[Bug c++/76911] internal compiler segfault on illegal implicit cast to decimal64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76911 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- I can confirm that 6.1.0 really ICEs, however the bug was fixed by r236395. Thus all active branches are fine. Closing as resolved.
[Bug libfortran/77278] New: Use LTO for libgfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278 Bug ID: 77278 Summary: Use LTO for libgfortran Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: libfortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- In order to aid optimization, it could be beneficial to build libgfortran as an lto-enabled library. There could be a big win for functions being called via constant propagation, especially for I/O and array operations. With I/O, checking for large number of options at runtime could be avoided. Array operations could profit from cases where arrays are contiguous, when the library needs to take non-contiguous cases into account. Some discussion starts here. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-08/msg00069.html What has been done so far to identify potential problems was to manually add -flto -ffat-lto-objects to the Makefile in libgfortran and compile a simple program with -flto. This led to error messages like lto1: warning: type of '_gfortran_st_write' does not match original declaration [-Wlto-type-mismatch] ../../../trunk/libgfortran/io/transfer.c:3746:1: note: 'st_write' was previously declared here ../../../trunk/libgfortran/io/transfer.c:3746:1: note: code may be misoptimized unless -fno-strict-aliasing is used so there is likely work to do on the library side and on the LTO side.
[Bug c/70250] Compilation hangs without optimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70250 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- GCC 4.9 is now out of support and I cannot reproduce with GCC 5, so closing.
[Bug tree-optimization/23855] loop header should also be pulled out of the inner loop too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855 --- Comment #31 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed Aug 17 08:11:32 2016 New Revision: 239523 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239523&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2016-08-17 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/23855 * tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c: Include tree-ssa-loop-manip.h. (tree_unswitch_outer_loop): Iterate find_loop_guard as long as we find guards to hoist. Do not update SSA form but rewrite virtuals into loop closed SSA. (find_loop_guard): Adjust to skip already hoisted guards. Do not mark virtuals for renaming or update SSA form. * gcc.dg/loop-unswitch-2.c: Adjust. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/loop-unswitch-2.c trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c
[Bug tree-optimization/23855] loop header should also be pulled out of the inner loop too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |7.0 --- Comment #32 from Richard Biener --- Fixed fully for GCC 7.
[Bug tree-optimization/23970] loop-invariant-motion is not doing it's work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23970 Bug 23970 depends on bug 23855, which changed state. Bug 23855 Summary: loop header should also be pulled out of the inner loop too https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug tree-optimization/60042] vectorizer still does too many dependence tests for himeno:jacobi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60042 Bug 60042 depends on bug 23855, which changed state. Bug 23855 Summary: loop header should also be pulled out of the inner loop too https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c++/71665] [5/6 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code with non-integral constant enumerator value: in cxx_eval_constant_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:3918
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71665 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Assignee|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini --- The testcase doesn't cause an ICE in release mode in the release branches, thus, being this just an ICE on invalid, I'm not going to backport the fix. If somebody really cares, can ask on gcc-patches if a tested backport is ok to go in.
[Bug middle-end/71514] ICE on C11 code with atomic exchange at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: in copy_reference_ops_from_ref, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:879
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71514 --- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek --- Ok, looking at the get_atomic_generic_size issue.
[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||xfail Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WORKSFORME |--- --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Re-opening because I am fixing a bug that makes the diagnostic re-appear (it was "fixed" by a bug that caused us to meet [0, +INF] and [1, +INF(OVF)] as [0, +INF] rather than [0, +INF(OVF)]).
[Bug target/66488] segfault on sizeof(long) < sizeof(void*) and large GCC memory usage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488 --- Comment #13 from jyong at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jyong Date: Wed Aug 17 09:34:52 2016 New Revision: 239525 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239525&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 016-08-17 Stanislaw Halik PR target/66488 * config/i386/xm-mingw32.h (HOST_BITS_PER_PTR): Define if __x86_64__. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/config/i386/xm-mingw32.h
[Bug c++/77279] New: build error in isl/ctx.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77279 Bug ID: 77279 Summary: build error in isl/ctx.h Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: alexee...@gaz-is.ru Target Milestone: --- system: SLES 11 sp2 64bit gcc: 4.3.0 Try to build gcc 6.1.0 from sources. Get error: .../isl/include/isl/ctx.h:83: error: comma at end of enumerator list
[Bug c++/77279] build error in isl/ctx.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77279 --- Comment #1 from Oleg.A --- correction: use gcc: 4.3.4
[Bug middle-end/77269] __builtin_isinf_sign does not work for __float128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77269 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2016-08-17 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Confirmed.
