https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86682
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86685
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86687
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86688
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86693
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86694
Bug ID: 86694
Summary: gfortran rejects character parameter binding label
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
It's only visible with cross compiler. Can you please test that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86695
Bug ID: 86695
Summary: Calls to builtins do not use visibility information
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, visibility
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86696
Bug ID: 86696
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in handle_char_store at
gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c:3332
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-vali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86317
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.1.1 |7.3.1
--- Comment #1 from Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86697
Bug ID: 86697
Summary: decltype for lambda capture gives wrong type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86683
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
This is caused by fact that:
enum insn_code {
CODE_FOR_nothing = 0,
...
CODE_FOR_p8_vmrgew_v4sf = CODE_FOR_nothing,
CODE_FOR_p8_vmrgew_v4si = CODE_FOR_nothing,
CODE_FOR_p8_vmrgow_v4sf = CODE_FOR_no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86695
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86698
Bug ID: 86698
Summary: Misleading dump-file contents
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: easyhack
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Hmm, I don't remember whether uninit reads invoke undefined behavior, esp.
> result in a trap representation, but the original testcase doesn't seem to
> r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85799
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86699
Bug ID: 86699
Summary: Memory load optimization (-O2) bug
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86698
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86699
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86700
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86700
Bug ID: 86700
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in handle_char_store, at
tree-ssa-strlen.c:3332
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86696
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86686
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy ---
Further investigation revealed that this was due to lack of disk space.
GCC 8.2 seems to need much more than GCC 8.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86679
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86694
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86576
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86484
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86701
Bug ID: 86701
Summary: Optimize strlen called on std::string c_str()
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86701
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Aren't you allowed to have null characters in the middle of a std::string?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85799
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
So what happens, pass_strip_predict_hints is called as last
pass_all_early_optimizations pass. That's called for first function. Then the
second one goes through einline pass, but in this time the first one is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86701
--- Comment #2 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
There is not string analysis to tell us that string has no null characters in
the middle?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86547
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
I've further narrowed this down to the difference between the following
snippets:
// error: impossible asm constraint
struct {} __thread b;
void c() {
__asm__("la 0,%0\n"
:
: "m" (b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81733
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
> I think this is a dup of 81033 - please try the attached patch(es) there.
A x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.2 bootstrap with that patch applied is into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86701
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
How can you determine that without looking at every character, at which point
you might as well just use strlen?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86701
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It seems simpler to just not write dumb code like that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86697
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||54367
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86692
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
Vincent changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.1.0 |8.2.0
--- Comment #32 from Vincent ---
The bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86662
--- Comment #2 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Started with r242888, observed in GCC 7, 8 and 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #6|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81733
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #15)
> > --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
> > I think this is a dup of 81033 - please try the attached patch(es) there.
>
> A x86_64-apple-darwin11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85334
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jul 27 14:40:47 2018
New Revision: 263030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Remove _Unwind_Frames_Increment
CET kernel has been changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86696
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86702
Bug ID: 86702
Summary: [8/9 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 400.perlbench, CPU2017
500.perlbench_r ~3% performance drop after r262247
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86696
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86700
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86703
Bug ID: 86703
Summary: template auto fails deduction, where template int
succeeds
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86696
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86702
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86519
--- Comment #12 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
gcc.dg/strcmpopt_6.c was recently updated in r263028 but it still fails albeit
differently:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/strcmpopt_6.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand "__builtin_memcmp" 6
< FAIL: gcc.dg/strcmpopt_6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86703
Nicolas Lesser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||blitzrakete at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
That does seem to fix the issue, and I think it's also correct, I'm running a
regression test and boostrap over the weekend for it. Will post the results on
monday. thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86704
Bug ID: 86704
Summary: Segmentation fault when using matmul in combination
with transpose
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
--- Comment #12 from Jim Wilson ---
I no longer have access to IA-64 hardware. I was leaving myself as maintainer
just so that there was someone responsible for answering questions. I don't
care if the port survives or not. I can resign if tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86519
--- Comment #13 from Qing Zhao ---
> --- Comment #12 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> gcc.dg/strcmpopt_6.c was recently updated in r263028 but it still fails albeit
> differently:
this is expected, I will provide a separate fix for this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86704
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86636
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Jul 27 16:57:01 2018
New Revision: 263031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fixes to testcase for PR tree-optimization/86636
gcc/testsuite/ChangeL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86696
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86696
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jul 27 17:06:44 2018
New Revision: 263032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86696 - ICE in handle_char_store at
gcc/tree-ssa-strl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86141
ASA changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.3.0 |8.1.1
--- Comment #19 from ASA ---
Regarding the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86511
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Jul 27 17:41:14 2018
New Revision: 263034
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263034&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-07-16 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86511
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86705
Bug ID: 86705
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] pr45678-2.c ICE with msp430-elf
-mlarge
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86705
--- Comment #1 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Untested patch
diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
index d6e3c38..573324a 100644
--- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
+++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
@@ -1258,9 +1258,12 @@ set_parm_rtl (tree parm, rtx x)
poi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86547
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #5)
>
>
> Vladimir, could you please take a look at the attached patch? I
> ran regression with and without it on x86_64, and compare_tests did not
> show any n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86684
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I did try that.
