https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64215
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #13 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #12)
> But for this example in C the globals will not get instrumented, unless
> -fno-common is given.
BTW I think everyone already pairs this with -fsanitize=addr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
Bug ID: 64218
Summary: ICE during compilation with -fno-rtti -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I meant PR61558.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64216
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64219
Bug ID: 64219
Summary: Rename libgcj-5.0.pc to libgcj-5.pc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64216
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yyc1992 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
>
> ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
--- Comment #21 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34215
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34215&action=edit
Link errors output for aarch64
> Which one exactly? That is, what is the failing link output?
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
Bug ID: 64220
Summary: gcc preprocessor defines outside of the reserved
namespace: unix linux AVR
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64197
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
It appears that devirt changes
_4 = &this_1(D)->D.2680;
OBJ_TYPE_REF(_3;(struct top)_4->0) (_4);
into
_4 = &this_1(D)->D.2680;
__builtin_unreachable (_4);
but __builtin_unreachable shouldn't have any argumen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
And if it is:
diff --git a/gcc/sanopt.c b/gcc/sanopt.c
index ce9fbcf..77b88f7 100644
--- a/gcc/sanopt.c
+++ b/gcc/sanopt.c
@@ -646,20 +646,21 @@ pass_sanopt::execute (function *fun)
break;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it is a gimple-fold/ipa-devirt etc. bug.
__builtin_unreachable doesn't have any arguments, so pretending it has is
broken and also a missed optimization, in the IL we think those arguments are
used wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64221
Bug ID: 64221
Summary: contrib/compare_tests confused by
c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64222
Bug ID: 64222
Summary: [5 Regression] error: ‘__FUNCTION__’ was not declared
in this scope
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
Bug ID: 64223
Summary: same warning repeated twice with same line number
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64094
--- Comment #5 from Jon Grant ---
Hi Manu
I like your open_strerror() propopsal. Is this how Bintuils has done it?
Note: I realise this problem stems from ENOENT being used by both opendir() and
open(). I think you only need to provide two wra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64094
--- Comment #6 from Jon Grant ---
Two more tests where I try to pass directories to GCC.
(1)
$ mkdir testdir
$ gcc -Wall -Werror -o main testdir
testdir: file not recognized: Is a directory
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
(2)
$ mkd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64094
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
In order to be precise trying to open doesnotexist/foo.c should report "no such
directory".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56203
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele ethz.ch> ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
>> This has become more pronounced with increased gfortran testing
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64222
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64219
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64215
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62007
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the message is correct, or at least the case is highly unclear, the
OpenMP 4.0 standard has various unclear corner cases.
The thing is, the loop iterator is predetermined linear, and the linear clause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64208
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|gcc.dg/c11-atomi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64193
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64208
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It also seems that DCE cannot remove the empty loop with the clobber, because
it's marked useful and thus its SSA requirements are marked useful (we
explicitely exclude the VDEF but _not_ the SSA uses on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I thought we've added handling of gimple_clobber_p in 4.9 -
> vect_determine_vectorization_factor / vect_analyze_loop_operations /
> vect_transform_loop should i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, I'm afraid it is a bad idea, you'll get rid of too many clobbers and they
are really desirable, both for DSE, expansion etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> It also seems that DCE cannot remove the empty loop with the clobber, because
> it's marked useful and thus its SSA requirements are marked useful (we
> explici
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The tree-vect-stmts.c change is fine of course. As for loops not being DCEd if
they have only clobbers in them that preclude that, isn't that optimized away
by RTL optimizers anyway? Or perhaps we could do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> The tree-vect-stmts.c change is fine of cours
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > It also seems that DCE cannot remove the empty loop with the clobber,
> > because
> > it's marked useful and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64224
Bug ID: 64224
Summary: [ARM] -mapcs -marm uses deprecated forms (as of
ARMv7-A) of LDM in epilogues
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64224
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
Bug ID: 64225
Summary: -funsafe-math-optimizations generates call to pow
where multiply instruction would do
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #1 from Bernard Ogden ---
Created attachment 34218
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34218&action=edit
-v output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Add -fno-math-errno removes the call to pow. We've seen similar issues before
with other math builtins. The problem is that the midend/frontend generates the
pow call without remembering that by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #5 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've seen similar behavior on an HPC benchmark I was looking at.
The problem here is the interaction between fold-const.c, other passes, and
-fmath-errno.
Take this testcase:
void
foo (doub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
fold-const.c has a comment in the relevant case that says:
/* Canonicalize x*x as pow(x,2.0), which is expanded as x*x. */
So we should look at why is it not being expanded as such unless
-fno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #47 from Damien Buhl (daminetreg)
---
So our GCC with the problem has been configured and built by yocto-poky the
following way :
```
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=arm-poky-linux-gnueabi-gcc-4.8.1
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
> fold-const.c has a comment in the relevant case that says:
> /* Canonicalize x*x as pow(x,2.0), which is expanded as x*x. */
I think this comment is mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
Bug ID: 64226
Summary: Secondary reload incorrect TOC address
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 34219
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34219&action=edit
Work-in-progress patch to fix this
The attached patch implements the ideas we talked about (needs some comments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
Uli mentioned in private email:
"I think the piece of code quoted above from rs6000_secondary_reload_inner
is wrong; it should not call create_TOC_reference unconditionally.
"Other places that use TOC-rela
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59491
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Looks useful.
Lots of time has elapsed, but I checked a recent Linux kernel and it would find
about three bugs.
I also checked about 9,500 packages of Fedora
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64227
Bug ID: 64227
Summary: Forwarding an argument of a function template to a
generic lambda causes a compiler crash
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, harald at gigawatt dot nl wrote:
> I do not know if the problem is in the headers (that they should not be
> specifying the format attribute), or in GCC (that it should b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maxim.yegorushkin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64085
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Expanding x * x (or any such multiplication) to a call to pow is
inherently dubious because the semantics of multiplication never include
clobbering errno, though maybe it's OK with -funsaf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63989
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34220
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34220&action=edit
gcc5-pr63989-wip1.patch
So, for start, this untested patch deals with #c1 f1 case. Still need to
extend handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64178
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64169
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64171
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62212
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64198
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Dec 8 18:05:30 2014
New Revision: 218485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218485&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64198
compiler: Don't crash on invalid ++.
Modified:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64095
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64073
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63996
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61971
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Dec 8 18:30:15 2014
New Revision: 218487
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218487&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-08 Bernd Edlinger
PR ipa/64049
* ipa-poly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
--- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk ---
Ah, GCC does not treat format(printf) and format(__printf__) as equivalent, and
the built-in declaration uses format(printf). With custom functions, two
warnings can also be generated:
int myprintf (const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61022
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64228
Bug ID: 64228
Summary: compile error not accurate expected ; before string
constant
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