[Bug c++/77279] build error in isl/ctx.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77279
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
It works with isl 0.16.1 for me (yes, download_prerequesites uses 0.15).
isl 0.15 has
typedef enum {
isl_stat_error = -1,
isl_stat_ok = 0,
} isl_stat;
at this point but that parses just fine for me with GCC 4.3.4.
I do remember seeing sth like this though. Can you quote the full error
please?
Trying to reproduce on the branch head now.
[Bug c++/77279] build error in isl/ctx.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77279 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2016-08-17 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Confirmed on branch head after ./download_prerequesites plus a simple ./configure && make. g++ -std=gnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -g -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wno-format -Wmissing-format-attribute -Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gcc -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gcc/. -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gcc/../include -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/abuild/rguenther/obj/./gmp -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gmp -I/abuild/rguenther/obj/./mpfr -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/mpfr -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/mpc/src -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gcc/../libdecnumber -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gcc/../libdecnumber/bid -I../libdecnumber -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gcc/../libbacktrace -I/abuild/rguenther/obj/./isl/include -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/isl/include -o graphite.o -MT graphite.o -MMD -MP -MF ./.deps/graphite.TPo /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gcc/graphite.c In file included from /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/isl/include/isl/options.h:14, from /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gcc/graphite.h:26, from /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/gcc/graphite.c:55: /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-6-branch/isl/include/isl/ctx.h:83: error: comma at end of enumerator list make[3]: *** [graphite.o] Error 1 for some reason we are adding -pedantic which triggers this. Starting with GCC 4.4 (4.4.5 at least) this is only a warning.
[Bug c++/77279] build error in isl/ctx.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77279 --- Comment #4 from Oleg.A --- g++ -std=gnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -g -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wno-format -Wmissing-format-attribute -Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc -I../../gcc/. -I../../gcc/../include -I../../gcc/../libcpp/include -I/home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/build/./gmp -I/home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/gmp -I/home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/build/./mpfr -I/home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/mpfr -I/home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/mpc/src -I../../gcc/../libdecnumber -I../../gcc/../libdecnumber/bid -I../libdecnumber -I../../gcc/../libbacktrace -I/home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/build/./isl/include -I/home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/isl/include -o graphite.o -MT graphite.o -MMD -MP -MF ./.deps/graphite.TPo ../../gcc/graphite.c In file included from /home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/isl/include/isl/options.h:14, from ../../gcc/graphite.h:26, from ../../gcc/graphite.c:55: /home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/isl/include/isl/ctx.h:83: error: comma at end of enumerator list make[3]: *** [graphite.o] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/build/gcc' make[2]: *** [all-stage1-gcc] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/build' make[1]: *** [stage1-bubble] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/gis/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/build' make: *** [all] Error 2
[Bug middle-end/71514] ICE on C11 code with atomic exchange at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: in copy_reference_ops_from_ref, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:879
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71514 --- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek --- Is it ok if I change the C FE to reject pointer-to-VLA and pointer-to-function arguments for __atomic_*?
