: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
For this C code:
_Accum sa;
char c;
void div_csa() { c /= sa; }
on raspberry pi 5, does this:
$ for i in ~/gcc/results.202507*/bin/gcc; do echo $i; $i -c -w bug1109.c; done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88853
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
For this C++ code:
cvise $ more bug1108.cc
template
constexpr bool is_trivially_destructible_v = __is_trivially_destructible(_Tp);
template struct _Traits {
static constexpr bool _S_trivial_dtor =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120951
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #1 from D
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 61799
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61799&action=edit
C source code
The attached code does this with recent gcc:
foundBugs $ ~/gcc/
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
For this C++ code:
namespace PR45881 {
struct A {
void f();
};
int id(A*);
void A::f() {
auto z = [*this](auto z2, decltype(z2(this)) z3){};
z(id,3);
}
struct B {
void f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 61677
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61677&action=edit
Some file that the Fortran code needs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
trunk $ git log b25ec038dcaf7e48..a31e76a264355370 | grep -c "^commit"
36
trunk $
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 61676
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61676&action=edit
Fortran 90 source code
For the attached Fortran 90 code and it's associated mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #15 from David Binderman ---
Uros writes:
> if ((diff > 0) != ((cf < 0) != (ct < 0) ? cf < 0 : cf < ct))
Crikey. IMHO that would fail any code review I took part in.
I think a truth table or some explanatory comment would help.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120636
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 61625
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61625&action=edit
C source code
>From yesterday's compiler:
foundBugs $ ../results.20250610
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> Bootstrapping now. It will take 6-12 hours to complete.
Completed with success with flags "-g -O2 -march=znver3".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> David, can you please bootstrap with the attached patch?
Bootstrapping now. It will take 6-12 hours to complete.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> Unfortunately I
> have very limited knowledge on how to fix signed overflow, so I would really
> appreciate some help here.
Suggest use a type with more bits i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120604
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
This bug also occurs if the compile flags are changed to "-g -O2
-march=znver3".
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I just tried a bootstrap with flags "-g -O3 -march=znver3"
with ASAN and UBSAN switched on and got the following:
trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc:3612:12: run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> This boils down to
> struct S {
> unsigned int s;
> S () : s (0) {}
> constexpr S &operator= (const S &) = default;
> };
> i.e. when the default ctor is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> As jwakely explained before, you cannot use git blame and friends on a
> shallow clone.
Oh dear, this again.
It might be worth mentioning on page https://gcc.gnu
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I just tried to compile the cobol compiler with clang.
It said:
trunk/libgcobol/common-defs.h:515:3: error: defaulted definition of copy
assignment operator cannot be marked constexpr before C++23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pzheng at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #11)
> But I really wonder if it's possible to come up with an example where using
> ++it is actually faster, in some significant way, than using it++.
Putting sle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #9)
> This was an interesting exercise.
Good.
> cppcheck was a bit snide about using ++/-- prefix notation for iterators
> rather than the postfix notation, givin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #8)
> Jim has repaired some of them. I don't know which.
See comment 1.
> So, in order for cppcheck to be useful, especially in the face of its
> extensive config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #6)
> I don't know what I am doing differently, or why I am seeing errors that
> you're not.
Instead of trying to duplicate my results, you could try just fixing th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
cppcheck says a lot of things that are true but not useful.
I use the following grep command to find the more interesting material:
grep -E "performance:| error:| warning:| style:" filename
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
For this C code:
struct {
unsigned char a : 3;
unsigned char b : 4;
unsigned short c : 6
};
struct {
unsigned char a : 3;
unsigned char b : 4;
unsigned short c : 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #2)
> David, I am not familiar with cppcheck. I have installed it, but when I try
> to run it I don't see what you are describing here.
>
> Can you tell me how to
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
For this C++ code:
struct S {
int a = 1;
};
void non_pod_val_syntax_2() {
S arr[2];
auto [x, y](arr);
}
derived from clang C++ testsuite file
./Analysis/uninit-structured
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 61264
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61264&action=edit
C source code
For the attached C code, recent gcc trunk does this:
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119803
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Another test case, from csmith, is:
long func_46___trans_tmp_17;
char(safe_rshift_func_int8_t_s_s)(char);
void(safe_lshift_func_int32_t_s_s)(int);
void(safe_mod_func_int64_t_s_s)(long);
static void func_4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119803
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
testsuite $ /home/dcb40b/gcc/results.20250325.ubsan/bin/gcc -w -c
./gcc.dg/pr106465.c
testsuite $ /home/dcb40b/gcc/results.20250327.ubsan/bin/gcc -w -c
./gcc.dg/pr106465.c
./gcc.dg/pr106465
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
--- Comment #12 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #11)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> > Did this ever happen ?
