https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
PASS: gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c (test for excess errors)
gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c: pattern found 4 times
FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "strlen" 0
gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c: pattern found 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105143
Bug ID: 105143
Summary: ICE when trying to emit a [[nodiscard]] warning
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104303
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
So what modref see on calle is:
void concat5_pkg1.make_failed (struct s)
{
struct string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105142
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
long long int c = 3623214276426624192LL;
unsigned short b;
char a = 42;
const long long &min(const long long &x, const long long &y) { return x < y ? x
: y; }
__attribute__((noipa)) void test() { b = min(a,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104987
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104987
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0364465e3708249ece810ca5d65164552595538c
commit r12-7974-g0364465e3708249ece810ca5d65164552595538c
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sun Apr 3 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105142
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[12 Regression] Wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105142
Bug ID: 105142
Summary: [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To be precise, with pragma pack(1) c has alignof == 1, so it really depends on
what is before it in the section. In the #c0 case, the diagnostic said
0x004040ca which means that ((uintptr_t) &c.b % 4) =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105138
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 08:27:03PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #8)
> > This patch fixes the error. The commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Li Shaohua from comment #5)
> No, I meant
>
> #pragma pack(1)
> struct {
> char a[3];
> int b;
> } c;
In this case, the global variable just happens to be aligned to 4 bytes. That
is all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #5 from Li Shaohua ---
No, I meant
#pragma pack(1)
struct {
char a[3];
int b;
} c;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Without pragma pack that is correct, the compiler inserts padding so that c.b
is properly aligned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #3 from Li Shaohua ---
Thanks for your explanation.
struct {
char a[3];
int b;
} c;
When I did this, the warning did not show up. Should it still be misaligned?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That warning is completely correct and the testcase wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105138
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
Bug ID: 105141
Summary: #pragma pack(1) causes incorrect UBSAN warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ecc6450668326e52d019b3c298f2c61734ee32c2
commit r11-9755-gecc6450668326e52d019b3c298f2c61734ee32c2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105123
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1a74058b784c845e84a0cf1997b54b984df483d
commit r12-7973-ge1a74058b784c845e84a0cf1997b54b984df483d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104988
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104878
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105140
Bug ID: 105140
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
fold_convertible_p with conflicting function
redeclaration
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100929
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(blend is now lowered in gimple)
For the integer case, the mix of vector(int) and vector(char) obfuscates things
a bit, we have
__m256i if_else_int (__m256i x, __m256i y)
{
vector(32) char _4;
vector(32)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103328
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0847ad33b908af88bca1e6980d0b977316d05e18
commit r12-7971-g0847ad33b908af88bca1e6980d0b977316d05e18
Author: Benno Evers
Date: Sa
26 matches
Mail list logo