[Bug tree-optimization/76490] [5/6/7 Regression] when use -O2 -fcheck-founds compiler appears to hang and consumes all memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76490 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed Aug 17 11:51:51 2016 New Revision: 239529 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239529&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2016-08-17 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/76490 * tree-vrp.c (update_value_range): Preserve overflow infinities when intersecting with ranges from get_range_info. (operand_less_p): Handle overflow infinities correctly. (value_range_constant_singleton): Use vrp_operand_equal_p to handle overflow max/min correctly. (vrp_valueize): Likewise. (union_ranges): Likewise. (intersect_ranges): Likewise. (vrp_visit_phi_node): Improve iteration limitation to only apply when we'll possibly re-visit the PHI via a changed argument on the backedge. * gfortran.fortran-torture/compile/pr76490.f90: New testcase. * gcc.dg/pr52904.c: XFAIL. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/compile/pr76490.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr52904.c trunk/gcc/tree-vrp.c
[Bug tree-optimization/76490] [5/6 Regression] when use -O2 -fcheck-founds compiler appears to hang and consumes all memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76490 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.0 Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] when use |[5/6 Regression] when use |-O2 -fcheck-founds compiler |-O2 -fcheck-founds compiler |appears to hang and |appears to hang and |consumes all memory |consumes all memory Known to fail|7.0 |6.2.0 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- Fixed on trunk sofar.
[Bug c++/77274] GCC uses copy constructor in member initializer list instead of simple initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77274 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- The copy can be optimized away, but the object still has to be copyable for that to happen. If you delete the copy constructor it's not copyable.
[Bug c++/77274] GCC uses copy constructor in member initializer list instead of simple initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77274 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- See https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#copyelision
[Bug middle-end/77262] [7 regression] Several libjava tests FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77262 --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- >> It's indeed suspicious that exactly the same set of tests is affected, >> but my reghunt (and previous testresults) point at a totally different >> patch. > > Well, I have r237556 reverted in my working tree to silence the failures. This > revision only changes PRED_LOOP_EXIT. I've now applied such a reversion to otherwise unmodifed top-of-tree and the failures are gone just the same. Very strange. Rainer
[Bug libstdc++/77264] [7 Regression] std::string's replace gives wrong results with C++17, works with C++11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77264 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Wed Aug 17 13:38:52 2016 New Revision: 239532 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239532&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR 77264 constrain new std::basic_string overloads PR libstdc++/77264 * include/bits/basic_string.h (operator=(__sv_type) (append(__sv_type), assign(__sv_type), insert(size_type, __sv_type)) (replace(size_type, size_type, __sv_type)) (replace(const_iterator, const_iterator, __sv_type)) (find(__sv_type, size_type), rfind(__sv_type, size_type)) (compare(size_type, size_type, __sv_type)): Reformat. (_If_sv): Define helper for SFINAE constaints. (append(const _Tp&, size_type, size_type)) (assign(const _Tp&, size_type, size_type)) (insert(size_type, const _Tp&, size_type, size_type)) (replace(size_type, size_type, const _Tp&, size_type, size_type)): Use _If_sv. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/append/char/4.cc: Test SFINAE constraints. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/append/wchar_t/4.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/replace/char/7.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/replace/wchar_t/7.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/assign/char/4.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/assign/wchar_t/4.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/insert/char/3.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/insert/wchar_t/3.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/replace/char/7.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/operations/compare/char/2.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/operations/compare/wchar_t/2.cc: Likewise. Modified: trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/append/char/4.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/append/wchar_t/4.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/assign/char/4.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/assign/wchar_t/4.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/insert/char/3.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/insert/wchar_t/3.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/replace/char/7.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/replace/wchar_t/7.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/operations/compare/char/2.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/operations/compare/wchar_t/2.cc
[Bug c/77280] New: program using sizeof(array) fails after adding a statement with sizeof(array)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77280
Bug ID: 77280
Summary: program using sizeof(array) fails after adding a
statement with sizeof(array)
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jorg at bnl dot gov
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 39467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39467&action=edit
source
Bug appears in:
gcc version 5.4.0 20160609 (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.2)
gcc version 4.8.4 (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.3) (64 bit)
clang version 3.8.0-2ubuntu4 (tags/RELEASE_380/final)
Bug is not in:
gcc version 4.8.4 (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.3) (32 bit)
pgcc 15.7-0 (portland group)
The attached code works correctly when 1) the two lines
45 unsigned int lx = sizeof(t);
46 printf("lx %d\n", lx);
are removed or 2) the line
44int a=0;
is added.
