https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68751
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Mailed a fix yesterday:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg00671.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I'm not comfortable with your relaxing the assert in cfgexpand.c:set_rtl.
> It means we could have a PARALLEL for a RESULT_DECL *and* other variables,
> because of coalescing. Although we can deal with P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68757
Bug ID: 68757
Summary: [6 Regression] Use of uninitialised value of size 8 in
get_combined_adhoc_loc (line-map.c:214)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68697
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|[6 regression, C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68698
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68701
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55035
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44756
Bug 44756 depends on bug 55035, which changed state.
Bug 55035 Summary: reload1.c:3766:41: error: ‘orig_dup[0]’ may be used
uninitialized in this function (for fr30, microblaze, moxie, rl78)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55035
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68703
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Richa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52361
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68711
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|[5 regression] S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68708
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68671
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 7 08:58:24 2015
New Revision: 231356
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231356&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-12-04 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68758
Bug ID: 68758
Summary: [6 Regression] Invalid read of size 8 in gt_pch_save
(ggc-common.c:551)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68714
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68714
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68716
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68727
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68680
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 7 09:11:06 2015
New Revision: 231357
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231357&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-12-04 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68721
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68718
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think the testcase is simply invalid, with or without OMP. busy needs to be
volatile.
It's also an issue similar to that of the TM bugs that PTA / aliasing doesn't
consider non-address-taken vars as "ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nenad Vukicevic from comment #13)
> For what is worth I filed two bug reports:
Thanks!
> LLVM:
> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25757
>
> APPLE:
> Bug 23778972 (not sure how to get URL f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68733
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|FAIL: libgomp.c/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68732
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to matszpk from comment #3)
> Thank you for quick answer and advice. Now, I am using default gcc-5 from
> OpenSUSE Leap 42.1. Perhaps, I will try to use GCC 5.3 in near future...
You can install 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68730
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68718
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61352
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68755
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67086
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.3 |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68727
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.3 |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> RA assigns registers so that one of the two moves under the if
> becomes a nop, and then bb-reorder duplicates the code.
And then nothing cleans up the us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
So for some reason no SSA coalescing is done for s390x here (compared to
x86_64).
That's the thing to look at, possibly related to some of the required parameter
coalescing / default def coalescing hackery.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68759
Bug ID: 68759
Summary: [6 Regression] Linux kernel build failure on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68718
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36940
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36940&action=edit
more minimal version, also fails without fipa-pta
With this futher minimized version (stripped the so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68716
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, you simply do "nothing"
case BUILT_IN_GOMP_PARALLEL:
case BUILT_IN_GOACC_PARALLEL:
return;
that's of course not correct. You should handle these builtin calls as
calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68759
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |6.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68758
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63668
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc-linux |sparc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68718
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
omp_set/unset_lock of course is a memory barrier. All the problematic
variables (it is not just busy, but also global_stack.top) are only modified
when guarded with the lock, the problem is just read data ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63668
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68744
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68718
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
As said GCC with IPA PTA sees that busy is a stack-local var (in the omp-data
in main) and thus cannot be accessed by omp_set/unset_lock which means they
do not alias.
Aliasing is not a precise enough vehic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68718
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> omp_set/unset_lock of course is a memory barrier.
It is _not_ for the stack-local in main (which IPA PTA exposes).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68257
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68714
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> Helps, but then we have:
>
> _8 = x_1(D) <= y_2(D);
> _6 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_8, { -1, -1, -1, -1 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
>
> vector lowering calls expand_vec_cond_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
--- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt ---
Could you give me a hint which dump files to look at?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68257
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I was mistaken in my post to the mailing list. It's by design that it uses
the name of the inline namespace as the tag name if no arguments are given,
although I thought the correct syntax in that case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68760
Bug ID: 68760
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in pp_string (pretty-print.c:909)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68760
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68633
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Dec 7 11:05:40 2015
New Revision: 231359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68633
gcc/
* config/i386/sse.md (define_insn "kunpckh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68627
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Dec 7 11:12:41 2015
New Revision: 231361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68627
gcc/
* config/i386/sse.md: Make 'v' alternative
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65995
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Vollmer ---
Crash still present in gcc 5.3.0.
