https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78913
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> > 1) use the %.508s directive instead of %s, or
> > 2) verify the snprintf return value is less than 512.
>
> Whoops.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78883
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
A discussion of the problem starts here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01776.html
(Looks like a reload problem)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890
--- Comment #5 from TC ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Apparently what changed in C++11 is that it allows static
> data members in unions and those clearly can have reference type, so that is
> the reason why the restriction has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure, I just wanted to understand why the r211318 change has been done and my
comment lists why I think that happened.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890
--- Comment #7 from TC ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Sure, I just wanted to understand why the r211318 change has been done and
> my comment lists why I think that happened.
Ah, my fault for not actually reading the patch. (F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78938
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78965
Bug ID: 78965
Summary: [7 Regression] Invalid -fprintf-return-value
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71966
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71966
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Apparently this is because
else if (non_constant_p && TREE_CONSTANT (r))
{
/* This isn't actually constant, so unset TREE_CONSTANT. */
if (EXPR_P (r))
r = copy_node (r);
else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78927
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adding some flag on the MASK_STORE or MASK_LOAD is not hard, it can be in
another argument, or some GF_*, whatever. But I don't understand here what is
the difference between originally pointer based and arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60256
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
For strcpy(s, s) see Bug 65452, which also contains a patch for
-Wsame-arguments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72739
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78966
Bug ID: 78966
Summary: Unjustified variadic template instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78967
Bug ID: 78967
Summary: inserts are not effective
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78967
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968
Bug ID: 78968
Summary: conflict gnu's __cxa_thread_atexit and
LLVM's/FreeBSD's
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40439
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40439&action=edit
gcc7-pr71016.patch
Actually, it is (sometimes) beneficial even for library calls. Untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, trying:
long int
foo (long int i)
{
return i == 0 ? 17 : __builtin_clzl (i);
}
long int
bar (long int i)
{
return i == 0 ? 17 : __builtin_popcountl (i);
}
long int
baz (long int i)
{
return i == 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, on x86_64-linux without -mbmi{,2} -mlzcnt the CLZ and CTZ is actually
undefined at zero, so there is nothing to do with that I'm afraid. With those
additional options foo is optimized:
- xorl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77284
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78913
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60256
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the reference. The strcmp(s, s) (and likewise memcmp(p, p, n)) case
in bug 65452 is different because unlike this one, strcmp doesn't change the
arrays pointed to by its arguments (which are also n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969
Bug ID: 78969
Summary: bogus snprintf truncation warning due to missing range
info
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #8)
> Created attachment 40362 [details]
> patch adding -mlong-jump-table-offsets option for m68k
>
> This is the crude patch I mentioned in an older c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534
--- Comment #14 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Jan 2 20:00:18 2017
New Revision: 244003
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244003&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 78534 Modify string copy to avoid -Wstringop-overflow warning
When the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
>run-old.resultrun-new.result
> f416.gamess 6.55s6.70s ( 2.29%, -2.24% )
> i400.perlbench 7.17s7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65649
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71880
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
Additional data points:
- The ICE in comment #4 can be reproduced with
character(:), dimension(:), pointer :: p => NULL()
write(*,*) size(p)! ICE
write(*,*) len(p) ! ICE
end
- The bug in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69908
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78970
Bug ID: 78970
Summary: GCC crashes if input file is dash
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71880
--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #6)
> Additional data points:
>
> - The ICE in comment #4 can be reproduced with
>
> character(:), dimension(:), pointer :: p => NULL()
> write(*,*) size(p)!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Gribov ---
As this is not a GCC bug I suggest you
* close this issue (as not-a-bug?)
* report to Glibc folks (perhaps they could do more checking of return address
or at least document their calling convention assumptions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78967
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jan 2 22:08:18 2017
New Revision: 244006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244006&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
target/78967
* config/i386/i386.md (UNSPEC_NOREX_MEM): Ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78967
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78971
Bug ID: 78971
Summary: ggc-min-expand default value is probably obsolete
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78971
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually it would be better if we reduce the need to allocate as much memory.
>In 2017 it's quite common to have a machine with 1GB of RAM.
Actually is is quite common to have a machine with more than 32G o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78971
--- Comment #2 from Aurelien Jarno ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Actually it would be better if we reduce the need to allocate as much memory.
>
> >In 2017 it's quite common to have a machine with 1GB of RAM.
>
> Actually is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78966
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is to check if there is a constructor which converts X. There might
be a C++ Defect report about this case too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think there might be a dup of this bug already.
basically VRP does a copy prop of where the assert was.
get_range_info is not position sensitive so the range is gone after VRP.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 3 07:20:04 2017
New Revision: 244013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/78901
* gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (try_substitut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78965
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 3 07:23:11 2017
New Revision: 244014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/78965
* gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (pass_sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972
Bug ID: 78972
Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] poor x86 simd instruction
scheduling
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71166
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
At this point it is getting too late to reconsider VEC_INIT_EXPR for GCC 7, so
shall we apply the fix from GCC 7 to trunk too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972
--- Comment #1 from Andrew M. ---
gcc versions >= 5 started dropping all of the additions down to the bottom of
the function instead of keeping a running total. Optimization appears to follow
4.x.x up to tree-reassoc1 where >= 5 uses slightly dif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972
--- Comment #2 from Andrew M. ---
Created attachment 40442
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40442&action=edit
generated code for gcc-4.9.4 example.c -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972
--- Comment #3 from Andrew M. ---
Created attachment 40443
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40443&action=edit
generated code for gcc-6.3 example.c -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77347
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77347
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note your testcase is invalid due to [dcl.spec.auto]/7:
"If the init-declarator-list contains more than one init-declarator, they shall
all form declarations of variables."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972
Andrew M. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
64 matches
Mail list logo
