https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 24 07:08:24 2018
New Revision: 264523
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264523&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-24 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63155
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87394
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87396
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87396
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87400
Bug ID: 87400
Summary: GCC doesn't produce valid frames for stack traces with
Thumb-2 (Cortex-M3+)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87401
Bug ID: 87401
Summary: [9 Regression] Runtime segfault with associated
intent(out) variable
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87401
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> With current trunk this fails at runtime
To be precise, I'm at r264522.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87401
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87401
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87362
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44729|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87362
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> Created attachment 44740 [details]
> patch
>
> "Final" patch. Still runs into the SYMBOL_LANGUAGE issue but I failed to
> create a small reproducer (genchec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87398
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87398
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86078
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Richi: Is it desired to have the param names sorted in the documentation
alphabetically?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87400
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87402
Bug ID: 87402
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:3645
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87054
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 44742
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44742&action=edit
candidate patch to fix the error reported in comment 5
Hello, Rainer,
Aorry about the regression; I didn't r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87400
--- Comment #2 from Alex Kalmuk ---
I write about mtpcs-frame for thumb, not mapcs-frame, I know the last one for
arm instruction set.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 44739 [details]
> Reproducer for the second problem.
The test succeeds with r264348+patch of r264485, but not with r264349+patch.
IMO it would be better to open a new PR for it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #35 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #34)
> > Created attachment 44739 [details]
> > Reproducer for the second problem.
>
> The test succeeds with r264348+patch of r264485, but not with r264349+pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87400
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Alex Kalmuk from comment #2)
> I write about mtpcs-frame for thumb, not mapcs-frame, I know the last one
> for arm instruction set.
The tpcs is also obsolete (the tpcs was replaced by the atp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
>
> Tamar Christina changed:
>
>What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #21 from Tamar Christina ---
Hmm, I see what you mean. Currently though CXX is unable to find the lto
plugin. It's somewhat confusing that CC is set to target and CXX is host (but
reading back on the ticket you pointed that out as we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
>
> --- Comment #21 from Tamar Christina ---
> Hmm, I see what you mean. Currently t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #23 from Tamar Christina ---
> > Hmm, I see what you mean. Currently though CXX is unable to find the
> > lto plugin. It's somewhat confusing that CC is set to target and CXX
> > is host (but reading back on the ticket you pointed th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou ---
> This change broke the mingw-w64 GCC 8 bootstrap on Windows. The cleanup
> seems a bit too aggressive as now `-B ../..` is never passed down to xg++.
That shouldn't happen though, see comment #16.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87400
--- Comment #4 from Alex Kalmuk ---
Thank you for pointing it out.
So now the alternative is to use .ARM.exidx linker section even for Cortex-M
(or, probably, to use dwarf debugging information on gdb side)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug ID: 87403
Summary: Issues that suggest a new warning
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87396
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Sep 24 10:29:07 2018
New Revision: 264525
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264525&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/87396
* fe.h (Get_Attribute_Definition_Clause):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87362
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
<2><25ce>: Abbrev Number: 7 (DW_TAG_lexical_block)
<25cf> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0x2434>
<25d3> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x401310
<25db> DW_AT_high_pc : 0x16
<25e3> DW_AT_sibling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87404
Bug ID: 87404
Summary: Implement -Wenum-compare and -Wenum-compare-switch
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87396
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #25 from Tamar Christina ---
>> This change broke the mingw-w64 GCC 8 bootstrap on Windows. The cleanup
>> seems a bit too aggressive as now `-B ../..` is never passed down to xg++.
>
> That shouldn't happen though, see comment #16.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87404
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
It comes from Clang, where there's no documentation, only a warning message:
-Wenum-compare: comparison of two values with different enumeration types
-Wenum-compare-switch: comparison of two values with diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87405
Bug ID: 87405
Summary: Implement -Wliteral-conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87406
Bug ID: 87406
Summary: Implement -Wconstant-conversion and
-Wbitfield-constant-conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
Bug ID: 87407
Summary: Enhance -Wunused-function to handle also inline
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is done on purpose as static inline functions are located in many headers
files including gcc's.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 87407, which changed state.