When compiling with -g I also get plenty of the warnings for pretty much each
and every symbol used in the library / program, e.g.
[snip hundreds more]
warning: (x86_64) c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68640
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> The definition of restrict allows for new temporaries. If you do "q = p +
> 1;", then thereafter q is based on p. (If you do assignments between
> restricted pointer objects, you also need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68761
Bug ID: 68761
Summary: -floop-interchange internal compiler error: in
create_tmp_var, at gimple-expr.c:519
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68762
Bug ID: 68762
Summary: link error for inline function decorated with OpenMP
declare simd
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
Bug ID: 68763
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in verify_unstripped_args, at
cp/pt.c:1132
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68761
--- Comment #1 from Julian Taylor ---
5.2.0 seems to also be affected.
Also tested 4.9.2 which works. Probably an regression of 5.x then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68764
Bug ID: 68764
Summary: C frontend does not fold away trivial expressions that
refer to const variables
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68744
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> WORKSFORME (x86_64-apple-darwin14) and for others (see x86_64-apple-darwin14).
> Is this a regression? If yes, what was your last working revision and did
> anything change in your system: new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68764
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68764
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> I agree that this is weird but this is something the C FE likely shouldn't
> do.
One (possibly minor) obstacle with doing it in the middle-end is that the
DECL_I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68765
Bug ID: 68765
Summary: warning for aliasing restrict parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: gcc/configure --prefix=gcc-build
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-bootstrap --disable-libsanitizer
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151207 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68764
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #2)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> > I agree that this is weird but this is something the C FE likely shouldn't
> > do.
>
> One (possibly minor) obst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68762
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
You need to provide a out-of-line copy of foo for example by adding a
extern double foo (double d);
to foobar.cpp. At least if this were C, not 100% sure about C++.
OTOH SIMD support may simply fail to p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68766
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68761
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68766
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
This patch helps:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vectorizer.c b/gcc/tree-vectorizer.c
index b721c56..c496c4b 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vectorizer.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-vectorizer.c
@@ -536,7 +536,13 @@ vectorize_loops (void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, PR67323 is essentially a dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68766
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
^
Ironically, this is condensed down from c-common.c complaining about itself
when building gcc for a target with a variable BITS_PER_UNIT, which also uses
newlib-stdint.h .
Originally observed with g++ (GCC) 5.1.1 20150618 (Red Hat 5.1.1-4), but also
reproduced with g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20151207 (experimental) .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68768
Bug ID: 68768
Summary: [fortran] propagate foo restrict to foo._omp_fn.0
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68640
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Filed related PR68768 - '[fortran] propagate foo restrict to foo._omp_fn.0',
where AFAIU keeping the restrict is legal for fortran with -fno-cray-pointers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63758
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68755
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #0)
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> char e[5];
> for (; c < 5; c++)
> {
> while (a)
> {
> b = d;
> if (e[8000])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68429
--- Comment #1 from ryan.burn at gmail dot com ---
Additional case. (not sure if it's the same bug)
namespace std {
typedef int size_t;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68769
Bug ID: 68769
Summary: [fortran] annotate omp data pointers with restrict for
-fno-cray-pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68755
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68755
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=68760
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68770
Bug ID: 68770
Summary: [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on
uninitialised value(s) default_secondary_reload()
targhooks.c:940
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68170
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68760
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Created attachment 36943 [details]
> gcc6-pr68760.patch
>
> Using input_location in this routine doesn't make any sense.
Works for me for the original test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68755
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68751
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Committed fix as 231364.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68751
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Do I have rights to change status? Can't find how to close this...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68755
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Also happens with -m64 with gcc-5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> The commits mentioned a test being added to the testsuite, but it doesn't
> seem to have been added. Also, the ChangeLog entry mentioned wrong
> extension (in g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
Bug ID: 68771
Summary: Darwin: Profile guided optimisation with cold sections
and invalid symbol redefinition
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68751
--- Comment #5 from Yury Gribov ---
You most probably can't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66460
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
