https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109076
Bug ID: 109076
Summary: class extending abstract type with deferred
procedures, with another unrelated procedure
interface, crashes on valid code
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108809
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 54619
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54619&action=edit
Compressed input file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 54618
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54618&action=edit
Header file needed for compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109075
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 54617
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54617&action=edit
rnflow.f90
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
rnflow from the pb11 Polyhedron benchmark hangs at -O3 with recent trunk,
gcc-Version 13.0.1 20230308 (experimental) [master revision
e87559d202d:f4e6da6e8ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109074
Bug ID: 109074
Summary: SIGABRT signal without using -lpthread at Linux RHEL
7.3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108707
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
3 patches pending for GCC14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108707
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 54616
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54616&action=edit
0003.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108707
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 54615
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54615&action=edit
0002.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108707
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 54614
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54614&action=edit
0001.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108804
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 54613
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54613&action=edit
Patch pending for GCC14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108938
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 54612
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54612&action=edit
Patch pending for GCC14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94908
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> Created attachment 54607 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> Patch in testing.
>
> Attached patch produces (-O2 -msse4.1):
>
> f:
> subq$24, %rsp
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108938
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao.liu ---
Got 1 performance opportunity in GCC itself with bswap + bit_and + rotate, the
Intermediate value are all single-use which can be DCEd.
Got 4 performance opportunity in SPEC2017.
bswap + bit_and + rotate + s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109062
Hongyu Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109062
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hongyu Wang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:288bc7b5d17511d1791899e4b2e3bf3489eb06dd
commit r13-6548-g288bc7b5d17511d1791899e4b2e3bf3489eb06dd
Author: Hongyu Wang
Date: Wed M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107280
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107280
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
We crash in cxx_eval_store_expression. *valp for 'str', the VAR_DECL, used to
be {.str=""} so in the !refs->is_empty () loop we'd go to the if (TREE_CODE
(*valp) == STRING_CST) branch when processing the .s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109073
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chip.kerchner at ibm dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109073
Bug ID: 109073
Summary: __builtin_vsx_lxvp() doesn't allow a const
__vector_pair * operand in GCC 11 & 10
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109072
Bug ID: 109072
Summary: [12/13 Regression] SLP costs for vec duplicate too
high since g:4963079769c99c4073adfd799885410ad484cbbe
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108927
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
This issue should be fixed since patch is merged.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109058
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
> Seen on a diagnostic in haproxy's cfgparse-global.c: cfg_parse_global
For reference, see cfg_parse_global in:
http://git.haproxy.org/?p=haproxy.git;a=blob;f=sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107280
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: tree check: expected |[10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104332
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=109069
--- Comment #1 from John Platts ---
The C++ test program below does generate the correct results when compiled with
the -mcpu=power10 -O0 options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Jump threading is happening which is causing some code to be duplicated. I am
100% sure there is a dup of this bug already filed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 68092, which changed state.
Bug 68092 Summary: [C++1z] error: Two symbols with same comdat_group are not
linked by the same_comdat_group list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68092
What|Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68608
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrisb2244 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68092
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68608
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ed at catmur dot uk
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109070
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 104615, which changed state.
Bug 104615 Summary: [Concepts] ICE in explicit instantiation when multiple
candidates are valid (CWG2421)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104615
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68608
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roi.jacobson1 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
Bug ID: 109071
Summary: -Warray-bounds warning when array index checked via
inline
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109069
Bug ID: 109069
Summary: Vector truncation test program produces incorrect
result on big-endian powerpc64-linux-gnu with
-mcpu=power10 -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109070
Bug ID: 109070
Summary: ICE in class template member function overloads
distinguished by non-functionally-equivalent
constraints and return type
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79682
Ed Catmur changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ed at catmur dot uk
--- Comment #2 from Ed C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #33 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #32)
> > > > struct foo {
> > > > int len;
> > > > char (*buf)[.len];
> > > > };
> Here the last element is not a flexible array member but
> a point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108957
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #32 from Martin Uecker ---
Am Mittwoch, dem 08.03.2023 um 19:20 + schrieb qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
>
> --- Comment #30 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've also repeated the testing with the above generator generated testcase with
" - " replaced with " / " and " + " with " * ", with #c32 + #c33 patches this
resulted
in
1 15 50
1 17 50
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108925
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6)
> Created attachment 54598 [details]
> Tentative patch
> This seems to work on the reduced testcases, can't fully test right now.
