06
Known to fail|
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94946
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks.
I've made a more permanent link here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s9i_l68CR8UGhqPfq0pdgQTH26G7YEFW/view?usp=sharing
I get these numbers for g++ UnifiedBindings23-v7.cpp -c -std=c++17 -O2
-fno-che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94966
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
You are right, the documentation is not complete.
Btw. are you parsing a .gcda or .gcna format for some reason?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
>
> I will try to see if assigning more CPU cores to VirtualBox image I am using
> locally can improve the situation. I am not sure how CPU cache is handled in
> such a setting, but there may be some improve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
]
|Invalid loop distribution |Invalid loop distribution
||since
||r8-2390-gdfbddbeb1ca912c9
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48465
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48465&action=edit
Partially reduced test-case
Cannot reduce much..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #2)
> I am parsinv both gcno and gcda files.
These files are not intended to be parsed :/
Can you please describe your use-case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #4)
> A python tool that can do distributed code coverage analysis. Gcda files
> from cluster nodes from a web interface, gcno from a web interface or file
> share in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #6)
> I use the gcno file to build a the graph, pull counters from the gcda files
> and then solve the graph for the missing counts.
That's what gcov does itself.
> I a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Or even better: you can merge various .gcda files with:
gcov-tool merge ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Gcov-tool-Intro.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #9)
> How you I process data files from multiple sources and multiple runs with
> gcov.
$ man gcov-tool
$ gcov-tool merge [merge-options] directory1 directory2
So you
|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #12)
> What would be helpful then is if gcno, gcda and source files could all have
> separate root file system prefixes.
Can you please describe more the situation?
Is
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE: |[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE:
|verify_gimple failed: |verify_gimple failed:
|position
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #14)
> There are three types of files used to create a code coverage report.
> Notes, Data, and Source. It is likely that each type of file might have its
> own prefix
at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: regression
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95025
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.1.0
Version|10.0
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95032
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95033
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79627
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #3)
> It is fixed for gcc 10, probably by
> g:00a49cd840f60774b0e9e0109fb10559bc9a9194.
Yes, it's fixed with this commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95005
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48503
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48503&action=edit
Patch candidate
Thank you for the bug report.
I'm sending a better patch, can you please test it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
All right, I'll prepare a patch for that.
||10.1.0
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|wrong code at -O3 on|[11 Regression] wrong code
|x86_64-linux-gnu|at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Known to fail||11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95044
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
||2020-05-11
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-11
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r10-7502-ga96f1c38a787fbc8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95040
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95025
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #3)
> Created attachment 48504 [details]
> C source code
I'm gonna reduce that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95025
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
$ cat pr95025.c
static int a;
short b;
int *c;
void d() {
for (;; a -= 1)
for (; b; b += 1) {
*c ^= 5;
if (a)
return;
}
}
$ gcc -O2 -c pr95025.c -Werror
during GIMPLE pass: lim
p
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95031
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
It finished for me with ~16GB memory eaten in:
user3m59.520s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95005
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Michael Kuhn from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Thank you for the bug report.
> > I'm sending a better patch, can you please test it?
>
> I applied your patch on to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95005
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #20)
> So I will probably continue working on the python script or package that can
> do much of the enhanced processing. One of the benefits of the python is I
> can p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95051
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95071
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
||9.3.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed
gnu.org,
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
With -fcoarray=lib -O2 -gstabs -feliminate-unused-debug-symbols it started
since r9-6530-gfb055f4b745b1b56
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #13)
> The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;
> h=af213b4c4ca30e55de64f8b1e0bf442df08f3e6d
>
> commit r1
501 - 600 of 15302 matches
Mail list logo
