https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83619
Bug ID: 83619
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in inliner: caller edge count does
not match BB count
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83567
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83619
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Leaving to Honza. There's patch that fixes another issue (w/ -fdump-ipa-inline)
+ better diagnostics:
diff --git a/gcc/cgraph.c b/gcc/cgraph.c
index 69eb9bb2341..780769f07ee 100644
--- a/gcc/cgraph.c
+++ b/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83603
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83610
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> But there is something really wonky about this benchmark. There are times
> when I fully expect it to pass and it fails and vice-versa. I'm really
> starting to wonder if there's an uninit read in there o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83567
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Janne,
I found the problem - thanks for warning me of it.
Cheers
Paul
On 29 December 2017 at 09:25, jb at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83620
Bug ID: 83620
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: in assign_by_spills, at
lra-assigns.c:1470: unable to find a register to spill
with -flive-range-shrinkage
--param=max-sc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83616
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83617
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83620
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
It looks to me that LR shrinkage pass should not move
(insn 7 22 18 2 (set (reg/v:SI 115 [ e ])
(reg:SI 2 cx [ e ])) "pr83620.c":7 86 {*movsi_internal}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 2 cx [ e ])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82439
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sudi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83582
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83581
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83580
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83567
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Dec 29 14:27:59 2017
New Revision: 256033
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256033&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-28 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/83567
* trans-expr.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83567
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 83567, which changed state.
Bug 83567 Summary: Parametrized derived types: Segmentation fault when
assigning a function return value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83567
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82074
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sudi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82882
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Still seems to be going wrong:
/home/dcb/rpmbuild/BUILD/kactivitymanagerd-5.11.4/src/common/dbus/common.h:28:5:
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
QStringLiteral("org.kde.ActivityManager")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81472
--- Comment #1 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see all execute tests failing with r256033
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O1 execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O2 execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O3 -fomit-fra
ux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-256032-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-nographite-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171229 (experimental) (GCC)
Hi!
I noticed you have liburcu.org. Are you interested in burculi.com? If so please
let me know and I will get back to you with the full details.
Have a nice day!
Allison Roberts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83560
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Dec 29 19:25:31 2017
New Revision: 256034
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256034&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-29 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/83560
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83610
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Created attachment 42980
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42980&action=edit
Benchmark
Here is benchmark for this case. With unlikely() execution time decreases from
20.5sec to 20.3sec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83610
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Try this patch:
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/unit.c b/libgfortran/io/unit.c
index 2ca8525fbec..a655665aa8a 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/unit.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/unit.c
@@ -707,7 +707,9 @@ init_units (void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Binary size (of vmlinux) grows by 0.09%. I don't know about performance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991
--- Comment #26 from Benjamin Robin ---
I try to work on this bug, by curiosity... And I did found 3 bug in the current
layout of structure when ms_bitfield_layout_p = 1:
**
1) Basic packing (the failing test):
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83560
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83622
Bug ID: 83622
Summary: [8 Regression] Wrong code with derived type and
-fopenmp
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82133
--- Comment #4 from Nick ---
It seems that this is simply a bug in the assembly code in OpenBLAS.
I have attached the recent post that suggests this inconsistency:
https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/issues/1292#issuecomment-354366612
I have no
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-256032-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-nographite-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171229 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83624
Bug ID: 83624
Summary: Strong using deprecation warning in C++03
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Dec 29 22:36:25 2017
New Revision: 256035
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256035&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-29 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/83613
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83624
--- Comment #1 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
Created attachment 42983
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42983&action=edit
Test code to reproduce the warning
I've attached a repro test case. Compile with:
g++ -std=gnu++03 -o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83622
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81759
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Looks that __builtin_ffs does not check if input value is nonzero at all.
Assembler code for following code also has unnecessary instructions:
[code]
unsigned int test(unsigned int n)
{
if (n == 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83625
Bug ID: 83625
Summary: std::experimental::filesystem::remove lstat()'s before
remove() instead of checking errno
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I also have to commit to gcc7 as well, which has the same error in it.
Thanks for the report Dominiq.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83626
Bug ID: 83626
Summary: std::experimental::filesystem::remove_all throws
exception instead of returning 0 if path doesn't exist
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71009
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83613
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Dec 30 02:14:34 2017
New Revision: 256041
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256041&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-29 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
*** Bug 48968 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54561
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
*** Bug 54561 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tavianator at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65041
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
*** Bug 83162 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83162
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55496
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70392
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83627
Bug ID: 83627
Summary: -Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor doesn't trigger when calling
destructor by hand
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
60 matches
Mail list logo
