https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91131
--- Comment #6 from Per Dalgas Jakobsen ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> note your use of packed might end up doing more than one store depending
> on the architecture.
If you mean that a packed structure beyond the data-width
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77796
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> > > Confirmed. Also, it seems weird that the warning underlines al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
No progress yet but I agree and I'm still planning to work on it for GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91140
Bug ID: 91140
Summary: Regressions on trunk at revision 273226 vs revision
273190
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91139
Bug ID: 91139
Summary: Attempts, fails to rebuild doc/gcc.info in tarball
release build
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91136
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91076
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91110
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91110
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91134
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Bug 91138 created for the C++ case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91138
Bug ID: 91138
Summary: Confusing error message: "maybe you meant to use '->'
?" fix-it when -> is already used
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91134
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|6.3.0 |10.0
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91060
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91136
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think it is related to PR 89245 but they happen on MIPS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91060
--- Comment #15 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Jul 10 18:41:44 2019
New Revision: 273365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] Fix BE index for single-var vector initialisers (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91124
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The execution failures are a different bug.
Patterns like:
(define_insn "sse2_cvttpd2dq"
[(set (match_operand:V4SI 0 "register_operand" "=v")
(vec_concat:V4SI
(fix:V2SI (match_operand:V2D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91115
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
>The actual SP and shadow byte location varies a bit between each run.
You can disable address randomization before running the program to get the
location less varied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
Bug ID: 91137
Summary: Wrong code with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
--- Comment #15 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Any progress Martin? Just to keep beating the dead horse...
Forgetting other compilers for a minute, __has_builtin allows for feature
detection which is much better than compiler version checks which ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91136
--- Comment #2 from Artur Koniński ---
Created attachment 46589
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46589&action=edit
suplementary file, to allow linking and test of built program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91136
--- Comment #1 from Artur Koniński ---
Created attachment 46588
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46588&action=edit
Compiler output, collected with -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91136
Bug ID: 91136
Summary: [MIPS] Incorrect move of instruction to delay slot
causes application crash in exception handling
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Hi,
We are providing the Attendees list of Swim Collective Trade Show 2019 with
9,950 visitors.
If you are interested, please let me know your thoughts, so that I can send
you the pricing for it.
Best Regards,
Kathryn Watson
Demand Generation
To be removed from my emails, please reply STO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91132
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91132
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jul 10 16:15:52 2019
New Revision: 273358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273358&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/91132 - test gcc.dg/strlenopt-67.c in r273317 fails
gcc/test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91135
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91102
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Jul 10 16:07:10 2019
New Revision: 273357
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273357&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/91102
* lr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91127
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The function that validates attribute positional arguments doesn't consider the
subtleties of C++ member functions so the diagnostic it gives in these cases is
confusing. I agree that the nonnull attribute do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91134
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Emil Fihlman from comment #0)
> fiesh on #gcc@Freenode gave these ideas regarding this:
>
> 2019-07-10 18:11:03 +0300 < fiesh> I think that `server->thing` is probably
> replaced by `(*server.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91135
Bug ID: 91135
Summary: __linux__ not defined with -mcall-aixdesc on 9.x and
ppc64
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91134
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91134
--- Comment #1 from Emil Fihlman ---
The fix programming side is of course just wrapping *server in parentheses but
the error message should still be amended imho.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91134
Bug ID: 91134
Summary: Confusing error message: error: ‘*server’ is a
pointer; did you mean to use ‘->’? when -> is used
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91124
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46586
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46586&action=edit
gcc10-pr91124.patch
Untested patch for the VBMI2/VNNI error: the last argument must be an 8-bit
immediate etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91101
--- Comment #17 from Frantisek Sumsal ---
Thanks a lot for the thorough debugging and explanation. I raised an issue on
the systemd bug tracker[0] so it can be properly discussed and resolved there.
[0] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91131
--- Comment #5 from Per Dalgas Jakobsen ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> So your complaint is that
>
> struct Reg_T {
> unsigned int a : 3;
> unsigned int b : 1;
> unsigned int c : 4;
> } __attribute__((
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133
Bug ID: 91133
Summary: Wrong "partial specialization is not more specialized
than" error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91131
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Index: gcc/gimplify.c
===
--- gcc/gimplify.c (revision 273355)
+++ gcc/gimplify.c (working copy)
@@ -5005,7 +5004,7 @@ gimplify_init_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
Carlo B. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||castro8583bennett at gmx dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91126
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 10 13:40:12 2019
New Revision: 273355
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273355&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-10 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91126
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91126
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[7/8/9/10 regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91132
Bug ID: 91132
Summary: New test gcc.dg/strlenopt-67.c in r273317 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91125
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2019-07-09 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91131
--- Comment #1 from Per Dalgas Jakobsen ---
Created attachment 46585
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46585&action=edit
MWE: Preprocessed C-file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91131
Bug ID: 91131
Summary: Bad bitfield coalescing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
URL: http://knaldgas.dk/~pdj/bitfields/
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91115
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Fred Hsueh from comment #3)
> The actual SP and shadow byte location varies a bit between each run. Other
> than that, the signature looks very similar. Another thing to note is that
> the program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45730|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Bug ID: 91130
Summary: [9/10 Regression] -MF clashes with -flto on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux-gnu
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55930
--- Comment #14 from Stephen Kitt ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> But the bigger question is why are you passing --disable-dependency-tracking
> ?
I ran into this issue because Debian's debhelper's dh_auto_configure passes
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91124
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, but that is just one thing, the other is execution failure, but most
likely bad expansion as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91124
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Somehow the backend doesn't like to expand
__builtin_ia32_vpshldv_v4si_mask (_36, { 2, 3, 4, 5 }, { 1, 4, 7, 10 }, 185)
while it happily expands
__builtin_ia32_vpshldv_v4si_maskz (_24, _15, _14, 185);
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91126
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91124
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91126
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase that fails for a longer time already:
struct S
{
int a : 24;
int b : 8;
} s;
int
main()
{
s.a = 0xfefefe;
s.b = 0xfe;
unsigned char c;
c = ((unsigned char *)&s)[0];
if (c != 0xfe)
__bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91129
Bug ID: 91129
Summary: Implicit casts fail for modulo operator
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88907
Peter Georg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.2.1 |10.0
--- Comment #1 from Peter Georg
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55930
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK thanks for the update. I think your patch for this bug is trivial enough to
not require any paperwork.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81806
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Feedback was provided: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-07/msg00082.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55930
--- Comment #12 from Richard Purdie
---
I started to look at sorting out Yocto Project/Openembedded's gcc patches in
general and ran into a contribution agreement legal quagmire. I still haven't
been able to resolve that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91128
Bug ID: 91128
Summary: Incomplete fix of heap overflow in cp-demangle.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55930
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I still think the solution is "don't do that for gcc" but in any case, the
patch still hasn't been sent to the mailing list so isn't going to get reviewed
let alone applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89245
--- Comment #2 from Dragan Mladjenovic ---
Fixed by r273314. Sorry for the inconvenience. I did not put a proper
back-reference to this issue in the change log.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91127
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
68 matches
Mail list logo
