https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
Bug ID: 90740
Summary: regression - Incorrect warning (is used uninitialized
in this function)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90544
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 90544 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic |
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Also, why does the warning refers to the variable as "" when it
>clearly has a name?
Because it is most likely not buf but rather the size of buf that is
complaining about.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
--- Comment #3 from Valentine ---
Yep, it uses GCC extension.
Interesting observation that it complains about the size of buffer, that looks
to be correct as if I change to
===
char buf[SIZE];
char* pbuf = buf;
bar([pbuf, &out...](au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
In libgfortran, we have
#define GFC_ARRAY_DESCRIPTOR(type) \
struct {\
type *base_addr;\
size_t offset;\
dtype_type dtype;\
index_type span;\
descriptor_dimension dim[];\
}
and then later
typede
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90738
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90738
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so this goes wrong in the sense that aliasing_component_refs_p sees
*int[] vs int[][1] but the int[][1] access has the actual reference tree
(un-valueized) int[][i]. Then we go
if (same_p2 == 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90738
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 4 08:09:16 2019
New Revision: 271902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271902&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90738
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
>
> --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
> In libgfortran, we have
>
> #define GFC_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89823
Göran Uddeborg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #4 from Göran Uddebo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #22 from Qi Feng ---
Two more similar ones:
x <= y && x == ( 0 or XXX_MIN ) --> x == ( 0 or XXX_MIN )
x >= y && x == ( UXXX_MAX or XXX_MAX ) --> x == ( UXXX_MAX or XXX_MAX )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90728
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think it's [0, -1] but eventually using an unsigned type for the domain.
IIRC we have "pattern matching" for this in stor-layout.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90726
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 4 09:05:10 2019
New Revision: 271903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271903&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-04 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/90726
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> Yeah, I do remember this. I think we settled on the above
> (previously you had dim[7] in the library I think) to be
> compatible. Still a C simple testcase complains:
>
> typedef struct { int ndim; in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90730
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90731
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90732
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90733
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90737
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
>
> --- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
> >
> > Yeah, I do remember this. I think we set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor ---
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 04 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I do remember this. I think we settled on the above
>> (previously you had dim[7] in the library I think) to be
>> compatible. Still a C simple tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90733
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90732
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90715
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
A small self-contained example would be welcome, I can take a look why aliasing
oracle does not mess things up.
Concerning the warning, those are quite hard to do - the line information
should point to mismat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90741
Bug ID: 90741
Summary: Unreachable second '__builtin_malloc' for scalar
'allocatable'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90741
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90715
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe the
* cp-tree.h (CP_OMP_CLAUSE_INFO): Allow for any clauses up to _condvar_
instead of only up to linear.
hunk of r271907 should have fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87234
Ghyslain Leclerc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ghleclerc at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87234
--- Comment #2 from Ghyslain Leclerc ---
I wanted to add that on top of not complaining about the default parameter
redefinition, when the default parameter is provided in the definition only
(not the declaration of the template), the compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90742
Bug ID: 90742
Summary: OpenACC/OpenMP target offloading: Fortran
'allocatable' scalars in 'firstprivate' clauses
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90743
Bug ID: 90743
Summary: Device-side 'malloc' for Fortran 'allocatable' scalar
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
Severity: enhancemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90743
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't understand how you could do that and why.
Unless you perform a whole function optimization, gimplification and omp
lowering and expansion etc. work on individual statements, there is no analysis
on wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90744
Bug ID: 90744
Summary: [9/10 Regression] Bogus length for character
temporaries passed to external procedures since
r268992
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90730
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90730
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90730
>
> Martin Sebor changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90733
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60531
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 4 14:48:38 2019
New Revision: 271910
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271910&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60531 - Wrong error about unresolved overloaded function
For PR605
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90736
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Plain int is enough:
constexpr int fn(const int b) { return b; }
constexpr int c = fn(alignof(int));
alignas(c) char d;
We have an INTEGER_CST with const int type; that doesn't seem entirely correct.
Maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch (finally) submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg00184.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90745
Bug ID: 90745
Summary: [9/10 Regression] std::tuple::operator= parameter
causes error outside immediate context
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90745
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90746
Bug ID: 90746
Summary: __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc should not be tail called
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57309
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46451&action=edit
Preprocessed source of library file for LTO mismatch
Hi,
here is a test case (preprocessed source from libgfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
Btw, I wonder what happens at
> the call boundary inside a single fortran module where
> the caller passes a dim[2] array to a subroutine
> handling arbitra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90741
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the mismatched declaration types are:
void (struct array01_integer(kind=4) &, float & restrict,
logical(kind=4) *)
and
void (struct gfc_array_i4 * restrict, struct gfc_array_r4 * restrict,
GFC_LOGICAL_4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90747
Bug ID: 90747
Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines
re-entered.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90747
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Beliveau ---
Adding missing return on line 4 lets it compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90748
Bug ID: 90748
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15564
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
Bug ID: 90749
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in enclosing_instantiation_of,
at cp/pt.c:13462
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90750
Bug ID: 90750
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in cp_default_conversion, at
cp/typeck.c:2162
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90747
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90747
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|-
rget_alias=hppa-linux-gnu --enable-languages=c,lto --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 10.0.0 20190604 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90751
--- Comment #1 from Sven Schnelle ---
John David Anglin can provide a fix for this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90751
--- Comment #2 from Sven Schnelle ---
John David Anglin can provide a fix for this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90639
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89531
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51654
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90752
Bug ID: 90752
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds accessing the result of string
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90752
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71205
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dushistov at mail dot ru
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90748
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90750
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63149
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jun 4 21:52:32 2019
New Revision: 271927
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271927&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2019-06-04 Bill Schmidt
PR target/78263
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90753
Bug ID: 90753
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds with an extern index in
out-of-bounds range
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90751
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90751
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 46453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46453&action=edit
Patch
Testsuite change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68812
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at doublewise dot net
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79917
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at doublewise dot net
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #20)
> OK, the mismatched declaration types are:
> void (struct array01_integer(kind=4) &, float & restrict,
> logical(kind=4) *)
> and
> void (struct gfc_array_i4 * r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51654
Mathias Gaunard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89803
--- Comment #7 from liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Jun 5 06:04:22 2019
New Revision: 271946
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271946&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2019-06-05 Hongtao Liu
PR target/89803
86 matches
Mail list logo