How to run:
>gcc 4.c
>a.out bug
should print
# ##
# ## ##
# ## #
## ## # ###
## ## ##
#
lx 162
(The program was taken from www.gowrikumar.com/c/index.php)
[Bug fortran/67496] trans-array.c sanitizer runtime error: load of value 124, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 39466 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39466&action=edit gcc7-pr67496.patch Untested fix. u.cl is obviously valid only for type == BT_CHARACTER, for e.g. BT_DERIVED in the testcase it is u.derived instead. So, trying to unconditionally dereference it is invalid. Not to mention if the type happens to be BT_HOLLERITH, then it could have non-zero u.pad, so u.cl could be non-NULL, yet it wouldn't be even a valid pointer.
[Bug libstdc++/77264] [7 Regression] std::string's replace gives wrong results with C++17, works with C++11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77264 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- Fixed.
[Bug middle-end/77259] [6/7 Regression] ICE in emit_move_insn since r232167
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77259 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Aug 17 13:56:30 2016 New Revision: 239537 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239537&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/77259 * tree-ssa-pre.c (eliminate_dom_walker::before_dom_children): If turning a call into __builtin_unreachable-like noreturn call, adjust gimple_call_set_fntype. * tree-cfgcleanup.c (fixup_noreturn_call): Remove lhs also if gimple_call_fntype has void return type. * g++.dg/ipa/devirt-52.C: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/devirt-52.C Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c
[Bug c/77280] program using sizeof(array) fails after adding a statement with sizeof(array)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77280 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Comment on attachment 39467 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39467 source Pr has an undefined value the first time through the loop.
[Bug c/77280] program using sizeof(array) fails after adding a statement with sizeof(array)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77280 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Comment on attachment 39467 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39467 source Pr has an undefined value the first time through the loop. --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Comment on attachment 39467 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39467 source Pr has an undefined value the first time through the loop. --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Comment on attachment 39467 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39467 source Pr has an undefined value the first time through the loop.
[Bug c/77280] program using sizeof(array) fails after adding a statement with sizeof(array)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77280 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Comment on attachment 39467 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39467 source Pr has an undefined value the first time through the loop. --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Comment on attachment 39467 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39467 source Pr has an undefined value the first time through the loop. --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Comment on attachment 39467 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39467 source Pr has an undefined value the first time through the loop.
[Bug c/77280] program using sizeof(array) fails after adding a statement with sizeof(array)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77280
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Comment on attachment 39467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39467
source
Pr has an undefined value the first time through the loop.
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Comment on attachment 39467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39467
source
Pr has an undefined value the first time through the loop.
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jorg Kewisch from comment #0)
> The attached code works correctly when 1) the two lines
> 45 unsigned int lx = sizeof(t);
> 46 printf("lx %d\n", lx);
> are removed or 2) the line
> 44int a=0;
> is added.
This kind of behaviour almost always means you have a bug that is sensitive to
the exact layout of variables on the stack (as is the case here, where you are
using the garbage value of pr). It's very unlikely to be a bug in the compiler.
[Bug testsuite/72840] PASS->NA: 20_util/ratio/cons/cons_overflow_neg.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72840 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Fixed
[Bug gcov-profile/69004] Building t-engine on ARM fails during -fprofile-use stage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004 --- Comment #35 from PeteVine --- Probably not the first time something managed to slip past `gcov_exit`?
[Bug target/77281] New: [ARM] Wrong code generated for move of constant vector with mix of signed and unsigned zeros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77281
Bug ID: 77281
Summary: [ARM] Wrong code generated for move of constant vector
with mix of signed and unsigned zeros
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Test gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/pr72824-2.c fails for arm targets because the
code generated to move a vector of signed and unsigned zeros treats it as a
vector of unsigned zeros.
That is, an assignment x = { 0.f, -0.f, 0.f, -0.f } is treated as the
assignment x = { 0.f, 0.f, 0.f, 0.f }.
This is due to config/arm/arm.c/neon_valid_immediate using real_equal to
compare the vector elements.
Seen on trunk and gcc-6.
[Bug target/77281] [ARM] Wrong code generated for move of constant vector with mix of signed and unsigned zeros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77281 mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm --- Comment #1 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org --- I think I've got a fix and I'm testing it now.
