https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117517
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.3
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117861
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122085
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122063
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
|NEW
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2025-09-25
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Very nice pathological case, which seems to manipulate only 32-bit and 64-bit
types on the surface but
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2025-09-25
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Yes, it looks like the implicit assumption made in the code is obsolete.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122019
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 122019, which changed state.
Bug 122019 Summary: ICE with modules and extern lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122019
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122041
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
OK, thanks. So obviously the call to memcpy does not look good here.
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Note that -O4 does not exist as an optimization level (-O3 is the maximum) and
that -finline-functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's a plain stack overflow (STORAGE_ERROR) because prot_type is mutable and
therefore allocated with the maximum size on the stack. Remove the de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.3
Summary|Inconsistent bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121968
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
This is sufficient to fix the assertion failure:
--- a/gcc/ada/sem_dim.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/sem_dim.adb
@@ -1273,7 +1273,9 @@ package body Sem_Dim is
-- Get the expression from the component
-
|--- |DUPLICATE
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 121968 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-09-17
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121968
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
*** Bug 121967 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121953
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2025-09-15
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[16 regression] Failed Ada |[16 regression] GNAT build
|bootstrap for x32 multilib |failure for x32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121885
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|
|declaration)|
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2025-09-10
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Too many Pragmas in there...
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Fixing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121544
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121532
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121191
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121530
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120691
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
Release branches are open for *regression* fixes only by default.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120691
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
../../../../src/libgcc/config/libbid/bid_internal.h:1759:31: note: expected
'UINT64 *' {aka 'long unsigned int *'} but argument is of type 'UINT64 *' {aka
'long long unsigned int *'}*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120691
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121157
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ---
> -fgnat-encodings=all removes the DW_AT_upper_bound from the
> DW_TAG_subrange_type DIE in the array, so it's still not representable as a
> CodeView LF_ARRAY, which needs this to be an integer constant.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121157
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
> As Eric said, the problem is essentially that CodeView isn't designed to
> accommodate Ada's type system.
Yes, but STABS was in the same case so special encodings were devised to work
around its limitati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121532
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Tentative fix:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats-4/tests/cxa/cxai033.a
b/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats-4/tests/cxa/cxai033.a
index 90bd3f60279..921655bcc62 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats-4/tests/cxa/cxai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121532
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Right, delay statements are a pain to parameterize in the testsuite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #43 from Eric Botcazou ---
OK, so can you try to add back only --enable-host-pie then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121527
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I'm not exactly sure how so. For constant sizes you could use a
> BIT_FIELD_REF, but for variable sizes there's no good alternative
> (a V_C_E to a fake union plus component-ref maybe?). That said,
> th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121527
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Yeah, I'm looking at what "breaks Ada" means, so I'm testing the attached,
> a more consistent dropping of this stripping.
Alternatively, the problematic VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is generated for upcasting and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121527
--- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The following fixes the bug as well:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.cc b/gcc/tree-sra.cc
> index 032f2770484..9bf0672cf41 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-sra.cc
> +++ b/gcc/tree-sra.cc
> @@ -4086,12 +4089,6 @@ ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121527
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
But I agree that the origin seems to be in the SRA pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121527
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
Sorry, I should have mentioned that the problem comes from p.adb in isolation,
and more precisely from the store to the_command component, which is not
redundant and not dead according to Valgrind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #41 from Eric Botcazou ---
> with absolutle useless stacktrace:
>
> Core was generated by `ld.bfd'.
> Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> #0 0x0099a352bb48 in bfd_putb64 ()
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x0099a
|NEW
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2025-08-17
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
There is an explicit loophole in the Check_Size function:
-- For fixed-point types, don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #39 from Eric Botcazou ---
> --enable-host-shared is required, at least at OpenBSD
> since
> https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/gcc/commit/
> ?id=b6cb10af12cf869c1ae348c0e5cb2d364ef0abce not only on sparc64, I can
> reproduce it on amd64 as w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #31 from Eric Botcazou ---
> 1. A build log (output from stdout):
> https://kirill.korins.ky/pub/gcc-15.2.0-sparc64-build.log.txt (~1Mb)
> 2. An output of "grep -rn PIE gcc-15.2.0/build-sparc64 | grep -v '^Binary
> file gcc-15.2.0'":
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #29 from Eric Botcazou ---
There should be no @plt or @got.plt if PIE is not enabled, so where they come
from is a total mystery.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #27 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric,
>
> I had started drop OpenBSD patches to dismiss an assumption that one of them
> introduced the issue. Well, I just reproduced it with gcc-15.2.0 without any
> patches.
>
> I have run: make stag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, I have removed this line from patches and rebuild the same commit.
