https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93374
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93676
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
We might get away with just avoiding value-init in a template:
--- a/gcc/cp/init.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/init.c
@@ -4520,7 +4520,7 @@ build_vec_init (tree base, tree maxindex, tree init,
We do need to keep goi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
Here's the minimal test case using options -O3 -mcpu=power8
-fstack-protector-strong:
void bar();
char b;
void
foo (void)
{
char a;
int d = b;
char *e = &a;
while (d)
*e++ = --d;
bar ();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93676
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93683
Bug ID: 93683
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_size,
at tree-ssa-alias.c:714
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93684
Bug ID: 93684
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in cp_lexer_consume_token, at
cp/parser.c:1120
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93685
Bug ID: 93685
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_constructor_append_expr,
at fortran/constructor.c:135
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93686
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93686
Bug ID: 93686
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_data, at
fortran/decl.c:702
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93668
--- Comment #7 from fdlbxtqi ---
I mean it is a bug.
constexpr int f()
{
auto p(new int[1]);
delete p;
return 4;
}
int main()
{
constexpr auto w(f());
}
I mean this is UB so it should not compile. However, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93683
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93683
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> I tried out -fanalyzer with all the C code under gcc/testsuite.
>
> There are 35368 C source code files. 234 crashes so far.
>
> Here are the first ten:
Than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93684
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93681
Tavian Barnes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tavianator at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93684
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93687
Bug ID: 93687
Summary: Add mcf thread model to GCC on windows for supporting
C++11 std::thread?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93688
Bug ID: 93688
Summary: Add mcf thread model to GCC on windows for supporting
C++11 std::thread?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93687
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 93688 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93688
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93689
Bug ID: 93689
Summary: ICE with default argument in lambda used as non type
template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93191
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93689
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
One of the first things combine tries is
Trying 7 -> 8:
7: r96:SI=r104:SI&0xe
REG_DEAD r104:SI
8: r99:DI=sign_extend(r96:SI)
...
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (reg/v:SI 96 [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(The original problem I have an idea for -- don't generate a parallel of
two SETs with equal SET_SRC -- but that doesn't handle the new case).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93689
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The test was rejected with various errors, then with
r9-4045-g0c1e0d63fe0ceabbd04384070f3b59f8bf50de09 we got this ICE:
93689.C: In function ‘int f() [with auto Z = main()::{}]’:
93689.C:5:13: internal compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> (The original problem I have an idea for -- don't generate a parallel of
> two SETs with equal SET_SRC -- but that doesn't handle the new case).
For the n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93689
--- Comment #3 from malle at umich dot edu ---
@Marek Polacek do you (or anyone) think this is a good first issue? I am
curious to try contributing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93690
Bug ID: 93690
Summary: Type Bound Generic Assignment Bug Using Intrinsic
Assignments
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93689
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
That's hard to say without really understanding what the issue is, but I'm
afraid this might not be the best first issue -- it involves some pretty
convoluted features, plus it seems there are two issues (tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93683
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93689
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually the issue might be just one, even the gimplifier ICE seems to be
caused by a CAST_EXPR leaking where it should not. Maybe we fail to substitute
default arguments in lambdas in a template parameter l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93690
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93681
Alexander Cherepanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93691
Bug ID: 93691
Summary: Type bound assignment causes too many finalization of
derived type when part of other type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93683
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a5338e57db1cda13fa788b0e0debbcf99a475d6
commit r10-6585-g9a5338e57db1cda13fa788b0e0debbcf99a475d6
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93683
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93675
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6ef77e023cfe0bb3b12b88ae46b77da356d7f85
commit r10-6586-gd6ef77e023cfe0bb3b12b88ae46b77da356d7f85
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93690
--- Comment #2 from Florian Schiffmann ---
Hi Steve,
the complication here is that it is not the type with the assignment that is a
vector but the Outer type. The type with assignment is a scalar member of the
vector type. Hence the first questi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
nonzero_bits is not reliable. We also cannot really do what you propose
here, all of this is done for *every* combination.
We currently generate
(set (reg/v:SI 96 [ a ])
(and:SI (reg:SI 104)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93690
Florian Schiffmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||floschiffmann at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #24 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> So, yeah, it seems integers have to be stable. OTOH, now that there is sse and
> there is -fexcess-precision=standard floating-poin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93682
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, bugdal at aerifal dot cx wrote:
> I think the underlying issue here is just that -mpc64 (along with -mpc32) is
> just hopelessly broken and should be documented as such.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93212
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:35e24106fc1b782e70f8339e0a1321a2bc7a7f15
commit r10-6588-g35e24106fc1b782e70f8339e0a1321a2bc7a7f15
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:35e24106fc1b782e70f8339e0a1321a2bc7a7f15
commit r10-6588-g35e24106fc1b782e70f8339e0a1321a2bc7a7f15
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91f993b7e31ce85676148dca180bc0d827d4245e
commit r10-6590-g91f993b7e31ce85676148dca180bc0d827d4245e
Author: David Malcolm
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #25 from Rich Felker ---
I think standards-conforming excess precision should be forced on, and added to
C++; there are just too many dangerous ways things can break as it is now. If
you really think this is a platform of dwindling re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692
Bug ID: 93692
Summary: Possible typo: supergraph vs. callgraph
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93693
Bug ID: 93693
Summary: [GCOV] incorrect coverage when compiled with option
'-fsanitize=undefined' for function defined inside
other function
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note there is a -fdump-analyzer-supergraph so it looks like there is a copy and
paste issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The documentation does describe more what super means :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93626
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> I would not recommend combining --coverage and a sanitizer.
Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, this is an abnormal combination.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
Bug ID: 93694
Summary: Inconsistent grammar in darwin.opt
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
double space:
> architecture \"name\"
unnecessarily verbose:
> Specify that the output file should be generated for architecture "name"
Why not simply: Generate output file for the named architecture.
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93675
--- Comment #2 from Mateusz Pusz ---
Thanks!
Mat
śr., 12 lut 2020, 01:09 użytkownik cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> napisał:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93675
>
> --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91052
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d2248bec5d22061ab252724bd59d45c8a47e009
commit r10-6591-g4d2248bec5d22061ab252724bd59d45c8a47e009
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Feb 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91052
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93695
Bug ID: 93695
Summary: Allocation and freeing memory for array members in
loops is not handled properly by the analyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93661
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93696
Bug ID: 93696
Summary: AVX512VPOPCNTDQ writemask intrinsics produce incorrect
results
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93697
Bug ID: 93697
Summary: pr93661.c does not warn on (32-bit) powerpc-linux
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #38 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #37)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #36)
> > MIPS is still broken. I might look into MIPS brokenness next week.
>
> Yes it seems builtin_longjmp has the exact sam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
--- Comment #11 from pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10)
> Should be fixed by the above commit.
David, does this mean the analyzer has C++ support now or just that this
specific bug is fixed in-tree?
101 - 169 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