[Bug tree-optimization/72824] [5/6 Regression] Signed floating point zero semantics broken at optimization level -O3 (tree-loop-distribute-patterns)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72824 --- Comment #12 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to mwahab from comment #11) > The new test-case gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/pr72824-2.c is failing for > arm-none-linux-gnueabihf with gcc-6 and trunk. > > I'm still looking into why. > Matthew This is a bug in the arm backend. I've opened PR target/77281 and I'm testing a fix. Matthew
[Bug c/77280] program using sizeof(array) fails after adding a statement with sizeof(array)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77280 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- And we do not warn because of PR18501, which ends up assuming that pr is initialized to 5 (with optimization).
[Bug tree-optimization/71752] [7 Regression] ICE in compute_live_loop_exits, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:229 w/ -O1 -ftree-vectorize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71752 --- Comment #4 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: alahay01 Date: Wed Aug 17 15:31:44 2016 New Revision: 239542 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239542&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-08-17 Alan Hayward PR tree-optimization/71752 * tree-vect-loop.c (vectorizable_reduction): Keep SLP operand ordering. * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_get_slp_defs): Handle null operands. PR tree-optimization/71752 * gcc.dg/vect/pr71752.c: New Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71752.c Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c trunk/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c
[Bug tree-optimization/71752] [7 Regression] ICE in compute_live_loop_exits, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:229 w/ -O1 -ftree-vectorize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71752 alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Use the correct operands when SLP vectorising.
[Bug middle-end/71514] ICE on C11 code with atomic exchange at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: in copy_reference_ops_from_ref, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:879
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71514 --- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Is it ok if I change the C FE to reject pointer-to-VLA and pointer-to-function > arguments for __atomic_*? Yes.
[Bug middle-end/71514] ICE on C11 code with atomic exchange at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: in copy_reference_ops_from_ref, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:879
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71514 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek --- Ok, testing a patch.
[Bug target/57536] Inconsistent behavior of strlen inline and unroll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57536 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2016-08-17 CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail||4.9.3, 5.3.0, 6.1.0, 7.0 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Confirmed in the duplicate bug 77276.
[Bug target/57536] Inconsistent behavior of strlen inline and unroll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57536 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- *** Bug 77276 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug target/77276] strlen expanded inline with -Os, emits larger code than with -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77276 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- Resolving as a dupe of bug 57536. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 57536 ***
[Bug c++/72775] [6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in finish_expr_stmt, at cp/semantics.c:677
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72775 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Would it be possible to take the size of the in-class initialized flexible array member into account when computing the size of the object to allocate? That way the example in comment #0 could be accepted and handled correctly but one where the flexible array member were initialized in a ctor-initializer list could be rejected.
[Bug tree-optimization/77282] New: [7 regression] test case gcc.dg/autopar/pr46193.c fails starting with r239414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77282 Bug ID: 77282 Summary: [7 regression] test case gcc.dg/autopar/pr46193.c fails starting with r239414 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com Target Milestone: --- PASS: gcc.dg/autopar/pr46193.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/autopar/pr46193.c scan-tree-dump-times parloops2 "parallelizing inner loop" 2 >From the test results emails this is failing across multiple systems (power, x86, arm, ...)
[Bug driver/70132] ARM -mcpu=native can cause a double free abort.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70132 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #14) > Bump... I don't think this has made it into Debian's 4.9.2-10. Bumping this won't help if the Debian packagers aren't reading it.
[Bug fortran/67496] trans-array.c sanitizer runtime error: load of value 124, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Aug 17 19:08:49 2016 New Revision: 239544 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239544&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR fortran/67496 * trans-array.c (trans_array_constructor): Load expr->ts.u.cl->length_from_typespec only if expr->ts.type is BT_CHARACTER. * gfortran.dg/pr67496.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr67496.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug c++/67079] Webpages and manual still claim that C++11 support is experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67079 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- This got fixed.
