https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80870
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Jan 21 05:13:20 2018
New Revision: 256928
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256928&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-01-21 Oleg Endo
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83958
Bug ID: 83958
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in find_decomp_class_base)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83481
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80870
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrisj at rtems dot org
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80870
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrisj at rtems dot org
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82530
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83957
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
Actually, the testcase can be reduced to just
void
k2 (int *ch, int fw)
{
if (fw < 0)
while (fw < 1)
{
ch = &fw;
++fw;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83957
Bug ID: 83957
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in gimple_phi_arg)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
namespace {
struct a {
~a() = delete;
};
struct b {
~b() {}
union {
a c;
};
};
}
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180120 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83917
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Testcase would be nice.
*sigh* Yes, I've seen that there are tests that run gdb through expect, I
haven't learned how to use that yet.
(In reply to Jakub Jel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83952
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> Andrew, the OP had already closed the first PR, and you closed the second as
> duplicate of the first. Did you really mean to get to a situation where both
> are cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83952
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Andrew, the OP had already closed the first PR, and you closed the second as
duplicate of the first. Did you really mean to get to a situation where both
are closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Jan 20 20:56:45 2018
New Revision: 256921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83900
* s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Jan 20 20:45:50 2018
New Revision: 256920
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256920&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83900
* s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Jan 20 20:33:34 2018
New Revision: 256919
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256919&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83900
* s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 04:51:24PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
>
> --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 03:22:50PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
>
> --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The original test in comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54278
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83955
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The warning is correct for c. The enum type is really an int in size and
space. That is assigning 3 or 4 to it is still well defined code.
USE and DragonFly BSD for trunk gives:
$ /opt/gcc/20180120/bin/gcc -v -Wall -Wextra -c enum_fall.c
enum_fall.c: In function 'cu_fgets':
enum_fall.c:19:3: warning: this statement may fall through
[-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
switch (script->type) {
^~
enum_fall.c:25:2: note: here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The original test in comment 0 still fails at r256917 on darwin with
pr83900.f90:4:0:
print *, matmul(a, b)
internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2402
Should I reopen th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
Bug ID: 83954
Summary: LTO: Bogus -Wlto-type-mismatch warning for pointer to
incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnosti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48097
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|new Throw_2 failures in |gcc sometimes generates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54278
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83875
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Kretz ---
> inside multi-versioned (target_clones/target) function it depends on the
> active target
Yes., this part is easy.
> inside a constexpr context (function/variable, your examples) or
> always_inline func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83940
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80547
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83940
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sat Jan 20 13:43:22 2018
New Revision: 256918
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256918&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix vect_def_type handling in x86 scatter support (PR 83
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83951
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 83952 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83952
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83952
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83949
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83953
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83921
--- Comment #3 from Eric Fiselier ---
The problem also reproduces when the empty type has an explicitly defaulted
default constructor. Example:
struct Foo { Foo() = default; };
constexpr void test() { Foo f; };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83816
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> > Using this rudimentary workaround, I got the failing tests of this PR
> > passing again:
> Shouldn't it be sufficie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83953
Bug ID: 83953
Summary: Internal compiler error with -fcheck=bounds option on
derived type components and forall construct
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83816
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 43196
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43196&action=edit
binary compressed data
I have tapped lto_end_compression and dumped the compressed binary data into a
separate fil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> Using this rudimentary workaround, I got the failing tests of this PR
> passing again:
> ...
> diff --git a/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c b/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83952
--- Comment #1 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
Also seeing this with -O3 -fno-unroll-loops -fno-tree-loop-vectorize :
https://godbolt.org/g/r2v7X8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83952
Bug ID: 83952
Summary: [missed optimization] difference calculation for
floats vs ints in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83951
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83951
--- Comment #1 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
Created attachment 43194
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43194&action=edit
Source producing the optimized (int) and unopmitized (float) object code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83951
Bug ID: 83951
Summary: [missed optimization] difference calculation for
floats vs ints in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] internal |[7 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 20 09:58:31 2018
New Revision: 256916
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256916&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83945
* tree-emutls.c: Include gimplify.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE: RTL |[6/7 Regression] ICE: RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83930
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 20 09:54:06 2018
New Revision: 256915
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256915&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83930
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Using the workaround, I get pretty good results:
...
Running /home/vries/openacc/trunk/source-gcc/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/c.exp
...
FAIL: libgomp.c/target-32.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libgomp.c/targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Jan 20 08:29:23 2018
New Revision: 256914
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256914&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83900
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Using this rudimentary workaround, I got the failing tests of this PR passing
again:
...
diff --git a/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c b/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c
index afb0e4dd185..3ac28b3d903 100644
--- a/gcc/config/
52 matches
Mail list logo
