https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92379
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
--- Comment #5 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Okay, I see. thank you for explanation.
I will close this one as not a bug.
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92379
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> That's when building the compiler with -O0 only.
I also see it when doing a normal bootstrap with
--with-build-config=bootstrap-asan. Which should use -O2 -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Feel free to open an issue against GDB or GCC< wherever the debug info issue is
e.g. for the #c4 testcase. Because certainly I see 0 as the value of v even
when it should be 1 or 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92380
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92379
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Sure. But it still is harmless, and a special build config.
Which isn't to say it shouldn't be fixed. But it isn't very high on
the list, that's all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Bug ID: 92384
Summary: Empty class instances have different equal testing
result among GCC versions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
@Richi: May I please remind you this issue?
Is the debugging patching helping to isolate the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Can you please stop changing the status to FIXED. That means a bug in GCC was
fixed. Since nothing in GCC changed, nothing has been fixed.
I think all compilers are trying to convert the object to std::pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
class Empty {};
bool is_same(Empty a, Empty b)
{
__builtin_printf("%p\n%p\n", &a, &b);
void* v[] = { &a, &b };
return v[0] == v[1];
}
int main() {
Empty a, b;
if (is_same(a, b))
_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92363
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 92363, which changed state.
Bug 92363 Summary: wrong subscript value printed when indexing into an empty
array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92363
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
Bug ID: 92385
Summary: extremely long and memory intensive compilation for
brace construction of array member
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 47180
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47180&action=edit
possible fix
This seems to fix the issue,
although a fix in cxx_eval_constant_expression
might be preferrable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
--- Comment #1 from Carl ---
Created attachment 47179
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47179&action=edit
original source file with bad compilation performance
Note the brace member initialization in the constructor: "item_arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
--- Comment #2 from Carl ---
Created attachment 47181
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47181&action=edit
source that does not exhibit bad compilation performance
Note the constructor initializes the member with parens: "item_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> I think the IF_THEN_ELSE version should be canonical, and it should be
> formed in simplify_rtx, not at random spots in combine.
Why? The and/ior varia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
--- Comment #3 from Carl ---
Original "good.cpp" and "bad.cpp" sources now attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92386
Bug ID: 92386
Summary: gdb issue with variable-shadowing
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
--- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have just created a bug to record the debugging issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92386
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Feel free to open an issue against GDB o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92263
--- Comment #8 from Jim Wilson ---
Author: wilson
Date: Tue Nov 5 22:34:40 2019
New Revision: 277861
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277861&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Allow libcalls for complex memcpy when optimizing for size.
The RISC-V back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92263
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Jim Wilson --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 5 23:53:53 2019
New Revision: 277864
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277864&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix conversions for built-in operator overloading candidates.
While worki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Summary|[10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92090
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
There are a gazillion ways to write this without if_then_else, none
obviously better than any other, and it gets much worse if your b,c
have special values.
I don't think this optimisation should be d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Nov 6 01:25:09 2019
New Revision: 277871
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277871&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92373 - ICE in -Warray-bounds on access to member arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
Sori Lee changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s.lee at dpmms dot cam.ac.uk
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #22 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Ugh!
What to do next?
Well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #24 from Sori Lee ---
I retract my last report. I mistakenly thought my example compiled on clang,
but rightly it didn't there either -- the U in the partial specialisation is in
a non-deduced context, and fails to be deduced as discu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #25 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Ugh!
What to do next?
Well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91992
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I haven't had time to debug it but it would help if the test set up an alarm to
avoid hanging the build. Otherwise I have no choice but to disable go in my
builds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91318
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Piotr Henryk Dabrowski from comment #3)
> Sent:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00325.html
Sorry that it doesn't seem to have been reviewed yet; please ping it
occasionally!
runk -v
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.0 20191105 (experimental) [trunk revision 277821] (GCC)
#expected output
$ gcc-trunk -g abc.c
$ gdb -x cmds -batch a.out
Breakpoint 1 at 0x400540: file abc.c, line 12.
Breakpoint 1, main () at abc.c:12
12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90589
--- Comment #11 from mccannd at uk dot ibm.com ---
I've just discovered that /usr/bin/free also exhibits the same symptoms.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918
--- Comment #16 from stli at linux dot ibm.com ---
Just as information, this glibc commit will be first available with glibc 2.31
release:
"S390: Fp comparison are now raising FE_INVALID with gcc 10."
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92388
Bug ID: 92388
Summary: ICE in insert_regs, at cse.c:1129
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P
101 - 142 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
