https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87387
--- Comment #6 from jamespharvey20 at gmail dot com ---
This fix introduces bug 87672.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87633
--- Comment #8 from Yury Gribov ---
Posted patch in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01266.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87669
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87568
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87337
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87672
--- Comment #6 from jamespharvey20 at gmail dot com ---
P.S. In case it sheds any light, I just found out that after the build
failure, if I manually re-run the stage 3 "./prev-gcc/xg++ ... .../i386/i386.c"
command without "-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86336
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87668
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87662
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Oct 21 10:23:58 2018
New Revision: 265350
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265350&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Add missing AVX512VL or/xor intrinsics
gcc/
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70149
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrestelli at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77643
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86527
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87673
Bug ID: 87673
Summary: Errors caused by using function for character length
in allocate with typespec
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Oct 21 10:35:36 2018
New Revision: 265351
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265351&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Enable AVX512 memory broadcast for FP mul
Many AVX512 vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87673
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
I Have just noticed that the problem goes away for 6-branch through trunk is
the order of the contained procedures is changed.
This points a finger at parse.c/primary.c or the resolution of contained
functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87672
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Until dom3, everything is OK...
i386.ii.176t.dom3:
[local count: 267871744]:
__builtin___strcat_chk (&buf, _14, 40);
output_asm_insn (&buf, operands_23(D));
goto ; [100.00%]
... but strlen does an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87672
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72784
Wenzel Jakob changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87674
Bug ID: 87674
Summary: AVX512: incorrect intrinsic signature
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #13 from coypu ---
I sent this to gcc-patches
for netbsd/eabi and stop picking arm6 -mcpu for oabi too:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01256.html
for all of arm to stop defaulting to non-existent -mcpu=arm6:
https://gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87675
Bug ID: 87675
Summary: Stack Overflow in function next_is_type_qual() in
cp-demangle.c, as demonstrated by "nm -C"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
Bug ID: 87676
Summary: Presence of variadic constructor template breaks
overload resolution for other constructors
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87677
Bug ID: 87677
Summary: Isl bootstrap crash in
extract_range_from_binary_expr_1
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87670
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87677
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Is this fixed by the proposed patch to pr87640? If so, perhaps this is a
duplicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87672
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
reduced test case:
$ cat pr87672.c
char buf[40];
void test (int x)
{
__builtin_strcpy(buf, "test");
__builtin___strcat_chk(buf, "postfix" + x, sizeof(buf));
}
$ gcc -O2 -S -Wall pr87672.c
pr87672.c: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55531
--- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> so this is... what, wrong-code? ice-on-valid-code? build?
>
> (I should go to bed instead of trying to figure this out...)
ice-on-valid-code, and cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39363
Bug 39363 depends on bug 39302, which changed state.
Bug 39302 Summary: [meta-bug] bugs waiting for Copyright Assignment
acknowledgemt for ARC International (UK) Ltd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39302
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39302
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87677
--- Comment #2 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
> Is this fixed by the proposed patch to pr87640? If so, perhaps this is a
> duplicate.
No, I think it's a separate issue. Combine_bounds call below fails to compu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87677
--- Comment #3 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
> Is this fixed by the proposed patch to pr87640? If so, perhaps this is a
> duplicate.
Ah, sorry, it's indeed a dup. I thought you were talking about #87633
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87677
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87640
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The initialisation (the call to f1) could have a side effect, but the
a==1 case skips that. GCC is right to warn here in my opinion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #11 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
It is also not legal (side effects or not) when compiling as C++, which is one
of the reasons for having this warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That is not a reason to have the warning in C, not without some "-Wc++-compat"
or similar; and in C++ it should be an error you say, not a warning at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #13 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
That could be (I disagree, but that's another debate), but the question was
whether allowing this case would improve the warning or not. If you change it
to allowing such a case, you also make -Wc++-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71880
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Oct 21 17:32:06 2018
New Revision: 265353
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265353&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/71880
* trans-expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87644
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87672
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
untested patch:
Index: gcc/gimple-fold.c
===
--- gcc/gimple-fold.c (revision 265240)
+++ gcc/gimple-fold.c (working copy)
@@ -2715,6 +271
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I am saying that no warning should warn for things that are valid C but
invalid C++, except with -Wc++-compat; not for that reason, anyway.
-Wjump-misses-init should warn here: the jump does miss the in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #15 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> The initialisation (the call to f1) could have a side effect, but the
> a==1 case skips that. GCC is right to warn here in my opinion.
With an explicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #16 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Since you're asking (presumably rhethorically): I would certainly recommend
that this code be changed, yes, and I don't find the author's intent obvious at
all. The fix that comes to mind is to scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #17 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Steinar H. Gunderson from comment #16)
> Since you're asking (presumably rhethorically): I would certainly recommend
> that this code be changed, yes, and I don't find the author's intent obvi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Ridge ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> (In reply to Nathan Ridge from comment #6)
> > Here is another test case that MSVC accepts but GCC rejects:
> >
> > struct A {};
> > struct A* b = (1 == 1) ? new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Oct 21 20:24:50 2018
New Revision: 265356
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265356&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Enable AVX512 memory broadcast for FMSUB
Many AVX512 vector operat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Oct 21 20:27:09 2018
New Revision: 265357
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265357&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Enable AVX512 memory broadcast for FNMADD
Many AVX512 vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
--- Comment #10 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Oct 21 20:28:56 2018
New Revision: 265358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265358&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Enable AVX512 memory broadcast for FNMSUB
Many AVX512 vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72782
--- Comment #11 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Oct 21 20:30:06 2018
New Revision: 265359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Update AVX512 FMSUB/FNMADD/FNMSUB tests
Update AVX512 tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
Bug ID: 87678
Summary: Redundant vmovss with -fPIC
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #15)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> > The initialisation (the call to f1) could have a side effect, but the
> > a==1 case skips that. GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87679
Bug ID: 87679
Summary: std::this_thread::sleep_until sleeps too much for
clocks faster than system_clock
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #19 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18)
> (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> > > The initialisation (the call to f1) could have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87680
Bug ID: 87680
Summary: Small program produces 400 meg .s file
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87596
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
Should we close this PR now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84204
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] [graphite] |[8/9 Regression] [graphite]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87681
Bug ID: 87681
Summary: Recursive Stack Overflow within function d_name,
d_encoding, and d_local_name in cp-demangle.c, as
demonstrated by "nm -C"
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87682
Bug ID: 87682
Summary: gcc/mem-stats.h:172: possible broken comparison
operator ?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
60 matches
Mail list logo