> >
> > Similar test case gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx10_1-26.c
> > still seems
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I tried out the static analyser cppcheck on
the source code of /cobol/.
The most important things it said were:
1.
gcc/cobol/symbols.cc:246:64: performance: Function parameter 'args'
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I ran the static analyser cppcheck over the source code
of /libgcobol/.
It said many things and I think the most important are the following:
1.
libgcobol/gmath.cc:392:48: performance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98904
--- Comment #14 from David Binderman ---
I confirm that the problem seems to have gone away.
I used this configure script:
CC="gcc -g1 -O3 -march=znver3" CXX="g++ -g1 -O3 -march=znver3" \
../trunk/configure --prefix=$HOME/gcc/results.$DATE.valgr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115316
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
As of today, 20250310, still broken.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 60697
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60697&action=edit
F90 source code
>From the flang test suite at
https://github.com/llvm/ll
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 60696
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60696&action=edit
F90 source code
For the F90 source code file Semantics/blockconstruct02.f90
f
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 60674
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60674&action=edit
Fortran 90 source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118801
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Fixed.
Thanks for that. I notice that the commit doesn't seem
to add a test case to the test suite. Worth doing ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118756
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #6)
> The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d05b64bdd048ffb7f72d97553888934a9bcd13fa
>
> commit r15-7792-gd05b64bdd048ffb7f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> Another bootstrap with "-g -O3 -march=znver3" is now running.
That passed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> I will try to do the bootstrap over the weekend.
Bootstrap passed.
Another bootstrap with "-g -O3 -march=znver3" is now running.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Hopefully fixed (but haven't tried UBSAN bootstrap for this, please reopen
> if it is not fixed).
I don't seem able to reopen this bug.
If the bootstrap hasn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118847
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code seems to be:
struct zw_value {
~zw_value();
};
void __trans_tmp_1() {
for (; auto val = __trans_tmp_1;) {
switch (0)
case 0:;
zw_value cst;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118847
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> This is almost certainly a dupe of PR118822.
>
> Is there a `while ( x = y )` or similar on that line?
No. Just a "}" as the error message indicates.
Surroundin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118847
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 60475
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60475&action=edit
gzipped C++ source code
For the attached C++ code, recent gcc trunk does this:
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118819
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> With export
> UBSAN_OPTIONS="halt_on_error=1:abort_on_error=1:print_summary=1:
> print_stacktrace=1", you should be able to get a nice backtrace. You can
> drop th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116948
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
>From this morning's bootstrap with ASAN & UBSAN I get
/home/dcb40b/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb40b/gcc/working/./gcc/
-B/hom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118801
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note you might also want to use -fno-checking for the trunk.
Thanks for the tip. Still a 26 times expansion.
foundBugs $ time ../results/bin/gcc -c -w -g -O2
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 60427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60427&action=edit
C source code
The attached C cod
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 60414
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60414&action=edit
C source code
For recent gcc trunk:
foundBugs $ rm -f ./a.out &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116600
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
Bug seems to start sometime between 20241217 and 20241231:
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out ; ../results.20241217/bin/gcc -O3 -w bug1086.c &&
./a.out
checksum = E0BB38EE
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out ; ../results.20241231
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> I will look into a bisection.
The problem seems to exist sometime before 20241231 with g:0b06abe027a78681
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
The original code is from csmith, so:
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out && ../results/bin/gcc -w bug1086.c && ./a.out 1 > /tmp/0
foundBugs $ rm ./a.out && ../results/bin/gcc -w -O1 bug1086.c && ./a.out 1 >
/tmp/1
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118758
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I will look into a bisection.
