https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83822
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> Is this from cppcheck again?
Yes. Anything from me that has (style) or (warning) or (error) or
(performance) in it is from cppcheck.
>If so, I'm considering
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83901
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83902
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83885
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83546
--- Comment #2 from speryt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: speryt
Date: Wed Jan 17 09:02:13 2018
New Revision: 256777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Re-enabling of RDRND for Silvermont.
2018-01-15 Sebastian Pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83913
Bug ID: 83913
Summary: [8 Regression] Compile time and memory hog w/
selective scheduling
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83884
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Jan 17 09:28:28 2018
New Revision: 256779
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256779&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR slots for strict-align targets (PR 838
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83913
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83901
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83618
Julia Koval changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||julia.koval at intel dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83875
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83814
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 83902 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83814
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testcase from another PR:
extern "C" void *memset (void *, int, __SIZE_TYPE__);
void *p;
template
struct B
{
void foo () { memset (p, 0, 4 * T * sizeof(float)); }
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83875
--- Comment #5 from Roland Schulz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So we are essentially talking about a builtin like
> __builtin_cpu_{is,supports}, that instead of runtime check would query the
> target flags of the containing f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase that still ICEs, starting with the same revision:
void foo ();
namespace {
void foo ();
}
template
void
bar ()
{
new T (foo);
}
void
baz ()
{
bar ();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83913
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #42 from Alexey Salmin ---
Sorry for being unclear.
When I need a pointer to an unaligned type I wrap it in a struct. E.g. a fix
for SIGSEGV from comment#36 would look like this:
struct pair_t {
char c;
__int128_t i;
} __att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83905
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
To catch such issues when changing by-value to reference _always_ use a const
reference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83909
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
Just because someone added a broken test should not break the whole testsuite
run. It is more important to run as many tests as possible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83771
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, this got fixed with r256479. Let me check in the testcase and close.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Richard, I checked your proposal last time, I tend to think it will result
in an equivalent patch of mine somehow. But I could be wrong, and it's long
time ago (last year).
Thanks,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81184
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Jan 17 11:03:00 2018
New Revision: 256780
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256780&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81184
* gcc.dg/pr21643.c: Adjust
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83771
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 17 11:04:11 2018
New Revision: 256781
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256781&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/83771
* gcc.dg/pr83771.c: New test.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83771
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81184
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83843
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 17 11:19:16 2018
New Revision: 256783
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256783&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83843
* gcc.dg/store_merging_18.c: Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83808
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83552
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Jan 17 11:43:56 2018
New Revision: 256786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Subject: Backport r256009
2018-01-17 Martin Liska
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83875
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kretz at kde dot org
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #43 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexey Salmin from comment #42)
>
> I was trying to say that I'm glad that the "address-of-packed-member"
> warning isn't triggered by this code. It still relies on the "address of
> packed member" b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83549
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Jan 17 11:45:48 2018
New Revision: 256788
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256788&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r256177
2018-01-17 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Jan 17 11:46:31 2018
New Revision: 256789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256789&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r256226
2018-01-17 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Jan 17 11:46:56 2018
New Revision: 256790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r256266
2018-01-17 Martin Liska
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83552
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83687
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Jan 17 11:51:03 2018
New Revision: 256791
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256791&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/83687: Fix invalid combination of VSUB + V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82702
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83808
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems one of the issues is that array_of_runtime_bound_p only looks at the
toplevel array. Shall it look at all the nested ARRAY_TYPEs and return true if
any of them is of runtime bound? Or shall we have an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83808
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/cp/tree.c.jj2018-01-17 11:54:08.669802704 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/tree.c 2018-01-17 13:11:08.524278851 +0100
@@ -1044,11 +1044,14 @@ array_of_runtime_bound_p (tree t)
if (!t || TREE_CODE (t) !=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
So far, my bisect has been unsuccessful, because my bisect script thinks the
guilty commit is one of the exit-code-125 ones, and there are too many.
I should probably re-try manually.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83808
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another case:
struct R { int r; };
void baz (char *, char *, char *, char *);
void
foo ()
{
const R a = { 12 };
char b[1][a.r] = { { "12345678901" } };
char c[a.r] = { "12345678901" };
char d[1][a.r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81877
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 17 12:51:07 2018
New Revision: 256792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256792&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 17 12:51:07 2018
New Revision: 256792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256792&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83885
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-01-17 3:54 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> IIRC HP-UX uses descriptors for functions so
> TARGET_CUSTOM_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS should be defined to 0. If Linux
> doesn't, then t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83886
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 81782, which changed state.
Bug 81782 Summary: [7 Regression] Yet another -Wmaybe-uninitialized false
positive with empty array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83580
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Backport FAILs gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81889
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Backport FAILs gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61743-2.c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83844
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If the DR isn't resolved yet, we should postpone it to GCC9. Is that the case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any progress here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #44 from Sven ---
(In reply to Alexey Salmin from comment #42)
> typedef struct unaligned_int128_t_ {
> __int128_t value;
> } __attribute__((packed)) unaligned_int128_t;
You can combine the packed attribute with the aligned attri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #45 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Sven from comment #44)
>
> You can combine the packed attribute with the aligned attribute. Then you
> can define one struct with aligned(4) and one with aligned(8). Does the
> warning trigger if you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83852
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83892
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83816
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83912
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83816
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|6.4.1 |
Target Milestone|7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83892
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Just as a side-note can we, for increased testing coverage, enable -g with
acats by default?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83846
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83846
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 83848 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83848
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83849
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > Which DR has been filed for this and has there been any progress on it?
>
> I understood the previous comments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83846
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 83849 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83884
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83846
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
*** Bug 83890 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83890
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82965
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Bin or Honza, can you please have a look?
Oh, sorry for missing this. I will look into the case but maybe Honza will be
faster :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83914
Bug ID: 83914
Summary: ice in vect_is_simple_use with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83887
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Not infinite loop but still an invalid non-SESE region... using
post-dominators for SESE merging looks not sufficient.
Testing patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83845
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83898
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83914
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Problem seems to occur between revisions 256582 and 256670.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82461
--- Comment #2 from Freddie Chopin ---
Any chance there is a patch for this problem that could be merged before 7.3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83912
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason we don't NRV optimize here is that check_return_expr isn't called
with retval of a VAR_DECL, but rather a TARGET_EXPR. Looking through to
TARGET_EXPR to TARGET_EXPR_SLOT ICEs later though.
Anyway,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83051
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83914
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82461
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Very unlikely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83874
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83914
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code is
struct {
int *a[8]
} * b;
c;
*d;
e() {
int f;
for (; f; b = d, f--) {
d = b + 1;
c = 8;
for (; c; c--)
b->a[c] = d;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #8 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
An update was made to go1.10beta2, so I rebuilt with the updates but the same
error happens at the same statement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83892
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Just as a side-note can we, for increased testing coverage, enable -g with
> acats by default?
Yes, -O2 -g as the default is fine with me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 09:36:27AM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Started with r254157.
>
The assert causing the problem has been present since r148243.
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #28 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
Richard,
Thank you for your comments.
I see that TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS is constant for for the test case but
multiple_p (group_size, const_nunits) returns 1 in the code:
if (TYPE_V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83186
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82514
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81843
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
