https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80541
Bug ID: 80541
Summary: Wrong constant folding
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
in both 32- and 64-bit modes. Unlike PR79636,
-O0 and -O1 work fine.
Moreover,
gcc-4.8.5 crashes at all levels;
gcc-4.9 accepts it at all levels;
gcc-5.X,6 accept it at -O1 and -O0, and reject it at -O2 and above.
$ gcc-trunk --version
gcc-trunk (GCC) 8.0.0 20170426 (experimental) [trunk revis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80523
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80534
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80529
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But in any case, I don't have any say over warnings for the C front-end. It's
just a personal opinion, not a GCC one.
d above on x86_64-linux-gnu in both 32- and 64-bit modes.
$ gcc-trunk --version
gcc-trunk (GCC) 8.0.0 20170426 (experimental) [trunk revision 247284]
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80534
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80534
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #16)
> The attached does what you want to the testcase. For CLASS objects, it
> is the data that has to be copied to a variable, that data fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80534
--- Comment #1 from Freddie Chopin ---
Created attachment 41276
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41276&action=edit
preprocessed source which causes the problem - minimal version
OK, I've managed to narrow it down to a much sm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.4
Summary|UBSAN: compile ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80538
Bug ID: 80538
Summary: Probably unwanted thread yield for thread::sleep_for
with < 1s
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80537
Bug ID: 80537
Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow on POSIX %C conversion
specification
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
Bug ID: 80536
Summary: UBSAN: compile time segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80535
Bug ID: 80535
Summary: missing -Wformat-overfow on POSIX directives with the
apostrophe flag
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80534
Bug ID: 80534
Summary: 7.1 RC - internal compiler error: in
finish_member_declaration, at cp/semantics.c:2963
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80524
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Paul,
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #16)
> The attached does what you want to the testcase. For CLASS objects, it
> is the data that has to be copied to a variable, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80533
Bug ID: 80533
Summary: Alias analysis of zero length array does not recognize
accesses beyond end of array
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67463
--- Comment #4 from Shlomi Fish ---
(In reply to Shlomi Fish from comment #3)
> Hi Martin, thanks for returning to me.
>
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > Hi.
> >
> > Sorry for waiting for some time. I tested your benchmark, wher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80513
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80529
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > IMHO warnings should not be enforcing in-house coding guidelines. Use
> > clang-tidy for that.
>
> GCC alread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80531
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is really weird, because atomic.c has two exported functions, so should
have first_global_object_name set.
Can you find out why notice_global_symbol is not called? Or is it called only
after get_file_fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79038
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40827|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80529
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> IMHO warnings should not be enforcing in-house coding guidelines. Use
> clang-tidy for that.
GCC already has several warnings added for that purpose. -Wtemplat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80513
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Smith from comment #1)
> While we're here, this check for overflow in consume_count is nonsense, and
> any decent optimising compiler is going to optimise away the overflow check:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
Bug ID: 80532
Summary: warning on pointer access after free
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80531
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|RC1 bootstrap com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80530
wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80531
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80531
Bug ID: 80531
Summary: RC1 bootstrap comparison failure
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80519
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80522
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80513
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, no, that's not the right character to check!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80513
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For the first problem this should be sufficient:
--- a/libiberty/cplus-dem.c
+++ b/libiberty/cplus-dem.c
@@ -3173,6 +3173,8 @@ gnu_special (struct work_stuff *work, const char
**mangled, string *declp)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #15 from jonne ---
I ran the below command to check memory usage. After an initial quick increase
it doesn't seem to grow much.
$ while true; sleep 1; do ps -p $(pgrep -fl ./a.out | awk '{ print $1 }') -o
pmem,rss,vsize,pid; done
%ME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80529
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
IMHO warnings should not be enforcing in-house coding guidelines. Use
clang-tidy for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
--- Comment #14 from jreiser at bitwagon dot com ---
Here's how to retain the increased speed (and save around 300 bytes per call)
while enabling valgrind happiness.
Make a closed subroutine __gcc_strcmp_ppc64le whose calling sequence is:
la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80530
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80530
Bug ID: 80530
Summary: [7 Regression][AArch64] ICE when expanding reciprocal
square root with -mcpu=exynos-m1 or -mcpu=xgene-1
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80491
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > Segher, any idea what can be done about the second (combiner) issue?
> > Is it possible to special case MODE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||80491
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80527
--- Comment #3 from Milo ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> 4.8 is not maintained anymore, and I think this is already fixed in 4.9. Can
> you check with a newer compiler?
Thank you for your rapid reply.