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 60383
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60383&action=edit
C source code
For the attached C cod
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Clang says:
gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc:1156:1: warning: function
'contain_complex_addr_expr' is not needed and will not be emitted
[
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 60317
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60317&action=edit
C source code
>From the clang test suite, file Analysis/pointer-to-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
Also before 2024-04-01:
foundBugs $ ../results.d8cf8917ed3d7e07/bin/gcc -c -w -g -O3 bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/keep/in.39468.c:1246:5: intern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
Bug still exists some 8 weeks earlier at 2024-09-15:
foundBugs $ ../results.5f0a381801b754db/bin/gcc -c -g -O3 -w bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
Bug seems to exist at date 2024-11-10:
foundBugs $ ../results.32cf28ccc9e77ce0/bin/gcc -c -g -O3 -w bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/keep/in.39468.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
Bug seems to exist two weeks earlier (2024-12-08):
foundBugs $ ../results.be8d1a358e3abc50/bin/gcc -c -g -O3 -w bug1083.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
runData/keep/in.39468.c: In function ‘main’:
runData/keep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> The bug seems to exist since before g:0b06abe027a78681
Bug seems to exist a week earlier with g:0b63840e07132f72.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> > The bug seems to exist since before g:0b06abe027a78681
>
> Bug seems to exist a week earlier with g:0b6384
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code seems to be:
short g_72, g_173;
int g_100[];
int func_1___trans_tmp_9;
short(safe_sub_func_int16_t_s_s)(short si1, short si2) { return si1 - si2; }
void func_1() {
for (; g_173; g_173 = saf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118653
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 60276
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60276&action=edit
C source code
The attached C code do
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
>From the clang C++ testsuite, file SemaCXX/crash-GH121274.cpp
does this with g++:
test $ ~/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c SemaCXX/crash-GH121
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
clang says:
gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc:10642:11: warning: variable 'offvar' is used
uninitialized whenever 'if'
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Clang says:
gcc/omp-general.cc:4197:7: warning: variable 'am_expr' is used uninitialized
whenever 'if' condition i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118606
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> What is confusing about that?
It's a matter of style. Clang considers that some style boundary has been
stepped over in the original case.
> Is that any d
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
clang says:
gcc/omp-general.cc:3294:9: warning: overloaded operator >> has higher
precedence than comparison operator [-Woverloaded-shift-op-parentheses]
Source c
: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
clang says:
gcc/tree-assume.cc:108:67: warning: binding reference member 'm_parm_list' to
stack allocated parameter 'p' [-Wdangling-field]
Source c
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
clang says:
gcc/cp/parser.cc:51316:11: warning: logical not is only applied to the left
hand side of this comparison [-Wlogical-not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118558
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 60208
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60208&action=edit
C source code
Reduced C code.
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 60207
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60207&action=edit
C source code
The attached C source code, generated by csmith, do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117342
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #12)
> Please include the .s file referenced, config.log for the corresponding GCC,
> and `as --version`.
Problem seems to have gone away:
~ $ vi cq.cc
~ $ for i in /
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Static analyser cppcheck says:
gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc:24871:35: warning: Identical condition
'!TARGET_AVX512BW', second
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Newest range is g:32a3f46ca5437261 .. g:a54aa75ab30eb1a1,
which is 30 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> gcc trunk seems to break sometime between g:3e89a4d5138,
> dated 2024-11-18 and g:e1009b3de2d, dated 2024-12-02.
>
> This is 476 commits. I will run a bisec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
gcc trunk seems to break sometime between g:3e89a4d5138,
dated 2024-11-18 and g:e1009b3de2d, dated 2024-12-02.
This is 476 commits. I will run a bisection.
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
For this reduced C code:
cvise $ more bug1073.c
short g_113;
int func_1_l_1273, func_1_l_1370, func_1_l_1258;
void func_1() {
int
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Static analyser cppcheck says:
gcc/lto-ltrans-cache.cc:312:44: performance: Function parameter 'checksum'
should be passe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #22 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #21)
> Try -fno-ipa-cp
As expected, that avoids the problem too:
foundBugs $ ../results/bin/gcc -O1 -w bug1071.c && ./a.out 1 > /tmp/0
foundBugs $ ../results/bin/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #20 from David Binderman ---
>From the See also bug report, # 118138,
I tried out -fno-inline and, for the two test cases here,
the problem seemed to go away.
foundBugs $ ../results/bin/gcc -O1 -w bug1071.c && ./a.out 1 > /tmp/0
fou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #17 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> AFAIK -w suppresses -Werror=uninitialized.
-w also appears to switch off -Werror=overflow.
This makes csmith a lot less useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #15 from David Binderman ---
For the first test case, the reduced code seems to be:
void printf(...);
int crc32_tab[256];
int crc32_context = 4294967295, g_27, g_64, g_90 = 3, func_2___trans_tmp_4,
main_i, main_j, main_l_1486_0_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #11)
> I have a bisection running.
Current bisect range seems to be g:7f4f49687b1f1b7a .. g:40e5636e086e51f5
This is 22 commits. Most of it seems to be RISC-V r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 59917
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59917&action=edit
C source code
Second test case from more runs of csmith.
It has the same fault in the same git range.
I ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #9)
> Ah, sorry, I see it on the original with -O2. I don't see it on the reduced
> one (though it was invalid anyway). OK.
It looks as if my reduction was invalid. My
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118097
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> ... ditto the original. So maybe fixed already?
I think not. I just checked today's gcc trunk and the problem
seems to still exist in the original code.
The git
1 - 100 of 1491 matches
Mail list logo