Can you please give your config? Some repro instructions, maybe on a given
cfarm machine?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86687
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Reproduced with trunk gcc/gdb:
...
$ cat bla.C
#include
#include
using std::string;
class foo {
public:
foo (std::string dir_hint) {
std::cout << dir_hint << "\n";
}
};
int
main (void)
{
std::st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86706
Bug ID: 86706
Summary: GCC 8.2 ICE in build_base_path, at cp/class.c:294
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86687
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
The foo::foo function starts at label .LFB1520, which brings us to:
...
.uleb128 0x8b # (DIE (0x5a99) DW_TAG_subprogram)
.long 0x5a75 # DW_AT_abstract_origin
.long .LASF897
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38481
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67186
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at redhat dot com, ian at
airs dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43728
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86707
Bug ID: 86707
Summary: Missed optimization: optimizing set of if statements
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86680
--- Comment #7 from Florian La Roche ---
Hello Andrew Pinski,
shouldn't the compiler see that both must be aligned to 8 bytes
and thus also their difference must be a multiple of 8 bytes?
I haven't looked into gcc sources, but maybe this inform
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86706
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86680
--- Comment #8 from Florian La Roche ---
I've found something the compiler optimized quite nicely:
(Good for the compiler, but I'd be happy to stay with the original code
that was much easier to read for humans.)
extern unsigned long __bss_sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86708
Bug ID: 86708
Summary: strlen of an empty aggregate element or member string
not folded
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86708
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86680
--- Comment #9 from Florian La Roche ---
Puh, even introduced an error here. This one works, but is
getting complex compared to the original code:
extern unsigned long __bss_start[];
extern unsigned long __bss_end[];
void clear_bss(void)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86680
--- Comment #10 from Florian La Roche
---
In my optionion the result of
"end = (__bss_end - __bss_start) * sizeof (unsigned long)"
in my last testcase should show that the compile should be
able to optimize the test code of the original submitte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Version|t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86709
Bug ID: 86709
Summary: 'short type-name' is invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63989
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Blo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86709
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |c++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86709
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86709
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
[apinski@apinski-lnx toolchain-7]$ ./tools/bin/g++ -pedantic-errors t8.c
t8.c:2:12: error: long, short, signed or unsigned used invalidly for
‘slot_tablelen’ [-Wpedantic]
__u8 short slot_tablelen;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63192
eracpp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eracpp at eml dot cc
--- Comment #5 from eracpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63192
--- Comment #6 from eracpp ---
Apologies, it should be `decltype((l))` and `decltype((r))` for the last two
entries in the table.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64825
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> Confirmed that gcc doesn't warn, although my version of clang is older so it
> doesn't warn either. Still, would be nice to have.
Now that I'm on a different com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59616
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45821
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68121
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #16 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44455&action=edit
gcc/config/rs6000/aix53.h for gcc-6.4.0
Needed this patch to build 6.4.0 successfully on AIX 5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #17 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44456&action=edit
gcc/config/rs6000/aix53.h patch for gcc-5.5.0
Needed this patch to build 5.5.0 successfully on AIX 5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86704
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Paláček ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> WORKSFORME on darwin. What is your stack size limit?
Max stack size is unlimited.
Also tried on another computer with older version of GCC and problem
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
