https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #0)
>
> Printing the assembly with GDB shows that the IP seems to be pointing at
> data instead of code(?):
>
> (gdb) x/5i $pc
> => 0x5380c0 : .word 0x0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80471
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #28 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
The -funsafe-math-optimizations option has a similar problem (on all
processors, I assume) -- I've just filed pr93806 for it. I guess unstable FP
results are essential for this mode but integers compu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93810
Bug ID: 93810
Summary: missing -Wmismatched-tags on a typedef of an implicit
class template specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93811
Bug ID: 93811
Summary: __builtin___clear_cache() is a noop on powerpc (which
is incorrect)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
> Yeah, that looks like data. Something makes it jump to a wrong address. No
> idea why. Can you try to get a bit bigger code snippet at that point?
> W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93811
--- Comment #1 from anton at mips dot complang.tuwien.ac.at ---
Created attachment 47870
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47870&action=edit
Disassembly output for demonstration file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #3)
>
> I have put the compiled source into a tarball so you can have a look
> yourself:
>
> > https://people.debian.org/~glaubitz/ruby2.5-G7ZWPI.tgz
Sorry,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93807
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #3)
> >
> > I have put the compiled source into a tarball so you can have a look
> > yourself:
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #11 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93812
Bug ID: 93812
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in get_constant, at
c-family/c-format.c:325
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93813
Bug ID: 93813
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in
gfc_trans_select_type_cases, at
fortran/trans-stmt.c:2874
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93812
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93814
Bug ID: 93814
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in build_entry_thunks, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:2898
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Thanks, that's good. I can look at the disassembly of string.o and found the
spot.
I suspect the switch statements in the code are turned into jump tables, and
for some reason the jump offset is wrong in some c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93810
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing -Wmismatched-tags |missing -Wmismatched-tags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93815
Bug ID: 93815
Summary: wrong plural translation for format string diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93767
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93816
Bug ID: 93816
Summary: invalid typedef name with class key accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 47871
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47871&action=edit
Source and compiler output for string.c
I have created a tarball which contains both the C source,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80379
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93585
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92492
--- Comment #5 from Anton Youdkevitch ---
This is not just about type promotion/demotion.
The results of (-x)>>7 done in unsigned char and in int are different.
In the unsigned char case we do rshift by 7 of 8-bits value which leaves us
with 7 z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथघnig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3fe1910509e32d611b3a7b8503502103bc53b5e4
commit r10-6710-g3fe1910509e32d611b3a7b8503502103bc53b5e4
Author: Thomas König
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68717
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Passed bootstrap/regtest on all of {x86_64,i686,powerpc64{,le}}-linux now, with
powerpc64-linux doing both -m32/-m64 testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93817
Bug ID: 93817
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/diagnostic/array-init1.C -std=c++98
(test for errors, line 10)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93818
Bug ID: 93818
Summary: [10 Regression] Last week's changes in libstdc++ break
using it with clang
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93817
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93817
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b02719918d7bfa224b7caa38fdb9be095cd3f4ad
commit r10-6714-gb02719918d7bfa224b7caa38fdb9be095cd3f4ad
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93817
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93803
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93803
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93803
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93819
Bug ID: 93819
Summary: PPC64 builtin vec_rlnm() argument order is wrong.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93819
--- Comment #1 from Carl Love ---
Created attachment 47873
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47873&action=edit
Patch to fix vec_vrlnm() functionality
The issue with the vec_rlnm() builtin is the order of the arguments in the
b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93819
--- Comment #2 from Carl Love ---
With the attached patch, the test program now runs as follows:
ABI says:
VEC_RLNM (ARG1, ARG2, ARG3)
ARG2 contains the shift count for each element in the low-order
byte, with other bytes zero.
ARG3 contains the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93819
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93769
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93818
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93818
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5b213dda50aca90637979f13da2eb377eff9930
commit r10-6716-ga5b213dda50aca90637979f13da2eb377eff9930
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93818
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|ASSIG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93804
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91800
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=40838
Dzianis Kahanovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47753|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
Slava Barinov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||v.barinov at samsung dot com
--- Comment
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: qrzhang at gatech dot edu
Target Milestone: ---
It appears to be a regression in 9.x. Gcc-8.3 works fine.
Bisection points to: g:be43a8877e2f2f4590ba667b27a24a0cfdf8141d
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 10.0.1 20200218
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93805
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
101 - 150 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
