https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87018
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |target
Summary|[9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85910
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87067
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84353
--- Comment #9 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Getting more testcase for this is nice though.
int pl, ag;
void
g9 (unsigned __int128 zo, int ji)
{
if (ag == 0)
__builtin_abort ();
while (ag < 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87031
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, already5chosen at yahoo dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87031
>
> --- Comment #5 from Michael_S ---
> It's fine that you moved the 2nd case to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85910
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Aug 23 08:51:38 2018
New Revision: 263803
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263803&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix aarch64_evpc_tbl guard (PR 85910)
This patch fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87067
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Component|lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |testsuite
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87061
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87062
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 87062, which changed state.
Bug 87062 Summary: mis-optimized code with -O3 and std::pair
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87062
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87062
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #2 from Janne Blomqvist ---
I'm a bit confused, r263751 should only affect behavior wrt NaN's and possibly
signed zeroes, and AFAICS none of those are present in the testcase. Can you
print out the values of rv and vresult just before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86837
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87024
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 23 09:29:45 2018
New Revision: 263805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263805&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-23 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/87024
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86988
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/9 Regression] ICE: tree |[7 Regression] ICE: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86951
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Aug 23 09:47:34 2018
New Revision: 263806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263806&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86951 arm - Handle speculation barriers on pre-armv7 CPUs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86951, which changed state.
Bug 86951 Summary: arm speculation barrier incompatible with ARMv6 or earlier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86951
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86951
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87018
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Here is one way that works: (this is on gcc119):
Use bash as your shell.
export SHELL=/usr/bin/bash
export CONFIG_SHELL=/usr/bin/bash
export PATH=/opt/freeware/bin:$PATH
~/src/gcc/configure --disable-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87056
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87056
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Aug 23 10:21:21 2018
New Revision: 263807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[libiberty patch] Fix PGO bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
--- Comment #3 from anon63 ---
Dear Martin,
Thank you for the explanations.
Do you have any advice of what we should do before this eventual deferring of
the strncpy -> memcpy folding in a future gcc release ?
In particular, can you elaborate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068
Bug ID: 87068
Summary: No diagnostic on an ill-formed [[fallthrough]]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87069
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87069
Bug ID: 87069
Summary: gcov accumulates results for identical files
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86957
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Agree that we should provide that information to user. Question is whether we
want to present it as a note (of a warning) or use new dump_printf_loc
machinery?
I can Indu help with that if needed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87070
Bug ID: 87070
Summary: Combine popcount on pieces to a single popcountll
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So this is when trying
Trying 60, 63 -> 67:
60: r163:V4SI=r127:V4SI==r162:V4SI
REG_DEAD r127:V4SI
REG_EQUAL r127:V4SI==const_vector
63: r164:V4SI=r188:V4SI-r163:V4SI
67: r166:V4SI={
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
Bug ID: 87071
Summary: libstdc++ crashes during GPU driver initialization
with suspected attempt to execute unsupported
instruction by Athlon64 X2 TK-57
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #1 from Sergey Kondakov ---
Created attachment 44577
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44577&action=edit
Asus_F3Ke.dmesg
Verbose dmesg from affected machine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(EE) Illegal instruction at address 0x72f2c8ea
I don't see how this can possibly be a libstdc++ problem, since libstdc++
doesn't produce any CPU instructions, illegal or not.
As I already said to you,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Aug 23 12:40:14 2018
New Revision: 263810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix recent bug in canonicalize_comparison (PR87026)
The new code te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #3 from Sergey Kondakov ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (EE) Illegal instruction at address 0x72f2c8ea
>
> I don't see how this can possibly be a libstdc++ problem, since libstdc++
> doesn't produce any CPU in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |8.3
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Sergey Kondakov from comment #3)
> If your code is correct then whose isn't ?
