https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81403
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
PRE losing "& 10393" at -O3 but not -O2 (the previous dumps are identical)
@@ -611,6 +639,7 @@
;;6 [100.0%] (FALLTHRU,EXECUTABLE)
# .MEM_21 = PHI <.MEM_26(5), .MEM_25(6)>
# prephitmp_34
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #24)
> Just run with current trunk and it works (it fails after a minute in
> ==13736==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-overflow on address 0x2adb9b406e48
> (pc 0x067d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81404
Bug ID: 81404
Summary: suggested hints for standard C macros should avoid GCC
predefined macros
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81402
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
In my opinion (at least in the constant case) the warning would be more
meaningful if it pointed out the likely mistake of using assignment as opposed
to equality instead of (only) recommending how to suppress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini ---
Yes, I agree with your analysis, something seems wrong. I suspsect going to a
normal uncommitted mode, thus not setting _M_reading would largely work, but I
fear performance implications, etc. I would strong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4)
> Seems weird: -1 means uncommitted (per the comment before _M_set_buffer) and
> we also set _M_reading? I don't think we do that anywhere else.
But we also don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81403
Bug ID: 81403
Summary: wrong code at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81402
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81402
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81402
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81402
Bug ID: 81402
Summary: unhelpful -Wparentheses suggestion for assignment from
non-zero constant
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81401
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81401
Bug ID: 81401
Summary: False positive sprintf warning at O2
(-Wformat-overflow)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81342
--- Comment #3 from Anatol ---
Hi
I indeed observe the issue in a kernel project. It is a custom x86 kernel that
is not published yet.
I tried to narrow down use case and I think I found how to reproduce the issue
easily. It looks like a trigge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81342
--- Comment #2 from Anatol ---
Created attachment 41724
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41724&action=edit
Reproduce lto crash with LD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41722|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51270
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51270
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jul 11 21:24:11 2017
New Revision: 250140
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250140&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-11 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/51270
* g+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81387
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Babokin ---
Interesting that you've mentioned -fno-sanitize-recover, I haven't realized
that it has effect on the number of basic blocks. But by default I run
"-fsanitize=undefined -fno-sanitize-recover=undefined", so t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 41722
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41722&action=edit
second patch, for the original problem
This one should solve the original problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81399
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW it passes on gcc112 in the compile farm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81399
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I was wrong, it fails at least some of the time on powerpc64 BE too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81193
--- Comment #12 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 41721
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41721&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71850
Andrew Gallagher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrewjcg at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400
Bug ID: 81400
Summary: Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong
and allowing me to stack smash
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81399
Bug ID: 81399
Summary: New test case 27_io/basic_stringstream/assign/81338.cc
fails on powerpc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81269
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The original testcase still ICEs ("smaller reproducer" I never got to fail).
(trunk, no options whatsoever):
81317-1.c: In function 'jsimd_ycc_rgb_convert_altivec':
81317-1.c:184:6: internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70992
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.0
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81362
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
This fixes both no-vfa-vect-57.c and no-vfa-vect-61.c for -m64 and -m32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6)
> The relevant xsgetn code essentially is an optimization, right? Shouldn't be
> too difficult to figure out what would happen in the slow, correct case...
> What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> This started in 4.6.0 with r87453
It did start with 4.6.0 but that commit was already in 4.5.4 so it can't have
been that one. It seems to be the change to o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41718|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51270
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini ---
Certainly a pity, but I think it's a rather well known issue...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini ---
The relevant xsgetn code essentially is an optimization, right? Shouldn't be
too difficult to figure out what would happen in the slow, correct case...
What's wrong with a normal uncommitted case, thus _M_rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81396
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll have a look at that tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
PR 45708 suggested that _M_reading and _M_writing aren't needed. I haven't
found a patch to implement that, but I haven't looked too hard.
