https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97064
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97061
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
I think I also got this ICE with an additional 'collapse(2)', which might
indicate that a(nother) check is missing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97064
Bug ID: 97064
Summary: BB vectorization behaves sub-optimal
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97057
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97058
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
You're not supposed to use this flag but the behavior is indeed weird. The
last part "not valid for C/C++" is due to the fact the option is not marked
for any language:
funroll-completely-grow-size
Undocum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97019
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97019
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e0d98ffd14487b7105de3d151122144086faa1fa
commit r11-3217-ge0d98ffd14487b7105de3d151122144086faa1fa
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Sep 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96935
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Candidate fix:
--- a/gcc/input.c
+++ b/gcc/input.c
@@ -1461,6 +1461,8 @@ get_substring_ranges_for_loc (cpp_reader *pfile,
size_t literal_length = finish.column - start.column + 1;
/* Ensure th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96935
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r269125. Use -O to reproduce.
Bizarrely, it goes away when -Wall is in effect!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96935
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Assignee|una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94234
Feng Xue changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91601
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #17 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063
Bug ID: 97063
Summary: [ MATMUL intrinsic] The value of result is wrong when
vector (step size is negative) * matrix
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97062
Bug ID: 97062
Summary: [gcov] Don't repeat display of inline functions in
headers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97061
Bug ID: 97061
Summary: [OpenMP] ICE in in omp_add_variable, at
gimplify.c:6955
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95654
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 49222
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49222&action=edit
Slightly reduced example, compile with gfortran -fopenmp -O1 -ftracer
Some testing; with gfortran -fopenmp -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97060
Bug ID: 97060
Summary: Missing DW_AT_declaration=1 in dwarf data
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #19 from Fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:41:31PM +0100, Nuno Gonçalves via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> Hi Jason et al,
>
> After a bisect I found that the commit
> 7fc49a5777943aab11e227136d00a836f28f12b2 causes a segmentation fault
> during my compilation:
This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96650
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Will Schmidt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04a9b796436c68a07c052805631e962a1126dcca
commit r9-8872-g04a9b796436c68a07c052805631e962a1126dcca
Author: Will Schmidt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96650
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50ddbd0282e06614b29f0d3f3be5fbe70085a8bd
commit r11-3212-g50ddbd0282e06614b29f0d3f3be5fbe70085a8bd
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
Hi Jason et al,
After a bisect I found that the commit
7fc49a5777943aab11e227136d00a836f28f12b2 causes a segmentation fault
during my compilation:
sqlpp11/include/sqlpp11/where.h: In substitution of ‘template template template
using _new_statement_t = sqlpp::new_statement_t, T> [with Check =
sqlp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97059
Bug ID: 97059
Summary: C++20: compound requirement uses inconsistent return
type (adds ref)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96987
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
And what about other front-ends that do not have the luxury of C attributes?
Looking at the original library code of where the warning was noticed, the
function being called (GC.addRange) definitely doesn't re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85198
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97036
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88101
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Rodgers ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #2)
> Another use case is C++20 atomic_ref, which may be bound to an object whose
> padding bits are in indeterminate state. An intrinsic to clear padding bits
> without alt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97057
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #2)
> Sorry. I am still seeing a compilation error and bisect erroneously traced
> it here.
FYI, the actual bootstrap issue was due to one of Mike's recent patches. Alex
de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96668
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b9bdd52037061d7a5bd77d177b060c93c528a5d
commit r11-3211-g1b9bdd52037061d7a5bd77d177b060c93c528a5d
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97023
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96295
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Keywords|
pc-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r11-3201-20200915093938-g0f079e104a8-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20200915 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96139
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Will Schmidt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba0bc8fa005921832c4665e5b5a18932d3f4ccf4
commit r10-8766-gba0bc8fa005921832c4665e5b5a18932d3f4ccf4
Author: Will Schmidt
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 96987, which changed state.
