https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83748
--- Comment #8 from Sumit ---
Hi Segher,
I somehow missed the below update from your side.
Can you help me understand if this was some known issue in GCC which got fixed
in r205896? If yes, can you let us know if got fixed in 4.8.1 version?
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85530
Bug ID: 85530
Summary: [X86] _mm512_mullox_epi64 and _mm512_mask_mullox_epi64
not implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85529
Bug ID: 85529
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85528
Bug ID: 85528
Summary: ICE in code_motion_process_successors, at
sel-sched.c:6403
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking, ice-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:33:34PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> The code compiles with 6.4.0 and 7.3.0, but not with 6.4.1, 7.3.1,
> 8.0.1 and trunk (9.0). This is likely r258347 for gcc8, r258367
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85527
Bug ID: 85527
Summary: [openacc] atomic_capture-1.{c,f90} undefined behaviour
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #7 from Tom Ritter ---
I'm compiling some AVX code with MinGW+gcc. I'm afraid it's difficult to
create a test case, but I think there's an alignment issue here.
Registers at crash site:
rbp is 0x00 % 20
> 0:000> r
> rax=15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #6 from Tom Ritter ---
Created attachment 44020
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44020&action=edit
Disassembly of affected function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85526
Bug ID: 85526
Summary: [6.4 regression] calling a (pure) function from inside
another pure function may cause segmentation fault
during compilation
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #5 from Tom Ritter ---
./x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/builds/worker/workspace/build/src/mingw32/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/6.4.0/lto-wrapper
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #4 from Tom Ritter ---
Created attachment 44018
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44018&action=edit
Preprocessed source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
--- Comment #2 from Tom Ritter ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> What exact target is this on?
Sorry, this is x64 if that's what you mean?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85525
Bug ID: 85525
Summary: Alignment Issue in AVX compiler intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #48 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #47)
> Believe it or not, but the rs6000 port maintainers *care* about older
> systems.
Then why is something that is still working and being used by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #12 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #11)
> > The problem is that #4 has an earlier capture, making it impossible to see
> > that it is left undefined later.
>
> I wouldn't say it's impossible. libc++ implements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #11 from Tim Shen ---
> The problem is that #4 has an earlier capture, making it impossible to see
> that it is left undefined later.
I wouldn't say it's impossible. libc++ implements it correctly at a cost.
Specifically, see
https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #10 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #9)
> Ah with the example it's clear, thanks!
You are welcome.
> > The last line gives for #1 the sub-string "z" , and for #2 "aacbbbcac".
>
> This is not what ECMAScript p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Note to self: this came out of this ML thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-04/msg00168.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Note to self: test coverage should also verify += and so on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85524
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85524
Bug ID: 85524
Summary: Strange cbrt() result on linux in C
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 44017
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44017&action=edit
Proof-of-concept patch to add fix-it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
Bug ID: 85523
Summary: Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in
assignment operators
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #9 from Tim Shen ---
Ah with the example it's clear, thanks!
> The last line gives for #1 the sub-string "z" , and for #2 "aacbbbcac".
This is not what ECMAScript produces either. for capture #2, ECMAScriptn
produces "ac", the last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Apr 25 17:31:20 2018
New Revision: 259654
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259654&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
x86: Correct movdir64b builtin function
gcc/ChangeLog:
Ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85517
Matt Calabrese changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||metaprogrammingtheworld@gma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85517
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Managed to reach a state where nothing is spilled on the stack for Thumb-1
either. I want to do 3 more changes before I start full testing:
- put some compiler barrier between address computation and can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85509
--- Comment #5 from ASA ---
> > I would expect this is likely true for any non-const static duration
> > function pointer, not just the case when the auto type specifier is used,
> > but I have not confirmed it.
>
> But it is the case for any no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401
--- Comment #4 from Martin Husemann ---
The costs are missing for various modes:
(gdb) p (default_target_ira_int->x_ira_register_move_cost)
$6 = {0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x7f7ff7b8c8b0, 0x7f7ff7b8c8b0, 0x0 }
(that is: only HImode and SImode co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401
--- Comment #3 from Martin Husemann ---
Indeed. Digging a bit with gdb (but in our local 6.4 version) shows:
#0 0x009fa7be in allocno_copy_cost_saving (allocno=0x7f7ff679a178,
hard_regno=11)
at /usr/src/tools/gcc/../../external/gpl3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85522
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51677
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> It should be easy to white-list the main function in the
> -Wsuggest-attribute= checker. At the same time, I'm not sure it's necessary
> or that the problem is un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #11)
> Patch posted as https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00468.html
Does this still apply?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49702
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85414
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 25 13:10:01 2018
New Revision: 259649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259649&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/85414
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_unary_opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36941
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #8 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #5)
> I'm not following the meaning of "action number" and "the partial reverse
> NFA is recorded".