Instructions are generated by the compiler. So, it is the compiler's fault, it
probably emits a SSE instruction that y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87072
Bug ID: 87072
Summary: g++6.2.0 false warning: array subscript is above array
bounds, with misleading line number
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 44579
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44579&action=edit
alternate testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87054
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86995
Vlad Lazar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vlad.lazar at arm dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85433
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87013
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44573|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87013
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I wanted to ask, martin, can you please confirm that it does indeed fix the
problem for you?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84554
matthew.hambley at metoffice dot gov.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew.hambley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87054
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018, aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87054
>
> Alexandre Oliva changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83754
Wendell Baker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wendellcraigbaker at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
First off I know little about Fortran. I looked at some articles about how to
write out values and changed the code to this (sorry if this offends any
Fortran enthusiasts):
WRITE(*,'(L1,L2,F8.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85875
programmer at posteo dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||programmer at posteo dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86948
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
Please follow up on the ML to
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01128.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84554
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to matthew.hambley from comment #1)
> What seems to be happening is that it's correctly picking up gmp.h from the
> in-source version but and old version of the library from
> /usr/lib64/libgmp.so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86722
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
noce_try_cmove has
if ((CONSTANT_P (if_info->a) || register_operand (if_info->a, VOIDmode))
&& (CONSTANT_P (if_info->b) || register_operand (if_info->b, VOIDmode)))
but the first 3 times we go through
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Bug ID: 87073
Summary: go bootstrap failure due to ICE in
vr_values::extract_range_from_binary_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87074
Bug ID: 87074
Summary: Vectorization bug: O3 result differ from O2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82760
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80792
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #7 from Sergey Kondakov ---
Created attachment 44583
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44583&action=edit
Xorg.pid-1381.gdb.log with disas
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> In your gdb script, please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87013
--- Comment #7 from martin ---
Created attachment 44584
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44584&action=edit
gcc\config.log
Hi, sry for the delayed answer. I wanted to make sure that the compiler passed
the related point, but I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes Aldy, your patch does make the ICE go away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
Bug ID: 87075
Summary: ICE when compiling the test suite of GLM 0.9.9.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87076
Bug ID: 87076
Summary: -mpcu/-march not propagated through LTO bytecode
(ice/segfault if arch flags do not match)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
Guus Sliepen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guus at debian dot org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87072
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The test case in pr84474 uses strncpy to needlessly exclude the terminating nul
from the copy only to then add it explicitly. That's not what the function is
meant to be used for -- when it's safe to copy the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87077
Bug ID: 87077
Summary: missed optimization for horizontal add for x86 SSE
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87078
Bug ID: 87078
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.dg/vect/slp-37.c begins failing
with r263772
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87067
--- Comment #3 from Frank Schaefer ---
Well...it looks like Vladislav Ivanishin actually nailed down the root-cause
(see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87076 ). His small test
program reproduces the same issue I'm seeing--and based
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87072
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
A simplified test case:
$ cat t.c && gcc -O3 -S -Wall t.c
int a[10];
void f (unsigned n)
{
for (unsigned j = 0; j < n; j++) {
for (unsigned k = 0; k < j; k++)
a[j] += k;
a[j] += j;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87072
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Aug 23 19:39:18 2018
New Revision: 263822
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263822&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/87072 - false warning: array subscript is above array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe started with r239783.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
The MIN_EXPR code predates my change -- r255898 just moved indentation. Based
on past experience I would assume MIN_EXPR to need the same types. The code in
expand_builtin_strncmp mixes ssizetype and sizetyp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87077
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
SLP doesn't like the completely unrolled code. With #pragma GCC unroll 1, we
get at least some kind of vectorization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87079
Bug ID: 87079
Summary: nios2 optimization for size - case of regression
relatively to 5.3.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87031
--- Comment #7 from Michael_S ---
Done. a new report = 87079
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83113
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Still present in 9.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
Bug ID: 87080
Summary: ice in cp_get_fndecl_from_callee, at cp/cvt.c:965
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
The bug seems to first occur between revisions 263693
and 263799, so fairly recent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87081
Bug ID: 87081
Summary: [9 regression] new test case failures with r262930
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87081
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87082
Bug ID: 87082
Summary: Missing default argument in string::assign
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87081
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g |powerpc64*-*-*
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