I tried it and killed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #31 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #29)
> > however, I think that both the new attribute and the new C syntax extension
> > should support the similar user interface. We might need to decid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109067
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Do you have a testcase please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109068
Bug ID: 109068
Summary: bpf: "error: too many function arguments for eBPF" for
always_inline function
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #30 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #28)
> The problems with VLA are in my opinion caused by poor
> implementation (e.g. no stack probing etc) and bad
> code generation (Linus was not happy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109067
Bug ID: 109067
Summary: Powerpc GCC does not support __ibm128 complex
multiply/divide if long double is IEEE 128-bit.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've additionally ran
#include
#include "pr109008-4.c"
struct S { float (*fn) (float); float lb, ub; };
struct S arr[] = {
#include "pr109008-4.h"
};
int
main ()
{
float plus_inf = __builtin_inf ();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #29 from Martin Uecker ---
Am Mittwoch, dem 08.03.2023 um 17:13 + schrieb qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
>
> --- Comment #24 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109066
Bug ID: 109066
Summary: Segfault when using defined assignment
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #28 from Martin Uecker ---
Am Mittwoch, dem 08.03.2023 um 16:56 + schrieb qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
>
> --- Comment #23 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #27 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #22)
> This really should have been the way __access__ was implemented, but we tied
> that attribute to only functions. Would it be a terrible idea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109065
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>* Don't use the second alias level for d, i.e. https://godbolt.org/z/KaWq9Pfq8
Using a typedef instead of alias still fails.
That is:
```
template using DataAlias = int;
template struct MyUniquePtr {};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #26 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #20)
>
> I agree. An attribute is simple and extending C will take
> more care (and work).
>
> The reason I think we should also extend C (together with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109065
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #25 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #17)
> The syntax with the dot would make it not conflict. But I need
> this for this use case
>
> struct foo {
> int count;
> int (*buf)[.count];
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #24 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #15)
>
> Yes, but that syntax would be intuitive which I would see
> as an advantage.
Yes, I agree.
>
> But I am not saying we shouldn't have the attri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #18 from David Binderman ---
Part way through reduction, the C code seems to be
int crc32_tab_0;
int crc32_context = 0xUL;
void main(int , char []) {
{
int crc;
int i;
i = 0;
for (; i < 256; i++)
crc3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #23 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #13)
>
> VLAs and VM types exist since C99 and were made optional in C11.
> The minimal change we adopted to make support for VM types
> (but not VLAs)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #17 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #16)
> bash -x qwe.sh bug892.c
That's a really useful tip. Thanks. I've debugged the script some more
and now have:
rm -f 1 2 one.exe two.exe
/usr/bin/gcc -w -Werr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, checked the #c30 patch with printouts from #c33 added by hand before return
true;
at the end of each of +/- op?_range, that passed 30 tests too.
Out of the 297936 lines in the pr109008.h headers (re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109064
--- Comment #1 from ks1322 at gmail dot com ---
Looks like infinite recursion is here, SharedPtrUseCountWorker.__init__ calls
itself
```
class SharedPtrUseCountWorker(gdb.xmethod.XMethodWorker):
"Implements std::shared_ptr::use_count()"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109024
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #7 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
If I change gcc-11 into gcc-12 in the attached script, I get the different
warning.
My version of gcc-12 is:
ishikawa@ip030:/NREF-COMM-CENTRAL/mozilla$ gcc-12 --version
gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
gcc -g -o pr109008-main{,.c}; ./pr109008-main
should have been
gcc -g -o pr109008-main{,.c} -lm; ./pr109008-main
sorry.