Bug 87407 Summary: Enhance -Wunused-function to handle also inline functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Andrew I don't get it. Can you please explain why it does not make sense to
warn e.g. about function that are declared in a .c file (not header file)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87408
Bug ID: 87408
Summary: Enhance -Wunused-value to catch more complex
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87409
Bug ID: 87409
Summary: Implement -Wunused-private-field
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Which does indeed show that during the bootstrap -B to the right directory
> is passed, and that the file is there. So not sure why it's saying it can't
> find it. If that's the case that the paths are a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87409
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Example:
private field 'm_next' is not used: -Wunused-private-field
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Like these addressed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg01317.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87409
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note removal of private fields can change the ABI of a structure so this
warning should never be turned on by -Wextra or -Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84044
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Test the warning out on clang from a header file and you will see you get the
warning in the header too. As I said I actually ran into this while working on
the vpp project and cursed clang for having this w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87409
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Sure, has limitations, but it was able to catch some dead code in GCC source
files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87054
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Sep 24 11:03:34 2018
New Revision: 264526
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264526&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR87054] adjust testcase for 32-bit x86
The test assumed __int128 to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87404
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #27 from Tamar Christina ---
> Yes, the expected -B flag is present in the screen dump right after
> -Wl,--stack.
> Are you positive that your change in comment #19 eliminates the problem?
Aaahh Yes, and now I understand what the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87405
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Last reconfirmed|2018-09-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Issues that suggest a new |[Meta-bug] Issues that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 87407, which changed state.
Bug 87407 Summary: Enhance -Wunused-function to handle also inline functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87408
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 87407, which changed state.
Bug 87407 Summary: Enhance -Wunused-function to handle also inline functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87409
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why do you want to have static inline functions in headers in C++?
Why do you want to have static inline functions NOT in headers in C++?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
It was in a header file. Clang still earned about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85774
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Sep 24 11:22:38 2018
New Revision: 264528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Unpoison variable partition properly (PR sanitizer/85774).
2018-09-24 M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85774
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 87407, which changed state.
Bug 87407 Summary: Enhance -Wunused-function to handle also inline functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87407
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87362
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
So with all this (the patch) LTO debuginfo looks much nicer (and is smaller)
but that doesn't help gdb to consume less memory or be faster at startup.
*sigh*
I guess that the DW_TAG_imported_unit DIEs cau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87404
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87406
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87406
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We do warn about this, but only with -Wconversion which is not in -Wall or
-Wextra
c.cc:1:24: warning: conversion to ‘char’ from ‘int’ may alter its value
[-Wconversion]
char f(int i) { return i; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Aaahh Yes, and now I understand what the problem is.. as
> https://github.com/Alexpux/MINGW-packages/pull/3877#issuecomment-408660810
> points out, gnatlink is a shell script on non-Windows but on Windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87362
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70230
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87410
Bug ID: 87410
Summary: internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at
fold-const.c:2530
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82699
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ENDBR isn't generated at|ENDBR isn't generated at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87411
Bug ID: 87411
Summary: -fcf-protection -mindirect-branch=thunk incorrectly
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87411
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
.
Seen with: xgcc (GCC) 9.0.0 20180924 (experimental)
Suggested fix is to error out when both options are specified at the same time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83970
--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer ---
Bug 87412 is a related issue, but without -fno-plt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
--- Comment #15 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iii
Date: Mon Sep 24 14:21:03 2018
New Revision: 264535
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264535&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: Fix conditional returns on z196+
S/390 epilogue ends with (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|Regression on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87412
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82699
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #6)
> What's the status of this bug?
My patch is still unreviewed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg01341.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87374
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67629
--- Comment #8 from Matthew Woehlke ---
Given what -Wreturn-type is trying to accomplish, I wonder if a "delayed
issuance" strategy would be in order? IOW, have the front end "trigger" the
warning, as now, but stuff it in a queue or such, continu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87413
Bug ID: 87413
Summary: strlen accepted in array declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82272
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
The proposal was discussed at the spring 2018 WG14 meeting in Brno. There was
strong support for making the change (the details of the discussion and the
straw pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87399
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
IIRC there's a duplicate about __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ and constexpr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87401
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