You make a good point that going into uncommitted mode with _M_rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
Just run with current trunk and it works (it fails after a minute in
==13736==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-overflow on address 0x2adb9b406e48 (pc
0x067d8638 bp 0x2adb9b408020 sp 0x2adb9b406e30 T1)
So I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41716|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51270
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's a pity you need at least -O2 for the warnings, but I agree we can close it
as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81396
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
bswap was happy dealing with
_2 = MEM[(const unsigned char *)&word];
_3 = (uint64_t) _2;
_4 = MEM[(const unsigned char *)&word + 1B];
_5 = (uint64_t) _4;
_6 = _5 << 8;
_8 = MEM[(const unsigned char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Seems weird: -1 means uncommitted (per the comment before _M_set_buffer) and we
also set _M_reading? I don't think we do that anywhere else. But it's a long
time... Note that I clearly remember somebody sugge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81396
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81362
--- Comment #6 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Created attachment 41715
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41715&action=edit
Tentative patch
Removed the npeel function argument, also removed body_cost_vec and the
corres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81394
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70844
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51270
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #22)
> One more question, would it be possible to somehow attach gdb to the server
> which is tested? It will help me to debug where precisely is the stack
> poisoned?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
--- Comment #22 from Martin Liška ---
One more question, would it be possible to somehow attach gdb to the server
which is tested? It will help me to debug where precisely is the stack
poisoned?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm testing this patch:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/fstream.tcc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/fstream.tcc
@@ -699,7 +699,7 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81365
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.2
Summary|Use of parenthesi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81397
Bug ID: 81397
Summary: mistakes in .opt files not detected
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I looked back through the tester logs and noticed that the test case doesn't
always fail and there are two different failures and always with -O3
PASS: libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81066
--- Comment #13 from George R. Goffe ---
Jakub,
I have built gcc with itself... including your mod... That appears to have
worked as well.
George...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81396
Bug ID: 81396
Summary: Optimization of reading Little-Endian 64-bit number
with portable code has a regression
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81348
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81320
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81365
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81320
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
> The code uses user-level threads (makecontext/setcontext etc). It annotates
> the new stack during the switch, see for example
> https://github.com/scylladb/seastar/blob/master/core/thread.cc#L66.
> Suppose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46742
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80316
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jul 11 12:38:35 2017
New Revision: 250131
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250131&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80316 make promise::set_value throw no_state error
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80316
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81271
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
Bug ID: 81395
Summary: basic_filebuf::overflow recurses and overflows stack
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81394
Bug ID: 81394
Summary: wrong "useless cast" message in inheriting constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80316
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jul 11 11:52:14 2017
New Revision: 250126
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250126&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80316 make promise::set_value throw no_state error
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81393
Bug ID: 81393
Summary: Bootstrap failure on s390x-linux while building libgo
against recent glibc
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81392
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81066
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've filed https://reviews.llvm.org/D35246 upstream for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81364
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
C++ doesn't warn. The problem is that we shouldn't warn (in the C FE) when a
guard is followed by '{'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Reduced Boost testcase:
struct A;
struct B {
typedef A *type;
};
struct C {
B::type operator->();
};
struct D {
struct F {
F(void(void *), F *, void());
};
template struct J : F {
Fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81367
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81392
Bug ID: 81392
Summary: Improve diagnostics for [[fallthrough]] attribute that
is missing a semicolon
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: dia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81367
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.1
--- Comment #4 from Dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81271
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2017-7-11
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81319
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #24 from Jan Hubicka ---
I think the patch still need to be updated to correctly handle the symbols
whose names are parethetised which was mentioned on the IRC (weird thing that
seems to be used in objC++ API). That should fix good p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81367
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0, 5.2.0, 6.3.0, 6.4.0
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81367
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
AFAICT this is fixed in 5.4.1 and 6.4.0:
% gfc5 pr81367.f90
pr81367.f90:5:18:
character(len=f)::fname
1
Error: Scalar INTEGER expression expected at (1)
% gfc5 -v
Using built-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81342
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81355
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81365
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81367
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81369
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81369
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Also see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2017-07/msg00144.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81391
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81390
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
