https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83517
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 8 08:16:19 2018
New Revision: 256328
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256328&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-08 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/83517
* mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83667
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks Nathan. Are you planning to backport that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83517
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|tree-ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83580
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 8 08:24:51 2018
New Revision: 256329
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256329&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-08 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/83580
* tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83580
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #56 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase from PR82177:
#include
#include
void f(int*, int*);
int main()
{
int a=0, y[1], x = 0;
uintptr_t pi = (uintptr_t) &x;
uintptr_t yi = (uintptr_t) (y+1);
uintptr_t n = pi != yi;
if (n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82282
Bug 82282 depends on bug 82177, which changed state.
Bug 82177 Summary: Alias analysis too aggressive with integer-to-pointer cast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82177
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nunoplopes at sapo dot pt
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83518
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, it's not really sth new but a known issue with late value-numbering. Note
that FRE wouldn't know how to simplify this either, we'd need store-merging
to effectively vectorize the earlier sets. BB vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||83665
--- Comment #21 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is in the:
@@ -671,11 +669,9 @@
e = one_cd_chain[j];
guard_bb = e->src;
gsi = gsi_last_bb (guard_bb);
- if (gsi_end_p (gsi))
- {
- has_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83706
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83713
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2018-01-06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83681
--- Comment #2 from sh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sh
Date: Mon Jan 8 09:17:20 2018
New Revision: 256331
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256331&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
epiphany: Enable Ada run-time build
gcc/
PR target/83681
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #16 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Created attachment 43056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43056&action=edit
linux/net/ipv6/route.c, preprocessed and compressed
To test the patch, I reverted the workaround that was adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou ---
As pointed out by Segher in comment #14, the problem ultimately comes from the
ambiguity of WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS. Quoting him:
"WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS isn't well-defined.
"""
@defmac WORD_REGISTER_O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83681
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83733
Bug ID: 83733
Summary: -Wformat-overflow false positive for %d on bounded
integer when inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #17 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Created attachment 43057
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43057&action=edit
linux/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_bsg.c, preprocessed and compressed
A possibly related warning I just saw this wee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83518
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Before store-merging we have:
MEM[(int *)&arr] = { 5, 4, 3, 2 };
t_2 = arr[0];
_65 = arr[1];
_69 = arr[2];
_73 = arr[3];
arr[0] = _69;
arr[1] = _73;
arr[2] = 1;
arr[3] = t_2;
vect__2.5_38
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83518
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83518
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Before store-merging we have:
> MEM[(int *)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83705
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83706
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |testsuite
--- Comment #3 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83626
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83714
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83715
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
In theory DOM propagtes equivalences but appearantly not in this case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83718
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83716
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
--- Comment #31 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So it appears that we have 2 classes of RISC machines, the ones supporting a
> strong version of WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS and the others only a weak one.
However I'm not sure whether exposing the distinct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83731
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83734
Bug ID: 83734
Summary: ice in cxx_eval _statement_list, at
cp/constexpr.c:3869
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81420
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65654
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka ---
I would still suggest here going with Martin's patch: it is incorrect to
attempt to change the partition after BB order has been fixed. We can
incrementally deal with the missed optimization in this quite rar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67905
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't see anything in the libstdc++ testsuite that would remove it anyway, so
I'm going to blame DejaGnu or OS X.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83719
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-linux-gnu |i686-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83719
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83719
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-linux-gnu, |i686-linux-gnu
|x86_6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83730
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|avr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83721
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83722
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83723
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83728
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83714
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83733
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83626
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #10)
> In my testing, I have a new failure:
> FAIL:: experimental/filesystem/operations/remove.cc execution test
> on aarch64-linux-gnu and arm*linux* targets.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83718
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Summary|ice in cxx_eval
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83731
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi Berke,
The fix for this turns out to be so trivial that I will roll it in to the patch
for pr83611.
I know that this must be frustrating but please keep trying out PDTs. The bug
reports that you are genera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
Bug ID: 83735
Summary: [8 Regression] generating unaligned store to stack
with vmovaps
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83731
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 8 11:20:33 2018
New Revision: 256335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-08 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/83611
* decl.c (gfc_ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83611
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 8 11:20:33 2018
New Revision: 256335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-08 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/83611
* decl.c (gfc_ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83731
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 83731, which changed state.
Bug 83731 Summary: PDT length parameter incorrectly rejected at run-time with
-fcheck=bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83731
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 83611, which changed state.
Bug 83611 Summary: [PDT] Assignment of parameterized types causes double free
error in runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83611
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83611
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83126
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83065
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83736
Bug ID: 83736
Summary: ICE triggered by improper use of VLA and scanf
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83730
Wilhelm M changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
--- Comment #4 from Wilhelm M ---
If you c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83722
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||ia64
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83730
--- Comment #5 from Wilhelm M ---
Only for completeness: if you write the following, no guards are produced:
struct A {
A() = default; // if commented out, no guards are allocated
void foo() {}
};
template
struct B {
static void foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83734
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534
--- Comment #24 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Jan 8 12:12:05 2018
New Revision: 256337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 78534 Regression on 32-bit targets
By switching from int to size_t in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
--- Comment #3 from Wilco ---
This is related with PR82964/82974, looks like same underlying issue. I have a
patch which changes the constraint, and that fixes this issue too. It's not
obvious to me whether legitimate_constant_p should be a subse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83109
--- Comment #1 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
It's fixed in revision r255164,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2017-11/msg00881.html.
The svn log is missing PR 83109 that's why the bug was not updated
automatically.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83109
igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 83109, which changed state.
Bug 83109 Summary: [CET] improper code generation for builtin_longjmp with
-fcf-protection -mcet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83109
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> The warning might be using the old C++98 definition of POD.
Lets specify -std explicitly then:
$ g++ -std=c++11 pod.cpp
pod.cpp:11:16: warning: ignoring packe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83572
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
The issue here is we have a non SESE-region to start with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83734
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That doesn't change anything, the default is gnu++14 anyway. My point is not
that the compiler is in C++98 mode, just that the condition for the warning
uses the old definition. The code confirms it:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suppose since packed structs violate the ABI anyway, we don't need them to
use the ABI-stable definition of POD for the purpose of layout.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83720
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83714
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Can't reproduce that bisection, this doesn't ICE even in 7.x, my bisection
> points to r253599 instead.
Yes Jakus, I can confirm it started with the revision you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83667
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
No plan. It's a p3 non-regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83714
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
s/Jakus/Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83065
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> This must be with -flto at least too.
Even with -flto I can't reproduce. Can you please attach SPEC build log file?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83719
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 8 13:13:48 2018
New Revision: 256338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-08 Richard Biener
PR lto/83719
* dwarf2out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83719
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83733
--- Comment #2 from Tim Van Holder ---
Created attachment 43062
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43062&action=edit
Testcase
Testcase attached.
Compiling with "gcc -c -Wall -Wextra -Werror -O3 gcc83733.c" yields:
gcc83733.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But again succeeds with -mno-stv, so likely dup of PR83330.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83685
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 8 13:22:56 2018
New Revision: 256339
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256339&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/83685
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83685
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83713
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 8 13:24:38 2018
New Revision: 256341
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256341&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-08 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/83713
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83713
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[6/7/8 Regressio
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
