https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86340
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86279
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
One similar example:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg01503.html
with following backtrace:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x01b17ead in propagate_nothrow () at
/hom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86331
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
This looks suspicious, why is stat being called with NULL?
[pid 30149] newfstatat(AT_FDCWD, NULL,
[pid 30149] <... newfstatat resumed> 0xb0119b30, 0) = -1 EFAULT (Bad
address)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86340
--- Comment #2 from Nick Andrews ---
Created attachment 44329
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44329&action=edit
finddisplayinfo.i
--- Comment #3 from Nick Andrews ---
Created attachment 44330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86321
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So in the end the issue is we have two record_types, record_type 0x76a8dc78
array01_integer(kind=4) and record_type 0x76a8de70 array01_a which
are their own TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT but share TYPE_FIELDS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jun 28 08:42:17 2018
New Revision: 262215
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262215&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-28 David Pagan
PR c/55976
* gcc.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86321
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The following fixes this. Dominique, can you include that in your next testing
to see if that fixes all of the new fails?
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-types.c
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86341
Bug ID: 86341
Summary: Aggressive loop unrolling in gcc 7.x produces
out-of-bounds index
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86323
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86263
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86275
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86337
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86323
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86336
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux, aarch64
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||m68k
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86333
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86333
--- Comment #3 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> These are the same failures as clyon reported for arm
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2018-06/msg00130.html
>
> So I'm going to assume this report is based on an ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86342
Bug ID: 86342
Summary: Wdeprecated-copy in a header included from system
directory
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86342
--- Comment #1 from Csaba Ráduly ---
See also https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-06/msg00274.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86343
Bug ID: 86343
Summary: types built by GO share TYPE_FIELDS in unsupported way
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85831
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86342
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86333
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK thanks for confirming. Sorry for breaking it in the first place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86344
Bug ID: 86344
Summary: GCC 8.1 ICEd at LTO stage
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86295
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86295
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
P.S. the uninitialized_xxx algos have to work that way, because if an exception
occurs the caller has no way to know how many objects got created before the
exception, so the functions could never be used r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86245
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86245
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
__gnu_cxx_ldbl128 inline namespace is not something that is necessarily to be
used by all the "g" mangled long doubles, many *LDBL_* symvers symbols are just
next to the "e" mangled ones (which are aliases to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86245
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes but if I'd understood the point of the __gnu_cxx_ldbl128 inline namespace I
probably would have ensured the 'e' symbols were present, and got the
versioning right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 44334
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44334&action=edit
almost reduced test-case
$ g++ segfault.ii -pthread -lboost_log -O3 -g -fprintf-return-value && valgrind
./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86344
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86345
Bug ID: 86345
Summary: Likely false warning with -Wstringop-overflow and
memset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86323
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Introduced by my commit r261744.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86346
Bug ID: 86346
Summary: internal compiler error related to duduction guides
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86344
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
You should probably also try the HEAD from the gcc 8 branch, a bug with similar
symptoms has been fixed recently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78506
lucdanton at free dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86347
Bug ID: 86347
Summary: Incorrect call order of allocation function in new
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78506
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It started to fail with r242408 and was fixed by r246273 for PR c++/80084
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78506
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86347
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86347
--- Comment #2 from stinkingmadgod at gmail dot com ---
Apologies, not familiar with netiquette here
#include
#include
#include
void* operator new(size_t n)
{
std::cout << "new\n";
return std::malloc(n);
}
struct Y
{
Y() { std::cout
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85907
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
This should be fixed with the recent patch to collect2.c, which will be
released in GCC 8.2, GCC 7.4, GCC 6.5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86324
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.2
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865
--- Comment #8 from Fritz Reese ---
Author: foreese
Date: Thu Jun 28 15:31:24 2018
New Revision: 262221
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262221&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-28 Fritz Reese
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86324
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86347
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 82865, which changed state.
Bug 82865 Summary: Option -fdec collides with PDT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865
What|Removed |Added
-
in/i686-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-262221-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-i686
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180628 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86347
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86349
Bug ID: 86349
Summary: diagnose string overflow for allocations of
non-constant sizes
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86349
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86350
Bug ID: 86350
Summary: Missed optimization with multiplication by zero
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86350
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Whoops forgot the code. This code produces
subroutine foo(x,y)
real x(10), y(10)
interface
impure elemental function bar(x)
real, intent(inout) :: x
end function bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
--- Comment #15 from Dave Pagan ---
Thanks, Paolo!
On 06/28/2018 01:44 AM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
>
> Paolo Carlini changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865
--- Comment #10 from Fritz Reese ---
Author: foreese
Date: Thu Jun 28 16:47:19 2018
New Revision: 262223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-28 Fritz Reese
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865
--- Comment #11 from Fritz Reese ---
Author: foreese
Date: Thu Jun 28 16:51:23 2018
New Revision: 262224
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262224&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-28 Fritz Reese
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86350
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86350
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:59:53PM +, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
> The multiplication is optimized out under -ffinite-math-only -fno-signed-zeros
> (o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86348
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86343
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jun 28 17:46:36 2018
New Revision: 262225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262225&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/86343
* go-gcc.cc (Gcc_backend::set_placehold
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86344
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
One thing which you can do (note on the trunk, you need to add an extra option;
I don't remember what it is currently), is link with -r and reduce the number
of object files to the ones which crash. And then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86351
Bug ID: 86351
Summary: Array references as arguments to ternary operator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86343
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86345
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
I can confirm the warning with the (possibly overly) reduced test case below
but not really that it's a bug in the warning code. In the reduced test case,
memset() is called with a size that's either zero or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86331
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks for the strace output.
The stat(NULL) is coming from libgo/runtime/go-caller.c in the function
__go_get_backtrace_state. It's a bug, but it's a different bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86348
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jun 28 19:02:02 2018
New Revision: 262228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86348
* config/i386/sse.md (*vec_extract
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86348
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86345
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
As an aside, the warning first appeared with r260350 as a result of
improvements to switch statement handling.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86331
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
To be clear, the problem is not that the go tool is failing to find its
subcommands. The problem is that the go tool thinks that the waitid system
call is returning an error. However, the strace shows th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86342
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86334
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86342
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86342
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jun 28 20:22:21 2018
New Revision: 262231
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262231&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86342 - -Wdeprecated-copy and system headers.
* de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86351
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Simon Richter from comment #0)
> The code
>
> char const array1[2] = { 'a', 'b' };
> char const array2[2] = { 'c', 'd' };
>
> char foo(bool b) {
> char const (&bar)[2] = b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86352
Bug ID: 86352
Summary: setc/movzx introduced into loop to provide a constant
0 value for a later rep stos
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86321
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The following fixes this. Dominique, can you include that in your next
> testing to see if that fixes all of the new fails?
It does! thanks for the quick fix.
ultilib-list=m64
--prefix=/home/slyfox/dev/git/gcc-7-native-quick/../gcc-7-native-quick-installed
--disable-nls CFLAGS=-O2 CXXFLAGS=-O2
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.3.1 20180628 (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86354
Bug ID: 86354
Summary: Address comparison not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86355
Bug ID: 86355
Summary: Internal compiler error with pack expansion and fold
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86356
Bug ID: 86356
Summary: "invalid use of pack expansion" with fold expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86355
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86356
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84353
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Getting more testcase for this is nice though.
int jt;
void
i1 (unsigned __int128 kk)
{
int yb;
for (yb = 0; yb < 2; ++yb)
{
kk -= 2;
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86331
--- Comment #8 from Stephen Kim ---
After applying your patch, the issue seems to have gone away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86350
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36281
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55860
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
