https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
It seems that g:24f99147b9264f8f7d9cfb2fa6bd431edfa252d2 hides the issue on
trunk, reverting it reproduces the issue. I'll have a look nevertheless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102419
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84949
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #9 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54192
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021, gabravier at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54192
>
> Gabriel Ravier changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:417ea5c02cef7f000e66d1af22b066c2c1cda047
commit r12-3722-g417ea5c02cef7f000e66d1af22b066c2c1cda047
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51488
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51488&action=edit
trimmed preprocessed source a lot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with|[12 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #3 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102252
--- Comment #6 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
I am happy to confirm this issue is fixed in the latest 12-20210919 snapshot
:-)
FWIW, I was not yet able to build GROMACS because of an other issue that was
introduced last week. I reported it at
ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421
--- Comment #2 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
Created attachment 51487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51487&action=edit
a trimmed reproducer (FWIW - include files are missing)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421
--- Comment #1 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
Created attachment 51486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51486&action=edit
a (compressed) pre-processed reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102421
Bug ID: 102421
Summary: ICE with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102280
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I.e. please don't mark it as resolved, I'll do that when it's resolved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102280
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've set the Target Milestone field to indicate is going to be fixed for 10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54192
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94673
--- Comment #3 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
I think this bug should be changed to a request to improve the diagnostics.
The diagnostic says:
```
:13:15: note: constraints not satisfied
:8:9: required by the constraints o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102415
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102414
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99811
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|11.1.0 |
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102420
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-20
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79516
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97991
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102420
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|null pointer dereference|null pointer dereference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102420
Bug ID: 102420
Summary: null pointer dereference constant
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96638
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Even GCC 6 ICEs.
I suspect GCC 5 did not ICE, see PR 96637 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58109
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59012
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96637
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Summary|ICE in tree check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 89138, which changed state.
Bug 89138 Summary: typeof VLA in lambdas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89138
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16994
Bug 16994 depends on bug 89138, which changed state.
Bug 89138 Summary: typeof VLA in lambdas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89138
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60855
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89138
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on incorrect code with |ICE on incorrect code with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82469
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I cannot even reproduce this on the FSF released GCC 6.3.0 code ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.5 |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102419
Bug ID: 102419
Summary: [concepts] [regression] return-type-requirement of
"Y" does not check that T::type
actually exists
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94673
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81157
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102280
--- Comment #4 from Joe Loser ---
Johnathan, your fix LGTM. Safe to mark this as resolved, or do you need to do
something to backport it for the 10.4 release branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77652
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102408
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102418
Bug ID: 102418
Summary: [concepts] prefer iterator to range concept failures
in ranges (QoI)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102416
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102413
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102417
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
And obviously, works with a single AC :
$ cat z0.f90
program p
character :: x = 'a'
character(4) :: y(3)
y = [character(4) :: x, 'b', 'c']
print *, y
end
$ gfortran-12-20210919 z0.f90 -std=f20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102417
Bug ID: 102417
Summary: Wrong error message about character length with
-std=f2018
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102315
--- Comment #3 from G. Steinmetz ---
A reduced variant with the same ICE :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
character :: x = 'a'
character :: y(5)
y = [[trim(x), 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e']]
print *, y
end
But z1 gives additional hints when reduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102415
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102416
Bug ID: 102416
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gimplify_expr, at
gimplify.c:15570
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102415
Bug ID: 102415
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in bb_seq_addr, at gimple.h:1786
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102413
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102414
Bug ID: 102414
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in unify_array_domain, at
cp/pt.c:23442
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102413
Bug ID: 102413
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in cp_lexer_consume_token, at
cp/parser.c:1172
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102412
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102411
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The AAPCS tests are executable tests, so rely on a number of features of the
support libraries (ie libraries compatible with the options used for the
compilation). I don't think they should be adding any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102388
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101940
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579858.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102412
Bug ID: 102412
Summary: Template argument deduction fails when using concept
as defaulted non-type template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102411
Bug ID: 102411
Summary: arm/vfp18.c fails with -march=armv7e-m+fp for
cortex-m4
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102329
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
In general a program can add an attribute to a system function by redeclaring
it with it. This of course needs to be done conditionally on the GCC version
that supports the attribute. This in turn can be te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102410
Bug ID: 102410
Summary: parameter pack expansion twice when there is default
parameter during template specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102404
--- Comment #4 from Freddie Witherden ---
Created attachment 51485
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51485&action=edit
Clang assembly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102404
--- Comment #3 from Freddie Witherden ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> 32 bytes are 256 bits (ymm), 64 bytes are 512 bits (zmm). GCC does not
> consider zmm vectorization because
>
> t.c:25:37: missed: loop does not have eno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102409
Bug ID: 102409
Summary: _pragma ("omp ...") expansion issue - placed in the
wrong scope
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102408
Bug ID: 102408
Summary: [OpenACC] omp-oacc-neuter-broadcast.cc: random() not
available on all platforms
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82494
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> r9-3927 changed the type from int to HOST_WIDE_INT which is always at least
> 64bit ...
>
> I also wonder if we could use wi::widest_int here.
That's prohibiti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102282
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux-gnu,|
|powerpc64le-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82494
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
r9-3927 changed the type from int to HOST_WIDE_INT which is always at least
64bit ...
I also wonder if we could use wi::widest_int here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84345
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this was not fixed by r8-6634.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81724
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think it comes from round_push.
char three[8192] __attribute__ ((aligned (4096))); \
char four[8192] __attribute__ ((aligned (4096)));\
config/nvptx/nvpt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63289
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this was a stack limit issue. It seemed to be fixed in GCC 6+. The
compile time is also cut in half too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102401
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||78620
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102401
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102404
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64 |x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60914
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.10.0 |
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102407
Bug ID: 102407
Summary: Ambiguity is not reported in case of separate
inheritance of `<` and `<=>` operators
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102400
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102393
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
SLSR might come to the rescue eventually but same as the other PR,
store-merging doesn't perform any advanced DR analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102392
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Note w/o explicit ZEXT_EXPR / SEXT_EXPR the GIMPLE for non-"natural" extensions
is more costly (more stmts) than the "natural" extension based on the sign
of the object because it requires an intermediate s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102391
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
the bswap pass is in principle able to handle these but it sees
_1 = (sizetype) offset_12(D);
_2 = RomHeader_13(D) + _1;
_3 = *_2;
_4 = (signed short) _3;
_5 = _1 + 1;
_6 = RomHeader_13(D) + _5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102387
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Likely a duplicate of PR102385?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100533
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(code_label # 0 0 3 (nil) [1 uses])
(note # 0 0 [bb 5] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
+(note # 0 0 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
(insn # 0 0 (set (mem:HI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 2 x2 [102])
(const_int 30 [0x1e])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101941
--- Comment #9 from DAC324 ---
Bug not assigned - looks like it is considered not important to be able to
compile the Linux kernel.
Am I correct in the assumption that everybody who wants to build their own
kernels, should keep using GCC 11, un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94340
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
apinski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc$ diff -up nodiscard3.C.gkd nodiscard3.gk.C.gkd
--- nodiscard3.C.gkd2021-09-20 07:45:03.448528331 +
+++ nodiscard3.gk.C.gkd 2021-09-20 07:45:04.373528230 +
@@ -2190
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19753
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100533
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100520
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64, x86_64 |
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100520
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
- __gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v4 (1387117561, f);
+ __gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v4 (983609665, f);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100520
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.0
Ever confirmed|0
98 matches
Mail list logo