[Bug c++/66290] wrong location for -Wunused-macros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66290 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-07-23 00:00:00 |2016-8-17 CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org Version|unknown |7.0 --- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- I don't care much about this particular warning, but either we do not print a caret line when the column is zero or we print it at column 1. But the current behavior is broken and a regression w.r.t. how it was working in 4.9.
[Bug tree-optimization/72817] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72817 --- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #5) > The new test case pr72817.c hangs on powerpc both BE and LE > > Executing on host: /home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc > -B/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-trunk/gcc/ > /home/seurer/gcc/gcc-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr72817.c > -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O3 -lm-o > ./pr72817.exe(timeout = 300) > spawn /home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc > -B/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-trunk/gcc/ > /home/seurer/gcc/gcc-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr72817.c > -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O3 -lm -o > ./pr72817.exe > PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr72817.c (test for excess errors) > Setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to > :/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-trunk/gcc::/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-trunk/gcc:/ > home/wschmidt/gcc/install/gcc-5_1/lib64 > spawn [open ...] > WARNING: program timed out. > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr72817.c execution test > testcase > /home/seurer/gcc/gcc-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/tree-ssa.exp > completed in 301 seconds Thanks for reporting. This may indicate something is still wrong in NE_EXPR analysis. I am OoO right now and will look into this once I get back.
[Bug tree-optimization/77283] New: Revision 238005 disables loop unrolling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77283
Bug ID: 77283
Summary: Revision 238005 disables loop unrolling
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Revision 238005 (richi's fix to path splitting to handle empty else blocks)
disables loop unrolling for the test case below (extracted from one of our
benchmarks) leading to a performance regression.
bergner@genoa:~/gcc/BUGS/$ cat foo.c
void
foo (double *x, double *a, double *b, long n, double limit)
{
long i;
for (i=0; i < n; i++)
if (a[i] < limit)
x[i] = b[i];
}
bergner@genoa:~/gcc/BUGS/$
/home/bergner/gcc/build/gcc-fsf-mainline-r238005/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/bergner/gcc/build/gcc-fsf-mainline-r238005/gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -S
foo.c
bergner@genoa:~/gcc/BUGS/$ cat foo.s
foo:
cmpdi 0,6,0
ble 0,.L1
sldi 6,6,3
li 9,0
.p2align 4,,15
.L3:
lfdx 0,4,9
fcmpu 7,0,1
bnl 7,.L8
lfdx 2,5,9
stfdx 2,3,9
addi 9,9,8
cmpld 5,9,6
bne 5,.L3
.L1:
blr
.p2align 4,,15
.L8:
addi 9,9,8
cmpld 1,9,6
bne 1,.L3
blr
bergner@genoa:~/gcc/BUGS/$
/home/bergner/gcc/build/gcc-fsf-mainline-r238004/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/bergner/gcc/build/gcc-fsf-mainline-r238004/gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -S
foo.c
bergner@genoa:~/gcc/BUGS/$ cat foo.s
foo:
cmpdi 0,6,0
ble 0,.L1
lfd 0,0(4)
sldi 6,6,3
addi 8,6,-8
srdi 0,8,3
rldicl 10,0,0,61
fcmpu 7,0,1
blt 7,.L8
.L59:
li 9,8
cmpld 1,9,6
beq 1,.L1
cmpdi 5,10,0
beq 5,.L30
cmpdi 6,10,1
beq 6,.L46
cmpdi 0,10,2
beq 0,.L47
cmpdi 7,10,3
beq 7,.L48
cmpdi 1,10,4
beq 1,.L49
cmpdi 5,10,5
beq 5,.L50
cmpdi 6,10,6
beq 6,.L51
lfdx 3,4,9
fcmpu 0,3,1
bnl 0,.L61
lfdx 4,5,9
stfdx 4,3,9
.L61:
addi 9,9,8
.L51:
lfdx 5,4,9
fcmpu 7,5,1
bnl 7,.L62
lfdx 6,5,9
stfdx 6,3,9
.L62:
addi 9,9,8
.L50:
lfdx 7,4,9
fcmpu 1,7,1
bnl 1,.L63
lfdx 8,5,9
stfdx 8,3,9
[snip]
An executable version of the test case above is:
bergner@genoa:~/gcc/BUGS/LTC17$ cat loop.c
#define SIZE 1024*1000
void
__attribute__ ((noinline))
foo (double *x, double *a, double *b, long n, double limit)
{
long i;
for (i=0; i < n; i++)
if (a[i] < limit)
x[i] = b[i];
}
double x[SIZE], a[SIZE], b[SIZE];
int
main (void)
{
long i;
for (i=0; i < 3000; i++)
foo (x, a, b, SIZE, 1.0);
return 0;
}
bergner@genoa:~/gcc/BUGS/$
/home/bergner/gcc/build/gcc-fsf-mainline-r238004/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/bergner/gcc/build/gcc-fsf-mainline-r238004/gcc -O3 -funroll-loops
loop.c
bergner@genoa:~/gcc/BUGS/$ time ./a.out
real0m3.729s
user0m3.690s
sys 0m0.021s
bergner@genoa:~/gcc/BUGS/$
/home/bergner/gcc/build/gcc-fsf-mainline-r238005/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/bergner/gcc/build/gcc-fsf-mainline-r238005/gcc -O3 -funroll-loops
loop.c
bergner@genoa:~/gcc/BUGS/$ time ./a.out
real0m6.939s
user0m6.851s
sys 0m0.040s
