https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91151
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91165
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87981
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91162
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91164
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91161
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91155
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91155
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91157
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91161
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91164
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like a latent issue to me...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #1 from Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91162
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So somehow autopar doesn't deal with virtual operands being live across the
moved region. move_block_to_fn simply releases virtual PHI defs which leaves
uses of it in the IL. It later calls update_ssa anyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91164
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91166
Bug ID: 91166
Summary: [SVE] Unfolded ZIPs of constants
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91167
Bug ID: 91167
Summary: -pedantic-errors does not turn -pedantic warnings into
errors
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91168
Bug ID: 91168
Summary: -Warray-bounds in valid program
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91166
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91164
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91166
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Awww.
tree
fold_vec_perm (tree type, tree arg0, tree arg1, const vec_perm_indices &sel)
{
unsigned int i;
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT nelts;
bool need_ctor = false;
if (!sel.length ().is_constant (&nelt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91160
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91164
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I think callers are expected to drop dominators if they do not keep them
up-to-date. In fact elsewhere we assume there are no unreachable blocks iff
dominators
are present(?).
We've fixed quite a few place
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91167
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91167
--- Comment #2 from mark.eggleston at codethink dot co.uk ---
On 15/07/2019 11:24, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91167
>
> Dominique d'Humieres changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91163
--- Comment #4 from jdobry at centrum dot cz ---
It is possible that this bug can be related to
https://answers.launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded/+question/682041
Only maybe. I don't know it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Bisecting the Jul 1st regression now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85711
--- Comment #5 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Mon Jul 15 11:00:48 2019
New Revision: 273491
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273491&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport fix for PR85711
Backport from mainline
2019-01-23 Bin C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91164
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85711
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
>
> and I can very well imagine we're getting confused by find_base_term
> logic here.
>
> There's logic in IVOPTs to not generate IVs based on two different
> objec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
>
> --- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #8 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
> > (In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91170
Bug ID: 91170
Summary: [9/10 Regression] Crash in pdns resolver
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91169
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91169
Bug ID: 91169
Summary: [10 regression] cd2a31a FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
>
> --- Comment #8 from bin cheng ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91170
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91171
Bug ID: 91171
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/graphite/scop-21.c XPASSes
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91171
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91162
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 15 12:48:47 2019
New Revision: 273492
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273492&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-15 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/91162
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
It's interesting that:
echo "int main() {}" > main.c && gcc -c -flto main.c && gcc main.o -flto -MF
deps/a.d -MMD
is fine. I really suspect:
$ cat ./gcc/d/lang-specs.h
...
{".d", "@d", 0, 1, 0 },
{".dd", "@d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
Bug ID: 91172
Summary: go1: error: control reaches end of non-void function
in libgo/go/cmd/cgo/gcc.go
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Sounds like global initializers to me.
Btw, -Wreturn-type isn't a Go FE warning, and it's initialized to -1,
so I wonder why go1 accepts it or has it > 0 (the warning is emitted from
pass_warn_function_retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91173
Bug ID: 91173
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: in int_mode_for_mode, at
stor-layout.c:403
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91173
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91173
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91174
Bug ID: 91174
Summary: Suboptimal code for arithmetic with bool
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91174
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91156
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.0 |10.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91156
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46598|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69142
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91160
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 09:49:31AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Fortran allows the arguments of merge_bits() to be BOZ literal constants.
> > m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91170
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That mostly just adds static_assert checks, which can't change anything at
runtime.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91163
--- Comment #5 from jdobry at centrum dot cz ---
I found one new dependency of this bug:
GCC 9.1.0 + binutils 2.30 is OK
GCC 9.1.0 + binutils 2.32 failing with " error: could not unlink output file"
Everything except binutils version was same. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88497
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It still does some weird register moves (the xxlor and the fmr), but
those are totally different problems ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
Andrew Paprocki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
--- Comment #21 from David Edelsohn ---
This error message does not make any sense. The patch fixed the earlier error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91168
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91148
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
That is the function (*Package).gccDebug, which on GCC 7 branch starts on line
1262 of libgo/go/cmd/cgo/gcc.go.
Like Richard I don't understand how you could get that warning. -Wreturn-type
is a C fronte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91175
Bug ID: 91175
Summary: [9 regression] g++.old-deja/g++.pt/instantiate4.C
fails starting with r273489
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
Bug ID: 91176
Summary: [10 regression] AArch64 bootstrap fails since r273479
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80576
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
I've seen code similar to it but I don't remember how close they were. I
imagine it comes up quite a bit as GCC itself transforms code in various ways.
DSE already eliminates stores with constant sizes but i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91148
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Let me put it differently, then:
Such warnings should not be enabled by default before most it warns about
has been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91148
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
And yes, that means a lot of work for whoever wants to make the warning
default (during GCC builds or otherwise).
The alternative is a lot of work for other people. That is not a good
alternative.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
--- Comment #2 from Wilco ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #1)
> Dramantic differences in file size are expected, since stage2 is built with
> -gtoggle (to suppress debug info) whereas stage 3 is built normally. One of
> the th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
objdump -d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
$ diff -u <(objdump -d stage2-gcc/aarch64.o) <(objdump -d stage3-gcc/aarch64.o)
| grep '^[-+].*:$'
-8540 <_ZL27target_gen_sibcall_epiloguev>:
+8540 <_ZL19target_gen_prologuev>:
-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91177
Bug ID: 91177
Summary: Installation Error on Centos 6
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91157
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91177
John Parke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91177
--- Comment #3 from John Parke ---
Thanks for noticing that. I'm not sure how that got set.
Really appreciate your help.
John
John Parke
Alebra Technologies Inc.
PO Box 120390
New Brighton, MN 55112
770-425-1810
-Original Message-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
I suppose it is previously latent problem that we do not skip debug
statements. Does something like this help?
Index: ipa-fnsummary.c
===
--- ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> FWIW I don't think it was a latent bug though. Previously all we did
> with debug insns was estimate their size and speed, which are guaranteed
> to come back as zero and thus have no effect. The reason for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84579
--- Comment #2 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
@Martin (and @Richard), I have seen you submitted this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg01059.html which I guess would
fix this bug. If accepted in gcc 10, do you think it is safe to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84579
--- Comment #3 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
@Martin (and @Richard), I have seen you submitted this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg01059.html which I guess would
fix this bug. If accepted in gcc 10, do you think it is safe to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91050
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Jul 15 20:57:53 2019
New Revision: 273498
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273498&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Always output .machine
We now can always output .machine (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91163
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Sounds like a dup of PR93069
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91163
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Suggest you run the application under "strace -f" to try to identify what is
being duplicated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80576
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Interestingly enough, it never comes up in gcc AFAICT, at least not the str*
followed by memcpy/memset variant that shows up in that BZ. I don't think it'd
be terribly hard to support, but if it's not going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91163
--- Comment #8 from jdobry at centrum dot cz ---
It is NOT duplicate of PR90369.
I belive that I found problem and solution already.
Problem is somewhere in binutils.
Released version 2.31 nad 2.32 are broken. Previous version 2.30 is OK.
Current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
Bug ID: 91178
Summary: GCC fails with internal compiler error.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
94 matches
Mail list logo
