https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The n variable is 128-bit aligned and lives on the stack, so it is unclear why
the stack realignment code misses that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83737
Bug ID: 83737
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/stdint-width-1.c (test for excess errors)
for with newlib stdint.h
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, -O3 -mavx512bw ins't needed, e.g. -O3 -mavx reproduces it too.
The function doesn't really need DRAP or stack realignment, but because
stack_alignment_needed is 128, better should make sure that sp is p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83737
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, for the gromacs
r255102: .text size: 737B
r255103 + fix for sreal (r256072): .text size: 752B (+2.03%).
Honza can you please take a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
In main (), various RTL passes generate
(insn/f 461 460 462 2 (set (mem:DI (pre_dec:DI (reg/f:DI 7 sp)) [0 S8 A8])
(reg:DI 3 bx)) "x.i":17 61 {*pushdi2_rex64}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 3 bx)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83626
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Lyon ---
Running the test manually with qemu only works, so it looks like there is a bad
interaction between proot and qemu. I'll try to investigate this more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Wilcox ---
7.2, 6.2, 5.5 and 4.9 fail. 4.6.3 succeeds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Another experiment:
r255024: 741B
r255024 + patch r255103 + patch r256072: 752B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
push comes from
13174 if (!int_registers_saved)
13175 {
13176 /* If saving registers via PUSH, do so now. */
13177 if (!frame.save_regs_using_mov)
13178 {
13179 ix8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83712
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, but those saves should be to slots chosen earlier by
ix86_compute_frame_layout, shouldn't they. And then the question is why it
chose a frame size that isn't multiple of the needed alignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83563
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 8 15:04:53 2018
New Revision: 256343
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256343&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/83563
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83572
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> The issue here is we have a non SESE-region to start with.
Related to post-dominators not being meaningful in infinite loop context.
Connecting infinite loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83629
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Needs e.g. -mcpu=603 to fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80763
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83065
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83629
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83729
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665
>
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> Ok, for the gromacs
>
> r255102: .text size:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 Regression] GCC fails to |[6/7/8 Regression] GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83712
--- Comment #2 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
I can reproduce it with
gcc-4.8.4 on Ubuntu 14.04 on native armhf (it doesn't reproduce with gcc-4.9 on
the same machine)
arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc-6 cross-compiler on Debian Stretch
arm-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83716
--- Comment #3 from uruwi at protonmail dot com ---
Confirmed that running g++ on the preprocessed file produces the assertion
failure instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83712
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83626
--- Comment #13 from Christophe Lyon ---
On x86_64 target, the test passes alone, but fails when using proot.
So the problem is fully on my side, sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83738
Bug ID: 83738
Summary: [avr] Don't save registers in main
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83738
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80763
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83507
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83663
--- Comment #2 from Vidya Praveen ---
Author: vp
Date: Mon Jan 8 16:24:49 2018
New Revision: 256346
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256346&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2018-01-08 Vidya Praveen
PR target/83663 - Revert r255946
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83327
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew.fortune at imgtec dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83729
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...and this is a middle-end flaw because POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED states:
[...] You need not define this macro [which is the case for avr] if the
ptr_mode, Pmode and word_mode are all the same width [whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83720
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #5 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> warning_at
> (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (x), 0,
>"ignoring packed attribute because of unpacked non-POD field
> %q#D",
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83739
Bug ID: 83739
Summary: error: range-based 'for' expression of type 'auto' has
incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That last testcase needs -mabi=elfv2 to fail (but doesn't need that -O3).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83739
--- Comment #1 from Chris ---
Sorry, the ii-file is too large to post it here, I uploaded it instead
somewhere else (7.7 MB):
www.inf.fu-berlin.de/users/cpockrandt/test_find2_index_approx.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
A better test case which "looks" valid to me and still ICEs with -O1
-mabi=elfv2 -S (on LE):
typedef __attribute__((altivec(vector__))) int v4si_t;
int
foo (void)
{
v4si_t a, u, v, y;
u = __builtin_altiv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83739
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's no way all that code is relevant to the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81308
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Jan 8 18:17:51 2018
New Revision: 256348
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256348&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/81308
* recog.c (split_all_insns): Cond
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81308
