https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83151
Bug ID: 83151
Summary: Explicit unsigned bitfields are treated as signed ones
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83151
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
The operand of ~ is promoted to int first, thus the type of the result is also
int which is then implicitly converted to unsigned int on return.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83151
Liu Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83151
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82848
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Nov 25 10:19:16 2017
New Revision: 255148
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255148&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82848
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_gimple_fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83151
--- Comment #4 from Liu Hao ---
I do care about these warnings and that is why these warnings are enabled.
However the one in the original post seems nothing but false positive to me.
I know what the standard says about integer promotion (when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82848
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83152
Bug ID: 83152
Summary: Possible run time error in derived type i/o
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83153
Bug ID: 83153
Summary: Possible run time error in derived type io example - 2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83154
Bug ID: 83154
Summary: ICE: associate and coarrays
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81851
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83155
Bug ID: 83155
Summary: [8 regression] test-error-array-bounds.c.exe fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #29 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #28)
> Bootstrap is fixed, but the fix did not please to Iain Sandoe.
The fix allows bootstrap to proceed, but doesn't solve the underlying problem
(which is tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83054
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83156
Bug ID: 83156
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr82361-1.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83156
--- Comment #1 from Andrey Guskov ---
gcc.target/i386/pr82361-2.c is also affected:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /work/gcc/xgcc -B/work/gcc/
/source/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82361-1.c
-B/work/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/./libmpx/
-B/work/x86_64-pc-linux-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83154
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83125
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83117
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83157
Bug ID: 83157
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78553
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83158
Bug ID: 83158
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr78057.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83158
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83159
Bug ID: 83159
Summary: [8 regression] g++.dg/gomp/declare-simd-1.C fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83152
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83153
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83155
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
I believe I fixed this in r255082.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83160
Bug ID: 83160
Summary: [8 regression] lvalue required as unary ‘&’ operand
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83159
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
r255117 should have fixed this already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
--- Comment #22 from PeteVine ---
> I don't know what exactly "fixed" this
That would be nice to know. This I can say for sure: gcc 7.2.1 20171116 still
produces slower profiled code on the target system.
I've also discovered, compiling and pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83161
Bug ID: 83161
Summary: Feature request: add a builtin for printing structs
and classes
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83162
Bug ID: 83162
Summary: x86-64 -Wclobbered issuing more false alarms
(regression)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65041
--- Comment #4 from Paul Eggert ---
Also please see Bug 83162, which may be related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83161
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |c++
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48968
--- Comment #11 from Paul Eggert ---
Also please see related bugs Bug 21161, Bug 54561, Bug 61118, Bug 65041, Bug
83162. Perhaps they should be merged?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
--- Comment #14 from Paul Eggert ---
Also please see related reports Bug 21161, Bug 48968, Bug 54561, Bug 65041, and
Bug 83162. The last-listed one also is a regression, perhaps induced by the
fancier optimization in recent GCC versions. I suspec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83161
--- Comment #1 from Constantine Kharlamov ---
Just another data point I forgot to mention:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3311182/linux-c-easy-pretty-dump-printout-of-structs-like-in-gdb-from-source-co
7k views. Author of this one went as fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83117
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
C requires that every function must be declared and called by [an expression
of] a compatible type and specifies special rules for the ellipsis and for
functions without a prototype.
For two function types to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83152
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82488
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81553
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Nov 25 19:35:47 2017
New Revision: 255150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/81553
* combine.c (simplify_if_then_el
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67137
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64296
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Known to fail|6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83156
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83156
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hrm, looking for a REG_UNUSED of the dests (instead of of anything)
fixes f1 and f2, but not the rest.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83163
Bug ID: 83163
Summary: bootstrap comparison failure with
--enable-languages=all,jit
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81553
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE in |[7 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
--- Comment #3 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Possibly the walk in remove_range_assertions visits the latter before the
> former block but in principle we do have code to handle this there.
I just ran into th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83164
Bug ID: 83164
Summary: [8 regression] internal compiler error: verify_gimple
failed
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83164
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83165
Bug ID: 83165
Summary: [8 regression] cannot convert ‘GPrivate’ {aka
‘_GPrivate’} to ‘GPrivate*’ {aka ‘_GPrivate*’} in
return
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83166
Bug ID: 83166
Summary: [8 regression] error: type mismatch in pointer diff
expression internal compiler error: verify_gimple
failed
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83164
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Does it work if you remove the verification
|| !types_compatible_p (rhs1_type, rhs2_type)
from tree-cfg.c?
useless_type_conversion_p says that converting a function pointer to char* is
useless (b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83164
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skpgkp1 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83166
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83165
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Could you explain why this code should be accepted, to save time?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83165
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note since GPrivate is non dependent type checking can happen at defintion time
rather than instaination time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83165
--- Comment #3 from Sunil Pandey ---
Well, this is creduce generated code from clipsmm application build file.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/clipsmm/
If you want, I can attach original preprocessed file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83155
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81851
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83165
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83117
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The warning is nothing new, GCC has been warning for that for years. What my
patch did is just better optimization, so the compiler can see the UB.
Try:
extern long do_test_aligned ();
static long (*const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83117
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On November 26, 2017 8:07:10 AM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83117
>
>--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>The warning is nothing n
66 matches
Mail list logo
