https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92389
Bug ID: 92389
Summary: Compiling with -march=icelake-client does not enable
__AVX512VPOPCNTDQ__
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92352
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 6 08:08:39 2019
New Revision: 277873
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277873&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/92352
* gimplify.c (gimplify_asm_expr): Reje
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92387
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92386
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |9.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88339
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88322
Bug 88322 depends on bug 88339, which changed state.
Bug 88339 Summary: Implement P0515R3, C++20 three-way comparison operator
support .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88339
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Whereas with ():
;; Function item_array::item_array() (null)
;; enabled by -tree-original
<;
{
>>) >;
}
I'm not sure if () and {} are semantica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92390
Bug ID: 92390
Summary: Preprocessor reports 'missing terminating " character'
warning despite #if 0
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpoulhies at kalray dot eu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92390
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>That bug was reported in 2004 and after *15 years* it has not been solved yet.
Because 19 years of ISO C, it is still not a bug. There are other duplicates
which explain why.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92090
Xiong Hu XS Luo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92374
--- Comment #3 from GHoogewerf ---
I'm using a module loader/linker (ELF) that can't handle comdat groups. The
provided example is just a way to demonstrate the problem in a different way.
Since the "--disable-comdat" option exists in recent ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92386
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(gdb) info locals
v = 32767
v = 0
i = 0
(gdb) s
10 v++;
(gdb) info locals
v = 32767
v = 1
i = 0
(gdb) s
11 printf("i = %d outer v 1 is %d\n",i, v);
(gdb) info locals
v = 32767
v = 2
i = 0
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
Bug ID: 92391
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-40.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15688
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||victor.morales_cayuela@noki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #1 from Joel Hutton ---
I'm looking into this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #2 from Joel Hutton ---
As this fails when it was introduced, and I don't have a SPARC machine to test
on, I suggest making this XFAIL on sparc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Joel Hutton ---
> As this fails when it was introduced, and I don't have a SPARC machine to test
> on, I suggest making this XFAIL on sparc.
I'd rather avoid rando
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92392
Bug ID: 92392
Summary: -Wignored-qualifiers points to diff location
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92317
--- Comment #3 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: avieira
Date: Wed Nov 6 11:22:35 2019
New Revision: 277877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277877&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[vect] PR92317: fix skip_epilogue creation for epilogues
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 47188
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47188&action=edit
debugging patch
So we're unrolling innermost loops of
do m1=1,nope
do m3=1,3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92393
Bug ID: 92393
Summary: Uniform initialization of non-copiable class data
member cause to error
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92394
Bug ID: 92394
Summary: operand_equal_p should compare as base+offset when
comparing addresses
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92394
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Following testcase is mergeable:
struct a {int a; int b;};
struct b {int c; short d;};
void *
retadr1(struct a *a)
{
return &a->b;
}
void *
retadr2(struct b *a)
{
return &a->d;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92394
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
I agree, we shouldn't backport this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92394
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Last reconfirmed|2019-11-06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92394
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92394
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is corresponding stats from gcc 9, so we definitly load a lot more bodies
now
13228 false returned: 'memory operands are different'
(compare_gimple_call:785)
14011 false returned: 'decl_or_type fla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
Bug ID: 92395
Summary: m68k-linux-gnu-gcc generates wrong code when the
-mshort option is used
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Riviere ---
Simplified testcase :
void f(char *begin, char *end)
{
do
{
*end-- = 0;
}
while (end > begin);
}
Note that that the above code only manipulate pointers. No int type is
involved. Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Riviere ---
Cause is in gcc/config/m68k/linux.h:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/config/m68k/linux.h;h=ebdf02810711a28232041d3e73350c7bdcc7b509;hb=HEAD#l231
231 #undef SIZE_TYPE
232 #define SIZE_TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92396
Bug ID: 92396
Summary: -ftime-trace support
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
The m68k-linux target does not support -mshort.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Riviere ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> The m68k-linux target does not support -mshort.
In that case I suggest that GCC should cleanly display an error message when
-mshort is used instead of genera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92317
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
Feel free to submit a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||m68k-*-*
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92394
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I don't like making operand_equal_p deviate more and more from "GENERIC"
syntactic compare to semantic one as "lossy" as GIMPLE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92397
Bug ID: 92397
Summary: real.c -Warray-bounds suspicious warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92397
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #6 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> -- LLVM should support "wa", since that is *the* constraint for VSX
> registers.
