https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92021
Bug ID: 92021
Summary: no warning with -Wlogical-op
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88745
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> (In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #3)
> > filetype.awk is just an AWK script. See
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/manual/gawk.html. A Mach-O file s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88745
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #3)
> > > filetype.awk is just an AWK script. See
> > > https://www.gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
The address type iv_use has pointer type and 64-bit precision, while iv_cands
added (by ivcanon pass) has unsigned int type. So decremental candidates are
skipped because of following code:
4620│ /* Check if w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77502
Rolf Eike Beer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@sf-mail.de
--- Comment #4 from Rol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91953
--- Comment #4 from Kyrylo Bohdanenko ---
The problem can also be worked around by manually specifying "the holy trio" of
constructors and providing empty bodies (= default does not work)
This code compiles with GCC 8.3.0 and trunk (20190919):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
--- Comment #9 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ok i was looking at the wrong code, didn't know libgcc2,
i agree that's the right way to fix this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91953
--- Comment #5 from Kyrylo Bohdanenko ---
Sorry, the move constructor isn't necessary...
template
struct integral_constant {
constexpr integral_constant(const integral_constant&) noexcept {}
constexpr integral_constant() noexcept {}
};
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90858
--- Comment #3 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Ping?
As reporter can I do anything more to move this bug forward?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
Bug ID: 92022
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in alpha_handle_trap_shadows, at
config/alpha/alpha.c:8847
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68401
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Oct 8 10:20:41 2019
New Revision: 276691
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276691&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Extend 'libgfortran/runtime/minimal.c' per r274599 "PR fortran/6840
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91995
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92023
Bug ID: 92023
Summary: Miscompilation when inlining operator delete[]
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Can you please test the following patch:
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/config/alpha/alpha.c b/gcc/config/alpha/alpha.c
index f01305b3c1a6..a7d5454b574b 100644
--- a/gcc/config/alpha/alpha.c
+++ b/gcc/config/al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92024
Bug ID: 92024
Summary: crash in check_local_shadow
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.0 |10.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92019
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92022
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92023
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92025
Bug ID: 92025
Summary: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-12.c XPASSes
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92025
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92026
Bug ID: 92026
Summary: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-18.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92026
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92023
--- Comment #2 from Bruno De Fraine ---
Thanks Richard, for explaining that gcc is optimizing the comparison between
the address of a static object and a pointer to dynamic memory returned by
operator new[]. I realized something was special about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92027
Bug ID: 92027
Summary: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_10.f90
FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92027
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92028
Bug ID: 92028
Summary: OpenACC 'host_data' execution test regressions with
nvptx offloading
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92029
Bug ID: 92029
Summary: Regression: 'libgomp.fortran/pr90779.f90' ICE for
nvptx offloading
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92028
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at that commit, what I've commited in target.c is certainly not what I
meant to commit, which was something like (untested):
--- libgomp/target.c.jj 2019-10-07 13:09:07.038253353 +0200
+++ libgomp/tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90858
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91740
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91740
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Oct 8 13:38:35 2019
New Revision: 276699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91740 - ICE with constexpr call and ?: in ARRAY_REF.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92030
Bug ID: 92030
Summary: Wrong asm code for aliases on MIPS.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92031
Bug ID: 92031
Summary: Incorrect "taking address of r-value" error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92031
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90858
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Nice! Do you plan on backporting the fix to active branches? (all gcc versions
since 4.7 are affected)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90858
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Not quite sure if that is a backportable change. Maybe if we knew what exactly
in that commit made the difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92028
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92025
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Oct 8 15:33:50 2019
New Revision: 276703
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276703&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR tetsuite/92025
* gcc.dg/Wstri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92025
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92026
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91801
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Oct 8 16:31:16 2019
New Revision: 276706
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276706&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-08 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91801
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92028
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47007
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47007&action=edit
gcc10-pr92028.patch
Updated patch with a longish comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91994
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 8 17:01:55 2019
New Revision: 276707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/91994
* config/i386/i386.c (x86_avx_u12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88745
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
We are using yet another object file reader because libbacktrace is designed to
run correctly when invoked by a signal handler, so it cannot use ordinary
memory allocation.
libbacktrace is only used when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92025
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
> Yes. r276603 has made it possible: PR middle-end/91977 - missing
> -Wstringop-overflow on memcpy into a pointer plus offset
Good, thanks.
> Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92032
Bug ID: 92032
Summary: DR 1601 - Promotion of enumeration with fixed
underlying type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92032
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
We give f(int) cr_promotion:
1487 /* Give this a better rank if it's a promotion. */
1488 if (same_type_p (to, type_promotes_to (from))
1489 && next_conversion (conv)->rank <= cr_pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #32 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #29)
> A common way of doing that is to make $host and $build textually different
> (after passing through config.sub) while still logically the same. E.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88630
--- Comment #13 from Zavadovsky Yan ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #12)
>
> Please try it out. Let me know what you find
GCC 8.2 + "trial patch" : assert passed
GCC 8.2 + "patch from comment 12" : assert failed
GCC 8.2 + "patch from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88745
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #7)
> We are using yet another object file reader because libbacktrace is designed
> to run correctly when invoked by a signal handler, so it cannot use ordinary
> mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87820
--- Comment #2 from Francisco Gallego Salido
---
(In reply to ExtComm.CODA from comment #1)
> clang and intel-compiler don't fail
Btw I've just realized that the example is wrong, because the class has only
default constructor and I'm initializ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88745
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
filetype.awk will be run on a program compiled by the target compiler, so it
should get the correct result.
I agree that the endianness shouldn't matter with regard to the code, although
of course filetyp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92026
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Oct 8 19:48:27 2019
New Revision: 276711
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276711&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92026 - gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-18.c FAIL
PR middle-end/92
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92014
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Oct 8 19:48:27 2019
New Revision: 276711
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276711&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92026 - gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-18.c FAIL
PR middle-end/92
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92026
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 92014, which changed state.
Bug 92014 Summary: [10 Regression] bogus warning: writing 8 bytes into a region
of size 1 in timezone/zic.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92014
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92014
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91647
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 91647, which changed state.
Bug 91647 Summary: [10 Regression] new FAILs for Warray-bounds-8 and
Wstringop-overflow-3.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91647
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 91647, which changed state.
Bug 91647 Summary: [10 Regression] new FAILs for Warray-bounds-8 and
Wstringop-overflow-3.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91647
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
this is fixed for Darwin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92024
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
This seems to fix the ICE:
Index: pt.c
===
--- pt.c(revision 276634)
+++ pt.c(working copy)
@@ -10973,6 +10973,9 @@
||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92033
Bug ID: 92033
Summary: ICE during dom with -march=armv8.2-a+sve
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92034
Bug ID: 92034
Summary: extern template declarations cannot have internal
linkage (unnamed namespace)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92034
--- Comment #1 from Alisdair Meredith ---
Sorry, link to Compiler Explorer showing the right compiler test (Clang 9):
https://godbolt.org/z/9QIIrE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92032
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
--- Comment #18 from Zaak ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> by the way, I haven't been able to find a C reproducer for this issue - if
> you feel we should have a testcase for it perhaps a link test for the
> fortran example would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90836
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:50:05 2019
New Revision: 276721
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276721&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-08 Dmitrij Pochepko
PR tree-optimization/90836
* g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #33 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
It can be useful to have the fully-prefixed host tools (but you don't need
to, you can also make your build system set all the variables such as CC
and CXX that are needed for the host).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90836
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:53:03 2019
New Revision: 276722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276722&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-08 Dmitrij Pochepko
PR tree-optimization/90836
* l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92001
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Oct 8 22:12:54 2019
New Revision: 276725
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276725&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92001 - missing -Wclass-memaccess with array as first argument to m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92001
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92018
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92033
--- Comment #1 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This seems to happen pretty much for any arithmetic ops inside loop with SVE.
For instance, with cases:
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
dst[i] = ~in1[i];
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
dst[i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #34 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #33)
> to, you can also make your build system set all the variables such as CC
> and CXX that are needed for the host).
As well as AS, LD and all the rest?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91860
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91860
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46919|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #35 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, stsp at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
> As well as AS, LD and all the rest?
> But that defeats the entire purpose of configure.
> I need it to work on my PC, on launc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #36 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #35)
> what you want. I'm familiar with many of the details through having
> written multiple such build systems myself.
But even you do make the wrong exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81244
Timothy Arceri changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92018
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92019
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92035
Bug ID: 92035
Summary: [AVX512F]Unimplemented intrinsic
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83730
--- Comment #6 from Wilhelm M ---
This is still true for local statics as shown below:
// Test für guard variable
struct A {
inline A(int v = 0) {} // without user-defined ctors, guards are omitted
int m1() const {
return m;
87 matches
Mail list logo