Bug 96987 Summary: [11 regression] warning 'ptr' may be used uninitialized
const pointer parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96987
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96987
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97057
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry. I am still seeing a compilation error and bisect erroneously traced it
here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97057
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97057
Bug ID: 97057
Summary: [11 regression] Error in build gcc after r11-3149
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97053
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94234
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Feng Xue :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f0d743c2dee6afae5c6f861b0642b7b112a4a70
commit r11-3207-g8f0d743c2dee6afae5c6f861b0642b7b112a4a70
Author: Feng Xue
Date: Mon Aug 17 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96882
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to emilie.feral from comment #7)
> Hello,
> Any news on the subject?
> Would you advise in the meantime to discard the LTO (with the -fno-lto
> option) on the compilation unit containing the fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97042
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-15
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97054
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97053
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another testcase for -O2 -fno-tree-dse that shows more issues, that it affects
not just the overlapping case handling, but also can affect also the adjacent
cases:
struct __attribute__((packed, may_alias)) S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bab581381681813ab3ccd007195777c1f816e656
commit r11-3205-gbab581381681813ab3ccd007195777c1f816e656
Author: Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97056
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
OK, in between the revs the cost modeling was disabled so that would explain
it, we just got back to the previous state then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97056
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
No, it was failing at that time.
It started passing between r11-3093 and r11-3103, and fails again since
r11-3148.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97056
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97054
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 49220
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49220&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96201
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97053
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the problem is that check_no_overlap only looks at later m_store_info
stores that would overlap and cause problems.
But in this case, the problem is that we'd need to check earlier m_store_info
store
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95646
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80297f897758f59071968ddff2a04a8d11481117
commit r11-3203-g80297f897758f59071968ddff2a04a8d11481117
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96744
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96744
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ecc3135a4a264b66c163ef32e815a99746b81800
commit r11-3202-gecc3135a4a264b66c163ef32e815a99746b81800
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83591
Tony E Lewis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97053
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Better testcase that won't cease to test the bug even if FRE or some other pass
gets smarter and optimizes the a = ""; __builtin_memcpy (&a, "ABCD",
4);
into a = "ABCD":
struct S { short a; char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96882
--- Comment #7 from emilie.feral at numworks dot com ---
Hello,
Any news on the subject?
Would you advise in the meantime to discard the LTO (with the -fno-lto option)
on the compilation unit containing the failing code?
The bug occurred for us wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97053
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
struct S { short a; char b[9]; int c; char d; int e; };
__attribute__((noipa)) void
foo (char *x, char *y)
{
if (__builtin_strcmp (x, "ABCD") != 0
|| __builtin_strcmp (y, "ABCD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97028
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97028
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0a094ce39fc49681b0d5cfd2ee1d232859c4824
commit r9-8871-gd0a094ce39fc49681b0d5cfd2ee1d232859c4824
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97028
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55cd12c65ffa1e7c0bb36fd398f178d5d15d660f
commit r10-8765-g55cd12c65ffa1e7c0bb36fd398f178d5d15d660f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96690
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96690
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bfe7bfbd068ee752f9d264473f974883ec6a21e6
commit r10-8764-gbfe7bfbd068ee752f9d264473f974883ec6a21e6
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97053
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with my r10-179-g3afd514bca6ea572e614b5289c4429ace693311b
I'll have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97056
Bug ID: 97056
Summary: [11 regression] aarch64/sve/cost_model_2.c fails on
aarch64_be since r11-3148
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97028
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f079e104a8d1994b6b47169a6b45737615eb2d7
commit r11-3201-g0f079e104a8d1994b6b47169a6b45737615eb2d7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96668
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Fixed for pointer/allocatable arrays.
Still to be done: scalar pointers/allocatable; here, one needs to be careful as
pointer/always pointer is already used for, e.g., struct mapping – and always
pointer cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96668
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:972da557463ec946a31577294764a186b9821012
commit r11-3200-g972da557463ec946a31577294764a186b9821012
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97053
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
The statement generated by DSE
MEM [(struct Data *)&data + 8B] = {};
looks nonsensical and I guess store-merging is not prepared for it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82100
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
clang 11.0.0-rc2 also can't find problems in the two above code fragments.
This code problem doesn't occur in gcc source code, but there are about
a dozen cases in the linux kernel.
75 matches
Mail list logo