> -- musl should use the "wa" constraint in its inline asm.
> -- If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
So unrolling the inner loop of
846 if(iperturb.ge.2) then
do m3=1,3
do m4=1,3
fn(m2,konl(m1))=fn(m2,konl(m1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92397
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Need to respond to Jason's feedback:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00034.html
But there's very little time left for stage1 and I've been trying to get P1327
done, and then hopefully also P133
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91992
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I thought the DejaGNU framework provided a default timeout for program
execution. I'm not sure why that wouldn't kick in here. The code in
go-test.exp is running the program via go-torture-execute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92364
--- Comment #3 from Gordon Mc ---
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your time, and for the quick response.
Yes, I may have reduced the testcase too far. It used to have the problem even
with the values being initialized, but that was a much larger testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Then (In reply to nsz from comment #6)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > -- LLVM should support "wa", since that is *the* constraint for VSX
> > registers.
> > -- musl should use the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77882
--- Comment #10 from Christophe Monat ---
(In reply to Elad Lahav from comment #9)
Thanks for your patch proposal!
> 1. GCC emits a warning:
>/home/elahav/src/projects/aarch64_naked/aarch64_naked.c:15:1: warning: no
> return statement in fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92398
Bug ID: 92398
Summary: [10 regression] error in update of
gcc.target/powerpc/pr72804.c in r277872
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85784
mike at mikeweller dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mike at mikeweller dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85784
--- Comment #3 from mike at mikeweller dot com ---
https://godbolt.org/z/690Gjd
Reproducable in basically any version I try with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
Jean-Michel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c
--- Comment #7 from Jean-Michel ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92366
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92366
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92399
Bug ID: 92399
Summary: Rejects valid: reading of an inactive union member
that shares common initial sequence with the active on
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92038
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92400
Bug ID: 92400
Summary: Incorrect selection of constructor overload for brace
list
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92394
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I don't like making operand_equal_p deviate more and more from "GENERIC"
> syntactic compare to semantic one as "lossy" as GIMPLE.
What would be a preferred solution here then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92389
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
--- Comment #6 from Carl ---
> I'm not sure if () and {} are semantically equivalent [in this case].
For what it's worth, (not sure if I'm allowed to paste a link here, but) on
cppreference.com [1] under "Constructors and member initializer list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #8 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92401
Bug ID: 92401
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in fold_ternary_loc, at
fold-const.c:11698
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92396
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92400
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is another dup of PR 85577, and GCC is doing what CWG DR 2137
says.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92393
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another dup of PR 63707 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91499
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another dup of PR 63707 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92088
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
grokdeclarator would be one place to put a check (e.g. near where it
already disallows non-nested functions with variably modified types).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92402
Bug ID: 92402
Summary: parsing error in lambda trail return type with
decltype, statement expressions and structure bindings
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92400
Thiago Macieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85577
Thiago Macieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago at kde dot org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92399
Nikita Kniazev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88061
Strager Neds changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||strager.nds at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70435
Strager Neds changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||strager.nds at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85458
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Wed Nov 6 23:46:04 2019
New Revision: 277894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-09-19 John David Anglin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85458
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92150
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92150
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 7 00:31:52 2019
New Revision: 277901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92150 - partial specialization with class NTTP.
Here unify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 7 03:06:20 2019
New Revision: 277905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-06 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/90374
* io.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84202
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0)
> GCC silently accepts definitions of functions such as f() below declared
> with attribute returns_nonnull. Clang issues -Wnonnull on functions that
> trivially vi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79618
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9)
> It doesn't. -Wformat-diag runs after adjacent string literals have been
> concatenated. Detecting these kinds of issues would mean enhancing the
> preprocessor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90121
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91330
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
--- Comment #31 from Eric Gallager ---
I think this came up at Cauldron, but I forget what exactly people said about
it...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92396
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92403
Bug ID: 92403
Summary: [concepts] requires expression in if constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92404
Bug ID: 92404
Summary: GCC4.1.2 using “-fPIE -Wl,-pie”
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92404
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92090
--- Comment #10 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to Xiong Hu XS Luo from comment #9)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> > LRA creates
> >
> > ;; Insn is not within a basic block
> > (insn 7037 0 0 (set (reg:PTI 3703)
> >
99 matches
Mail list logo