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Jan 8 18:20:21 2018
New Revision: 256349
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256349&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimizatin/81308
* tree-switch-conversion.c (cfg_al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81308
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83740
Bug ID: 83740
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in maybe_legitimize_operand, at
optabs.c:7140
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83739
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Jan 8 18:42:50 2018
New Revision: 256350
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256350&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/82975: Guard against reg_renumber being N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on GCC 7 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83741
Bug ID: 83741
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_allocate, at
fortran/match.c:4074
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83740
--- Comment #2 from G. Steinmetz ---
plain vanilla x86_64 with linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83742
Bug ID: 83742
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_is_simply_contiguous, at
fortran/expr.c:5323
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83739
--- Comment #4 from Chris ---
This is the intermediate file of the most simplified code that I came up with
that reproduces the error (1.9 MB)
http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/users/cpockrandt/test_find2_index_approx2.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83063
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83739
--- Comment #5 from Chris ---
(In reply to Chris from comment #4)
> This is the intermediate file of the most simplified code that I came up
> with that reproduces the error (1.9 MB)
>
> http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/users/cpockrandt/test_find2_in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83739
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
Without fancy tools, looking at the last few lines of the file:
#include
template void f()
{
std::set x;
auto delegate = [](auto & foo)
{
for (auto bar : foo);
};
delegate(x);
}
int main() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83739
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
And to drop the includes:
template void f()
{
int x[2];
auto delegate = [](auto & foo)
{
for (auto bar : foo);
};
delegate(x);
}
int main() {
f();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83285
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82066
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83709
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83733
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
Created attachment 43064
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43064&action=edit
Proposed fix
I'm testing the attached patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83707
--- Comment #1 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, this has nothing to do with memcmp builtin expansion. Also fails with just
-m32 -O1 -fno-builtin-memcmp. Passes with -O0. I checked in gdb and when it
fails the v2 and vt being compared are a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83677
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jan 8 23:08:34 2018
New Revision: 256358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256358&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-01-08 Bill Schmidt
PR target/83677
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83677
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|8.0 |
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83743
Bug ID: 83743
Summary: -mcpu=native causes gcc to exit in error if cpu is not
recognized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83559
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
One other note: The goal is that new warning will expose opportunities to
improve code (if not fix bugs). I don't know of a valid use case for a
function to be const and return void but if there is one I'd be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83741
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83741
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Jan 9 01:26:17 2018
New Revision: 256366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256366&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-08 Steven G. Kargl
PR Fortran/83741
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83741
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83744
Bug ID: 83744
Summary: ICE in ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c:3093
while using -fc-prototypes
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83744
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 43066
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43066&action=edit
module with logical that ices.
I have problems with logical too.
ed@bad-horse:~/ARAPP/diffraction$ $HO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83744
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 43067
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43067&action=edit
Changing logical to integer works...
Changing logical to integer works...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83742
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83731
--- Comment #6 from Berke Durak ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #3)
> 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 kee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83746
Bug ID: 83746
Summary: Errors using the max intrinsic in a PDT length
parameter expression for a function result
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83747
Bug ID: 83747
Summary: Errors using the max intrinsic in a PDT length
parameter expression for a function result
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83748
Bug ID: 83748
Summary: Local variables not aligned to word boundary
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83748
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
What target is this for?
Also what type is ome_CardCfgPxfp_t ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83748
--- Comment #2 from Sumit ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> What target is this for?
>
> Also what type is ome_CardCfgPxfp_t ?
The target is powerpc.
Structure definition is :
typedef PACK_PREFIX_ALWAYS_PACK struct ome_CardCf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83746
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 83747 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83747
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
101 - 190 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