Anyway, 30 functions now finished, 25471 errors for #c33 patch, 0 errors
for #c32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #6 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 54610
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54610&action=edit
The script to produce the warning in the original report with gcc-11.
The source file needs to be in /tmp/sq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109032
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testing I've performed so far (though on 1 iterations rather than 30,
that is ongoing), once with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008#c33 patch alone, once with
that patch and ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54609
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54609&action=edit
gcc13-pr109008-debug.patch
And debugging code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54608
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54608&action=edit
gcc13-pr109008.patch
So far almost untested patch which does the lhs widening.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #15)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> > > cvise is written in perl, isn't it ? You've got my cvise script.
> >
> > No, it's written in Python.
>
> O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #15 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> > cvise is written in perl, isn't it ? You've got my cvise script.
>
> No, it's written in Python.
Of course. How stupid of me.
> So show me how you run cv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #13)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> > > perl program converted to 0 is proving to be a challenge.
> >
> > perl? Please provide a complete script re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108976
--- Comment #6 from Dimitrij Mijoski ---
I sent a single patch to the mailing list with a good detailed commit message.
I think that is better than multiple patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> > perl program converted to 0 is proving to be a challenge.
>
> perl? Please provide a complete script reproducer.
cvise is written in perl, isn't it ? You'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
> perl program converted to 0 is proving to be a challenge.
perl? Please provide a complete script reproducer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> What about:
>
> /usr/bin/gcc -w -Werror=implicit bug892.c -o one.exe
> && (./one.exe 1 | fgrep "checksum after hashing g_50 :" > 1)
> && /home/d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > > but then if diff returns 1, the script should return 0 and
> > > if diff returns 0, then the script should ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > but then if diff returns 1, the script should return 0 and
> > if diff returns 0, then the script should return 1.
>
> You can take an inspiration here:
> ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94908
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 54607
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54607&action=edit
Proposed patch
Patch in testing.
Attached patch produces (-O2 -msse4.1):
f:
subq$24, %rsp
x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109065
Bug ID: 109065
Summary: [11/12/13 Regression] Type alias combination
erroneously fails with "incomplete type"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> > Created attachment 54596 [details]
> > C source code
> >
> > After 3 hours further reduction.
>
> I am strug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109064
Bug ID: 109064
Summary: Maximum recursion depth exceeded in std::shared_ptr
xmethod
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54606
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54606&action=edit
gcc13-pr109008-wip-debug.patch
And the incremental debugging patch for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54602|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109031
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> Created attachment 54596 [details]
> C source code
>
> After 3 hours further reduction.
I am struggling with further reduction. My bash knowledge is short.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm the reduced test-case is fixed, however the original file is
still not. I've created: https://bugs.libcamera.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108546
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa1e458d05a94d064e8daef88c2be300317d7e8b
commit r12-9235-gfa1e458d05a94d064e8daef88c2be300317d7e8b
Author: Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #29 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 54604
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54604&action=edit
untested patch for NAN state copying
This is what I had in mind.
Notice I haven't touched the fields in fra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
I can't reproduce the warning with the provided test-case :/ What options do
you use?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On IRC we've discussed this and I believe a possible fix could be before we do:
return float_binary_op_range_finish (minus.fold_range (r, type, lhs, op2),
r, typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #27 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
> So without messing with real.cc to try exposing 0.5ulp adjustments for GCC
> 13 I'd simply do something like the following:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/range-op-fl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108969
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> then shouldn't the
> solution be that programs using streams and compiled with GCC 13 require
> a symbol with a version newer than 6.0.30 (or even not present
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108969
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder why this bug is relevant at all, but even if, then shouldn't the
solution be that programs using streams and compiled with GCC 13 require
a symbol with a version newer than 6.0.30 (or even not pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109063
Bug ID: 109063
Summary: GCC Static Analyzer evaluates `e == &d + 1` to be
UNKNOWN with the fact that `e == &d`
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