We are using Ubuntu 12.04.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80527
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
4.8 is not maintained anymore, and I think this is already fixed in 4.9. Can
you check with a newer compiler?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
--- Comment #3 from krister.walfridsson at gmail dot com ---
You can see the issue in the generated code with
int foo(std::mt19937 &gen)
{
std::uniform_int_distribution dist(0,99);
return dist(gen);
}
too. I.e. it is not just an ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #81 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #79)
> Created attachment 41269 [details]
> gcc7-pr79430.patch
>
> Untested patch meant for 7.x, which just modifies reg-stack.c and nothing
> else.
> Unlike the abov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to jonne from comment #13)
> Thanks for all your help, Martin, I really appreciate.
You're welcome.
>
> I re-ran with ASAN_OPTIONS as you suggested. The program seems to get killed
> after about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80529
Bug ID: 80529
Summary: Split "C++ style comments are not allowed in ISO C90"
pedwarn into its own warning flag
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80352
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
FWIW, I've configured GCC with --target=arm-none-eabi --with-cpu=cortex-m7
--with-mode=thumb and then ran make all-gcc. I think it would work equally well
without the cpu and mode given that these are gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80352
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #1)
> Thomas, it seems from your description the problem really exists. I tried
> to reproduce the problem with the test you provided but I've failed. I used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80524
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80519
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> A warning would be quite a different thing. You would want it in the
> front-end, to detect when a user literally wrote if(p)free(p). What I am
> interested in is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80528
Bug ID: 80528
Summary: reimplement gnulib's "useless-if-before-free" script
as a compiler warning
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80527
--- Comment #1 from Milo ---
Created attachment 41272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41272&action=edit
declearation of the function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80527
Bug ID: 80527
Summary: SSE4 Compiling issue
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80519
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
A warning would be quite a different thing. You would want it in the front-end,
to detect when a user literally wrote if(p)free(p). What I am interested in is
an optimization that detects when, possibly after i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #13 from jonne ---
Thanks for all your help, Martin, I really appreciate.
I re-ran with ASAN_OPTIONS as you suggested. The program seems to get killed
after about 44 seconds.
I already tried with clang before, seems to work ok over
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80519
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #16 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Janus,
The attached does what you want to the testcase. For CLASS objects, it
is the data that has to be copied to a variable, that data freed and
the _data field pointed to the va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80526
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Maybe it does if you use -ffat-lto-objects.
Sure, yes. But -fno-fat-lto-objects is the default.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80526
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe it does if you use -ffat-lto-objects.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #80 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The only difference with the #c79 patch on the testcase is:
@@ -18865,7 +18865,6 @@ __shower_core_MOD_shower_generate_next_i
callintegral_over_z_part_isr.6797
.LVL1471:
.LM2026:
- fldt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #79 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41269
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41269&action=edit
gcc7-pr79430.patch
Untested patch meant for 7.x, which just modifies reg-stack.c and nothing else.
Unlike the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #54 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The notices are only for ABI of actually compiled code, so it depends on
optimizations, if functions are inlined or optimized away, we don't report
anything, so at -O0 when fewer functions are inlined and al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80526
Bug ID: 80526
Summary: -fcompare-debug doesn't make sense for -c -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80525
Bug ID: 80525
Summary: -Wlogical-op confused by undefined integer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, xfail
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78792
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||biblbroks at hotmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69841
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80149
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||klug.stefan at gmx dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #51 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #50)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> > Started with r225465.
> > Something to do with alignment.
> > I wonder if it's related to PR69841 ?
>
> Seems t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #15 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear all,
I add that the workaround (inserting an allocatable inside the type being a
result of polymorphic function) if used into a real code
(https://github.com/szaghi/FORESEER) does not solve the memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #11)
> I'll take a look tonight. I believe, without the source in front of me, that
>
> s/gfc_add_expr_to_block (&post, gfc_call_free
> (tmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
I'm sorry I cannot help more as I don't have a handy Mac operating system. I
would also try to use clang with the sanitizer and test it. Moreover, you can
test following:
$ gcc /tmp/main.c -fsanitize=address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80524
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Wood ---
Intel's response:
Hello Andrew,
Our development team investigated the issue and determined the following:
---
Finalization is a tricky thing - there are many different events that trigger a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80524
Bug ID: 80524
Summary: Problematic behaviour with a finalization subroutine
in gfortran
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #78 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested fix. The problem is that autoinc/dec of stack_pointer_rtx doesn't use
REG_INC notes (various comments, e.g. in auto_inc_p or in auto-inc-dec.c seem
to suggest that stack_pointer_rtx is just special
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79824
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #77 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #76)
> Reproduced (in the dumps), debugging now.
Maybe I should stress again that this only happens if the real and complex
types
in our code have kind=10, for kind=8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #13 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear all,
I have done further test about Vipul's workaround, you can find my complete
report here
https://github.com/szaghi/leaks_hunter#results
Essentially, my current conclusion is that the workaround d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #12 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Created attachment 41267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41267&action=edit
simple inheritance leaker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80519
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
90 matches
Mail list logo
