https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98495
Bug ID: 98495
Summary: X86 _mm_extract_pi16 incorrectly sign extends result
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98494
Bug ID: 98494
Summary: libphobos: std.process Config.stderrPassThrough
missing
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98474
--- Comment #7 from Jeff Hurchalla ---
Thanks for the info. After reading your comment and after reading the
description of wide_int at the top of wide-int.h, the newly patched function
wi::to_mpz() makes sense to me and it looks correct.
I'm c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98493
Bug ID: 98493
Summary: [11 regression] bootstrap build fails in go part of
build after r11-6371
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
en GCC was configured/built: ../gcc-trunk-20201231/configure
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging --build=x86_64-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu --disable-bootstrap
--enable-multiarch --with-abi=m64 --with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32
--enable-multilib --enable-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98438
--- Comment #4 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Created attachment 49865
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49865&action=edit
Pre-processed source of a file reproducing the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98491
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Patch proposed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/562629.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98492
Bug ID: 98492
Summary: C++ pp_gimple_stmt_1 doesn't output function call
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ab7a91f36c898b9da665e5e36318a1d9ff12946
commit r11-6382-g3ab7a91f36c898b9da665e5e36318a1d9ff12946
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98489
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ab7a91f36c898b9da665e5e36318a1d9ff12946
commit r11-6382-g3ab7a91f36c898b9da665e5e36318a1d9ff12946
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98491
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
It can be reproduced with a cross build on x86_64-linux, with asan:
$ ../gcc/configure --target=mips64el-unknown-linux-gnuabi64 --with-abi=64
--enable-languages=c,c++ --with-system-zlib
(build log skipped)
$ AS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98491
Bug ID: 98491
Summary: [MIPS] ICE: in mode_size_inline, with -mmsa
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Paul,
>
> are you still working on this?
Paul,
this is still one of yours...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96381
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch fixes the invalid read:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/class.c b/gcc/fortran/class.c
index 5677d920239..783e4c7354b 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/class.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/class.c
@@ -290
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96418
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andre Vehreschild from comment #5)
> Patch submitted as:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-August/054943.html
> Waiting for review.
Hi Andre,
any progress here?
To me, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
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=98438
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Could you simply post the complete C++ source code that you used
in the original example? This has the advantages of a) making it easier
to modify (for a non-C++-person such as me) and b) of conforming
to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98441
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97745
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
--- Comment #2 from Fran Martinez Fadrique ---
I am not sure to understand the question
The gfortran version is
gcc version 9.3.0 (Ubuntu 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04)
It also appear with
gcc version 11.0.0 20201220 (experimental) (GCC)
also in U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
Bug ID: 98490
Summary: Unexpected out of bounds in array constructor with
implied do loop
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98438
--- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Directly based off the emitted GIMPLE, here's a self-contained example that
emits the same assembly I was observing before :
using _Tp = int;
using _Up = unsigned;
_Tp f(_Tp __a, _Tp __b)
{
_Up __sign_bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88624
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98438
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98489
Bug ID: 98489
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr56719.c in r11-6374
has two failures
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] Wrong code |[?? Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94994
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] possible |[10 Regression] possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58a12b0eadac62e691fcf7325ab2bc2c93d46b61
commit r11-6381-g58a12b0eadac62e691fcf7325ab2bc2c93d46b61
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94994
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fa5b473b5b8e289b6542adfd5cfaddfb3036048
commit r11-6380-g9fa5b473b5b8e289b6542adfd5cfaddfb3036048
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] SVE: |[10 Regression] SVE: Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0411210fddbd3ec27c8dc1183f40f662712a2232
commit r11-6379-g0411210fddbd3ec27c8dc1183f40f662712a2232
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53929
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||teo.samarzija at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95652
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95652
Bug 95652 depends on bug 87986, which changed state.
Bug 87986 Summary: Assembler errors w/ -masm=intel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87986
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53929
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 87986 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87986
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98488
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53929
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||umrihinva123 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53929
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-31
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98488
Bug ID: 98488
Summary: name conflict using -masm=intel
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98473
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Complete example:
#include
struct X {
X();
X(const X&);
X& operator=(const X&) = delete; // !!
X(X&&) noexcept;
X& operator=(X&&) noexcept;
int data = 54;
};
void add_to_front(st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98485
--- Comment #3 from Braden Obrzut ---
Created attachment 49864
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49864&action=edit
More well defined variant
Added a variant of the code which has all specializations visible at all uses.
Only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94802
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not fixed completely yet, (a - b) < 0 is not optimized into a < b yet.
The following patch does that, but it regresses
--- gcc/match.pd.jj 2020-12-30 17:04:27.340815135 +0100
+++ gcc/match.pd2020
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98485
--- Comment #2 from Braden Obrzut ---
I'm actually not certain if I'm playing fast and loose with ODR. While I can
definitely agree that this construct is fragile, if a specialization has the
same sequence of tokens as the base template is it ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 94785, which changed state.
Bug 94785 Summary: Failure to detect abs pattern using multiplication
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94785
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98474
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
|i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94802
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d2eb616a0f7bea78164912aa438c29fe1ef5774a
commit r11-6378-gd2eb616a0f7bea78164912aa438c29fe1ef5774a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94785
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f12ce2ea3be12de4f83d3c419bdb1dc5036b202
commit r11-6377-g8f12ce2ea3be12de4f83d3c419bdb1dc5036b202
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98474
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e603837f7ad886df62e02ac0cd395ec17b7d587
commit r11-6376-g9e603837f7ad886df62e02ac0cd395ec17b7d587
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98206
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9ec9902d7f1a9bf7a2778c3fb8fc75bc2df2cef
commit r11-6375-ga9ec9902d7f1a9bf7a2778c3fb8fc75bc2df2cef
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98487
--- Comment #1 from Pekka S ---
Created attachment 49863
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49863&action=edit
Possible patch
Uses get_attribute_name instead of TREE_PURPOSE.
o be affected.
Attached test case. Using GCC 11.0.0 20201231, aarch64-*-* on
x86_64-w64-mingw32 but I presume this is not host or target related.
Given e.g. PR90953 and PR94733 I presume the problematic line is at:
gcc/c-family/c-format.c:1216:
1216 if (is_attribute_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d96b8556e569a1ccce36ef990e167031d07a661a
commit r11-6374-gd96b8556e569a1ccce36ef990e167031d07a661a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98485
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought the C++ rule was all specializations has to be seen when you use one
or the other. Otherwise this becomes an ODR issue and therefor invalid code
(not have to be diagnostic at compile time).
57 matches
Mail list logo