>
> It fails as well.
Thanks. Something else looks suspicious in config/sparc/openbsd64.h:
@@ -42,10 +39,17 @@ along with GCC;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121544
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Yes, OpenBSD has some patches. This build had applied the folowing patches:
>
> https://kirill.korins.ky/pub/gcc-sparc64-a8b98e2-patch.diff.txt
Can you remove this line in there?
sparc64-*-openbsd*)
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ---
> (gdb) p/x $g1
> $4 = 0xfb8ee10cffec
> (gdb) x/x $g1
> 0xfb8ee10cffec: Cannot access memory at address 0xfb8ee10cffec
> (gdb)
So it's garbage, i.e. the @got.plt symbol apparently contains
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, it feels that I don't understand that this code is doing.
>
>0x00e6d45f7b0c <+12>:ldx [ %o7 + 0x2c ], %g1
> => 0x00e6d45f7b10 <+16>:jmpl %o7 + %g1, %g1
>
> At begining it loa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x00e6d45f7b10 in
> _Z20notice_global_symbolP9tree_node+0xfd0084fc@plt ()
> Backtrace stopped: previous frame identical to this frame (corrupt stack?)
> (gdb) disassemble
> Dum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121527
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
The missing stores are visible in the .optimized file wrt a compiler without
the problematic change (r16-3156-g5294840e3c7bf9) spotted by Sam.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121527
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 62110
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62110&action=edit
Multi-file testcase
How to reproduce with an installed compiler:
gnatchop testcase.txt
gnatmake p -O
va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121530
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2025-08-13
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Yes, I'm going to have a quick look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120145
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121490
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
The logic to be adjusted/completed is at gcc/ada/Makefile.rtl:2469 and below on
the mainline, in particular wrt the names of the multilib directories.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121424
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121316
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> By crash I do mean the bug box. It's also notable that this only occurs when
> the 'Image is inside the loop.
Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't notice it. But it's not the first time
that this pheno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121316
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121387
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So, the question: to avoid unrelated issues do you think it is wise idea to
> "harves" patches from OpenBSD ports to upstream?
Generally speaking, yes, configuration bits for the Ada compiler are welcome
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121387
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou ---
Thanks for confirming.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121159
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou ---
> At least from a user's perspective, that error is not Ok. It does not say
> "-fdelayed-branch is needed," it says "target is not able..."
Admittedly.
> Also, it is important for debugging that code comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121159
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #58 from Eric Botcazou ---
The above commit (r16-2688) was unintentional and has been reverted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Looking at the dumps:
>
> --- a/a-except.adb.006t.original
> +++ b/a-except.adb.006t.original
> @@ -782,7 +782,7 @@ void
> ada.exceptions.exception_propagation.gnat_gcc_exception_cleanup (system__ex
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120440
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #56 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 61964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61964&action=edit
v19 more conservative proposal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #55 from Eric Botcazou ---
Following Olivier's message, we decided to go one step farther and to propose
further changes:
- The record types in System.C_Time are declared with both Convention C and
ranges for their components, whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121184
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121184
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-21
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Thanks for your attention to details. :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121157
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #15 from Eric B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121157
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Making -gcodeview works for Ada in the general case looks hopeless given the
sophistication of the DWARF required to describe Ada's dynamic types, so the
only way out is probably to force -fgnat-encodings=a
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-19
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|incorrectly specified array |incorrectly specified array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121157
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
*** Bug 121163 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121157
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
*** Bug 121162 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121162
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 121157 ***
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|GNAT internal error when|internal error on Ada's
|using -gcodeview|unconstrained array types
||with -gcodeview
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121148
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> If the CC'd target maintainers could confirm my understanding of their area
> above, I would be very grateful. I don't think I need any of you to change
> the code, just let me know if the assembly is fre
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-15
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Yes, the interface with back-ends would need to be reworked.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121058
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|16.0|---
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121058
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121058
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121058
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121056
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121056
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
You should be using 15.x at this point, 16.0 is too experimental.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dennis at przytarski dot com
CC: dkm at gcc dot gnu.org, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Status: RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121056
Bug ID: 121056
Summary: Assertion failure triggered by access-type dispatch in
Implementation Extension mode
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119430
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
FWIW the "force functions and their inner functions to remain in a single unit"
approach for LTO was already discussed a few times in the past because of very
similar issues pertaining to the static chain,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119430
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120905
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I'll try to recompile GCC 6.5 with GCC 5.5 again, but this time not with
> just '--with-gnu-as', buth with also '--with-as=/usr/local/bin/as'. Perhaps
> that will fix this.
Yes, that's the right thing to
1 - 100 of 2588 matches
Mail list logo