[Bug tree-optimization/77283] Revision 238005 disables loop unrolling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77283 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org, ||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org, ||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner --- This was tested on powerpc64le-linux, but given the patch that caused this is target independent, I'm guessing this affects other targets as well. I haven't confirmed that yet though.
[Bug tree-optimization/72817] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72817 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to amker from comment #7) > Thanks for reporting. > This may indicate something is still wrong in NE_EXPR analysis. I am OoO > right now and will look into this once I get back. This has been an signed vs. unsigned char issue, see #c6. I believe it should be fixed now.
[Bug tree-optimization/77283] Revision 238005 disables loop unrolling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77283 --- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner --- For documentation purposes, the upstream patch that caused this is: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg00189.html
[Bug tree-optimization/72817] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72817 --- Comment #9 from Bill Seurer --- I just ran a check and it is working now on powerpc. Thanks for the quick fix!
[Bug c++/77284] New: ICE on valid C++11 code using initializer list: in potential_constant_expression_1, at cp/constexpr.c:5480
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77284
Bug ID: 77284
Summary: ICE on valid C++11 code using initializer list: in
potential_constant_expression_1, at
cp/constexpr.c:5480
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
Target Milestone: ---
It also affects 6.x and 5.x, and is a regression from 4.9.x.
$ g++-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-trunk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160817 (experimental) [trunk revision 239527] (GCC)
$
$ g++-4.9 -std=c++11 -c small.cpp
$ clang++-3.8 -std=c++11 -c small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -std=c++11 -c small.cpp
small.cpp: In function ‘void foo(A&)’:
small.cpp:10:18: sorry, unimplemented: unexpected AST of kind cleanup_stmt
for (A a : { v }) {};
^
small.cpp:10:18: internal compiler error: in potential_constant_expression_1,
at cp/constexpr.c:5480
0x8bf447 potential_constant_expression_1
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:5480
0x8bf317 potential_constant_expression_1
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:5039
0x8be601 potential_constant_expression_1
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:5399
0x8bef10 potential_constant_expression_1
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:5281
0x8c0050 potential_static_init_expression
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:5497
0x8c0050 potential_nondependent_static_init_expression(tree_node*)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:5545
0x8c1579 maybe_constant_init(tree_node*, tree_node*)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:4704
0x67f83b set_up_extended_ref_temp
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/call.c:9965
0x67f83b extend_ref_init_temps_1
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/call.c:10123
0x7314b0 store_init_value(tree_node*, tree_node*, vec**, int)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/typeck2.c:799
0x68cb8c check_initializer
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c:6230
0x6b732d cp_finish_decl(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool, tree_node*, int)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c:6888
0x78dd82 cp_convert_range_for(tree_node*, tree_node*, tree_node*, bool)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c:11449
0x7be0d0 cp_parser_range_for
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c:11333
0x7be0d0 cp_parser_for
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c:11234
0x7be0d0 cp_parser_iteration_statement
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c:11733
0x7b3d99 cp_parser_statement
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c:10446
0x7b533c cp_parser_statement_seq_opt
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c:10857
0x7b542f cp_parser_compound_statement
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c:10811
0x7b55df cp_parser_function_body
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c:20830
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
$
-
#include
struct A
{
~A () {}
};
void foo (A & v)
{
for (A a : { v }) {};
}
[Bug driver/77275] Description of -l option refers only to static libraries, not dynamic/shared libraries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77275 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Dup of bug 50250. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 50250 ***
