https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Not you can get a runtime error if you use -fsanitizer=undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
In c++ (unlike C) return from a non void function is undefined even if the
return value is not used.
In c, only of the return value is used it would be undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
First off internal documentation is not user documentation.
Second internal documentation is not always in sync with the code. In this
case it seems like it is not fully. Basically BB reordering does the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That optimization seems to ignore completely the involved types.
Consider following testcase instead, where in foo the addition is performed
originally in unsigned long long type and in baz in double type, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91401
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:08:49 2019
New Revision: 278573
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278573&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-08-09 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91623
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:09:57 2019
New Revision: 278574
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278574&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-09-01 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91106
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:11:19 2019
New Revision: 278575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-09-06 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91105
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:11:19 2019
New Revision: 278575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-09-06 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91001
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:11:19 2019
New Revision: 278575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-09-06 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91665
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:12:06 2019
New Revision: 278576
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278576&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-09-07 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91974
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:12:57 2019
New Revision: 278577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278577&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-04 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92056
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:13:41 2019
New Revision: 278578
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278578&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-17 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92201
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:14:25 2019
New Revision: 278579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-29 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:15:01 2019
New Revision: 278580
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278580&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-22 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:15:56 2019
New Revision: 278581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-10-31 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:17:20 2019
New Revision: 278582
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278582&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-11-08 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
--- Comment #18 from Aleksey ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17)
> First off internal documentation is not user documentation.
> Second internal documentation is not always in sync with the code. In this
> case it seems like it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91450
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:18:17 2019
New Revision: 278583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-11-19 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90898
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:18:55 2019
New Revision: 278584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-11-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:20:04 2019
New Revision: 278585
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278585&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-11-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90840
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:20:47 2019
New Revision: 278586
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278586&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-11-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91355
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:21:46 2019
New Revision: 278587
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278587&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91355
* tree-ssa-sink.c (select_best_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Aleksey from comment #16)
> > > It would be helpful if you give the explanation how these options affect
> > > "un-factoring".
> >
> > What options? -fno-reorder-blocks? Those doo the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92595
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92595
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:41:16 2019
New Revision: 278590
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278590&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing VECTOR_MODE_P checks (PR 92595)
This patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92543
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92543
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:43:24 2019
New Revision: 278591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add more markup to vect-alias-check-{1,18}.c (PR 92543)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92526
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Nov 21 17:45:36 2019
New Revision: 278592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278592&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Reject versioning for alignment with different masks (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92526
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92619
Bug ID: 92619
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/gnu2x-attrs-1.c fails starting
with r278547
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92619
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
duh, it looks like I missed a "" in the dg-error .. will sort it out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92620
Bug ID: 92620
Summary: Ignored -fno-builtin -fno-builtin-memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #5 from Anthony Williams ---
Where can I file a bug in the vDSO?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90836
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 90836, which changed state.
Bug 90836 Summary: Missing popcount pattern matching
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90836
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92620
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Why do you think this is a bug?
>
> From https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.2.0/gcc/Standards.html#Standards:
> Most of the compiler support routines used by G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
Bug ID: 92621
Summary: Segmentation fault with assumed rank allocatable
intent(out) with bind(c)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 47327
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47327&action=edit
C code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92622
Bug ID: 92622
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-22.c on ILP32: missing
warnings for VLA on lines 67 and 69
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92622
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92623
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92623
Bug ID: 92623
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-17.c on ILP32: missing
warning on line 8
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92575
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92575
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |libfortran
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
--- Comment #20 from Aleksey ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #19)
> '-freorder-blocks'
> Reorder basic blocks in the compiled function in order to reduce
> number of taken branches and improve code locality.
>
> E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92619
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Nov 21 19:56:34 2019
New Revision: 278594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278594&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[testsuite] Fix bad dg-error syntax in gnu2x-attrs-1.c.
2019-11-21 Iain Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92619
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I don't think you need lines 4909..4911.
How can we test this? Is there good test coverage for it already?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Something like the following fixes the testcase, but leads to regressions
elsewhere in the testsuite (e.g. direct_io_{9,10}.f):
Index: libgfortran/io/transfer.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92608
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Thu Nov 21 20:20:36 2019
New Revision: 278598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use safe_dyn_cast instead of dyn_cast in find_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92602
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FYI, this also causes an issue when building spec2017 in case anyone else runs
into that. I'll have to change this part to use -fcommon.
/home/seurer/gcc/install/gcc-test/bin/gcc -m64 -O3 -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92602
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #4)
> FYI, this also causes an issue when building spec2017 in case anyone else
> runs into that. I'll have to change this part to use -fcommon.
That was/is PR 92612.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/ but I think they prefer bugs to be reported to
distros unless you're actually using the upstream kernel. So report it to
Ubuntu (but mention it's also seen in Fedora).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92402
Will Wray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wjwray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92267
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92624
Bug ID: 92624
Summary: inconsistent folding of strcmp calls with unterminated
arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Daniel,
(In reply to Daniel Marjamäki from comment #9)
> Problems;
>
> * Code that performs comparison properly gets a warning.
You get a warning if you compare a signed thing to an unsigned thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Oh, and I think you can drop the
if (!TARGET_ALTIVEC && !TARGET_VSX)
thing? The rest of the code should handle that fine?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92611
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think Richard laid ground for this to work on x86 (it needs AVX512?),
AVX512 is not needed.
> not sure what is needed in the backend here to make V4QI -> V4SI co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92625
Bug ID: 92625
Summary: Internal compiler error accessing element in static
constexpr char array in template class using alias
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
Yes, you are right, it's fine to drop it. Since the previous code will early
return if it's under (!TARGET_ALTIVEC && !TARGET_VSX), I was thinking it may be
good to put an early return there. I'm fine to remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47325|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
FWIW, I did some statistics collection with regression testing on P8 machine,
the #hits on early return is 516, while the other # is 1147412. So the
conclusion is that early return is useless (at least for those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55809
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Marjamäki ---
> Do you have examples of perfectly fine code where you get a warning?
So, how would you fix the warning for `f`? Many programmers would "fix" it with
a cast.
Assuming that `s` and `u` can have arbitrar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16168
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Oren Ben-Kiki from comment #10)
> All good points, which you could say about many opened bugs.
>
> The `-Weffc++` flag is a useful tool to keep large code bases working, even
> when written by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22395
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> private inheritance doesn't mean the destructor can't be called with the
> wrong static type
>
> class Foo {
> public:
> ~Foo() {}
> virtual void f() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56879
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81930
Bug 81930 depends on bug 56879, which changed state.
Bug 56879 Summary: -Weffc++ warns about non-virtual base class destructor even
if it is protected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56879
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> For the first testcase [basic.scope.class] says no diagnostic required,
> doesn't it?
ok but what about adding an optional one though?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> Hi Daniel,
>
> (In reply to Daniel Marjamäki from comment #9)
> > Problems;
> >
> > * Code that performs comparison properly gets a warning.
>
> You ge
101 - 178 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