>
> How many actions numbers are recorded? for regex_match(s, regex(re)), i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37200
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473
--- Comment #4 from speryt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: speryt
Date: Wed Apr 25 12:39:57 2018
New Revision: 259648
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259648&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-25 Sebastian Peryt
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85519
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc, openmp, patch
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84923
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So in spirit of the comment#2 patch I'd propose
Index: gcc/varasm.c
===
--- gcc/varasm.c(revision 259638)
+++ gcc/varasm.c(wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #7 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #5)
> (In reply to Hans Åberg from comment #4)
> > I wrote an NFA/DFA that computes all matches, it seems, in an efficient
> > manner: Action numbers are marked on the states o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #6 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #5)
> (In reply to Hans Åberg from comment #4)
> > I wrote an NFA/DFA that computes all matches, it seems, in an efficient
> > manner: Action numbers are marked on the states o
-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-259628-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-aarch64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.1 20180425 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84923
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> For x86_64 if I append
>
> const int *dat[] = { &Wv12, &wv12 };
>
> the testcase links fine irrespective of where I place the
>
> .weakref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84923
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
For x86_64 if I append
const int *dat[] = { &Wv12, &wv12 };
the testcase links fine irrespective of where I place the
.weakrefWv12,wv12
.weak wv12
assembler declarations.
When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84307
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 25 10:02:24 2018
New Revision: 259641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259641&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/84307
* c-decl.c (build_compound_literal): Ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Apr 25 10:01:55 2018
New Revision: 259640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/85007
* gnat_ugn.texi: Regenerate.
Modified:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Apr 25 10:01:13 2018
New Revision: 259639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/85007
* gnat_ugn.texi: Regenerate.
Modified:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84923
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #11)
> FYI: This caused a regression on aarch64.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84923
I have marked 84923 as an 8 regression as it wasn't do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #5 from Tim Shen ---
(In reply to Hans Åberg from comment #4)
> (In reply to Tim Shen from comment #1)
> > I know exactly how libc++ produces this result. It creates an empty
> > match_result during each repetition ("*" operator). It'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #4 from Hans Åberg ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #1)
> I know exactly how libc++ produces this result. It creates an empty
> match_result during each repetition ("*" operator). It's less confusing but
> much slower.
I wrote
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #3 from Tim Shen ---
Conclusively, yes it is a bug, but it is hard to fix without regressing normal
case performance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85519
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> All these solutions work until the next failure shows up. It would be nice
> to fix this more definitely in some way, but I'm not sure how.
We could try to figure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
--- Comment #2 from Tim Shen ---
My bad, I didn't realize that "(z)((a+)?(b+)?(c))*" is exactly an example
described in ECMAScript third edition 15.10.2.5. Therefore libstdc++ is not
conforming.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85405
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85405
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Apr 25 07:41:44 2018
New Revision: 259634
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259634&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r259431
2018-04-25 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85248
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85405
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Apr 25 07:41:25 2018
New Revision: 259633
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259633&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r259429
2018-04-25 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85248
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Apr 25 07:40:46 2018
New Revision: 259632
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259632&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r259274
2018-04-25 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85248
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Apr 25 07:40:27 2018
New Revision: 259631
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259631&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r259265
2018-04-25 Martin Liska
Backport from mainl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85412
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85516
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85509
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to ASA from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > The issue is you fail to make PerformQuickly and PerformSafely const and GCC
> > doesn't have local analysis to promote it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49171
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 49171, which changed state.
Bug 49171 Summary: [C++0x][constexpr] Constant expressions support
reinterpret_cast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49171
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 85437, which changed state.
Bug 85437 Summary: [8 Regression] member pointer static upcast rejected in a
constexpr context
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85437
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85437
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 25 07:10:16 2018
New Revision: 259629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85437
PR c++/49171
* cp-tree.h (REINTERPRET
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49171
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 25 07:10:16 2018
New Revision: 259629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85437
PR c++/49171
* cp-tree.h (REINTERPRE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85437
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
82 matches
Mail list logo