[Bug driver/50250] Driver documentation on -l does not mention shared libraries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50250 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||payerle at umd dot edu CC||arkadiusz at drabczyk dot org --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 77275 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 69540 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug driver/50250] Driver documentation on -l does not mention shared libraries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50250 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||payerle at umd dot edu CC||arkadiusz at drabczyk dot org --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 77275 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 69540 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug driver/69540] add a short info on .so priority in -l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69540 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Dup of bug 50250. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 50250 ***
[Bug driver/50250] Driver documentation on -l does not mention shared libraries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50250 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||payerle at umd dot edu CC||arkadiusz at drabczyk dot org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2016-08-17 See Also||https://bugzilla.novell.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=674696 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 77275 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 69540 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Confirmed. Really this documentation should just point to ld's documentation on your system since -l is passed directly without any change. As it is also incorrect for windows systems.
[Bug rtl-optimization/72771] [6/7 Regression] powerpc64le ICE with -mcpu=power9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72771 --- Comment #8 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Wed Aug 17 22:41:22 2016 New Revision: 239549 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239549&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [RELOAD] Don't assume subreg mem address is ok This patch fixes a case where reload blindly assumes a subreg mem is OK if its address has been partially reloaded by legitimize_reload_address. PR rtl-optimization/72771 * reload.c (find_reloads): Don't assume that a subreg mem is OK when find_reloads_toplev returns address_reloaded==-1. (alternative_allows_const_pool_ref): Update comment. testsuite/ * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr72771.c: New. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr72771.c Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/reload.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug rtl-optimization/72771] [6/7 Regression] powerpc64le ICE with -mcpu=power9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72771 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #9 from Alan Modra --- Fixed on trunk. Will need backporting if float2 is added to gcc-6 branch.
[Bug middle-end/70828] broken array-type subarrays inside acc data in openacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70828 --- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: cesar Date: Thu Aug 18 01:12:15 2016 New Revision: 239554 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239554&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/70828 gcc/ * gimplify.c (struct gimplify_omp_ctx): Add tree clauses member. (new_omp_context): Initialize clauses to NULL_TREE. (gimplify_scan_omp_clauses): Set clauses in the gimplify_omp_ctx. (omp_clause_matching_array_ref): New function. (gomp_needs_data_present): New function. (gimplify_adjust_omp_clauses_1): Use preset or pointer omp clause map kinds when creating implicit data clauses for OpenACC offloaded variables defined used an acc data region as necessary. libgomp/ * testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/pr70828.c: New test. * testsuite/libgomp.oacc-fortran/pr70828.f90: New test. Added: branches/gomp-4_0-branch/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/pr70828.c branches/gomp-4_0-branch/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-fortran/pr70828.f90 Modified: branches/gomp-4_0-branch/gcc/ChangeLog.gomp branches/gomp-4_0-branch/gcc/gimplify.c branches/gomp-4_0-branch/libgomp/ChangeLog.gomp
[Bug tree-optimization/77283] [7 Regression] Revision 238005 disables loop unrolling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77283 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2016-08-18 Target Milestone|--- |7.0 Summary|Revision 238005 disables|[7 Regression] Revision |loop unrolling |238005 disables loop ||unrolling Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I noticed path splitting doing some weird stuff with loops even in GCC 6 (though I don't have a testcase right now that shows it being worse off). Confirmed for this case.
[Bug other/68783] Improve verification of loop->latch in verify_loop_structure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68783 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2016-08-18 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I assume this is still true.
