https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97031
--- Comment #4 from jean-pierre.flam...@univ-lille.fr ---
see below:
- Mail original -
De: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org"
À: "jean-pierre flament"
Envoyé: Dimanche 13 Septembre 2020 11:55:28
Objet: [Bug fortran/97031] the content of a comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97026
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97028
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Compilation errors for |[9/10/11 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97028
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Introduced with r9-3563-gc038638ea9dfc75fac9559cdb035754af85960d0 and
r9-3560-gfda5d5e6e040d23e7e751a491097090b8f5ff58a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97028
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49213
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49213&action=edit
gcc11-pr97028.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97041
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97031
--- Comment #5 from jean-pierre.flam...@univ-lille.fr ---
I am sorry to bother you once again, for the last time. I have now understood
all things that happened while compiling the very complicated (!) program
below.
pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97043
Bug ID: 97043
Summary: latent wrong-code with SLP vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97044
Bug ID: 97044
Summary: Undefined format macros because of include order on
AIX
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 46011, which changed state.
Bug 46011 Summary: 256bit vectorizer failed on double->int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46011
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97042
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56624
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Michael Zolotukhin from comment #4)
> Sorry, it looks like the reproducer with if could be made, and here it is:
> void foo (long *a)
> {
> int i;
> for (i = 0; i < 100; i+=2)
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57512
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 57512, which changed state.
Bug 57512 Summary: Vectorizer: cannot handle accumulation loop of signed char
type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57512
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78164
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-14
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96994
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, what I see is that expand_default_init calls build_special_member_call for
the default ctor, but because the default ctor is an immediate method, it
returns a TARGET_EXPR with CONSTRUCTOR as the initializ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97043
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e93428a8b056aed83a7678d4dc8272131ab671ba
commit r10-8759-ge93428a8b056aed83a7678d4dc8272131ab671ba
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92567
Paul E. Murphy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||murphyp at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96522
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dbb919d0868319a5503b91049283a189ac1b4ac
commit r10-8760-g1dbb919d0868319a5503b91049283a189ac1b4ac
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97042
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 49214
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49214&action=edit
proposed patch for the ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97042
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49214|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 49215
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49215&action=edit
proposed patch for the ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Could you guys please test the attached patch? Thanks in advance!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92567
--- Comment #2 from Paul E. Murphy ---
For clarity, the prototype of ptrace from glibc:
extern long int ptrace (enum __ptrace_request __request, ...) __THROW;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97042
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So hrm, why did GCC generate lis 0x ; ori 0x ; rldicl instead of
li 0x ; oris 0x ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97045
Bug ID: 97045
Summary: A wrong column is selected when addressing individual
elements of unlimited polymorphic dummy argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96907
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96996
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80794
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijs at stdin dot nl
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #21 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #20)
> Could you guys please test the attached patch? Thanks in advance!
It fixed the ICE on x86_64 I've reported in comment 17. I didn't run a regtest,
though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97046
Bug ID: 97046
Summary: Bad interaction between lbound/ubound, allocatable
arrays and bind(C) subroutine with dimension(..)
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86318
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||90404
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80794
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #22 from Christophe Lyon ---
Yes, that fixes the build for aarch64, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80794
--- Comment #10 from Matthijs Kooijman ---
Also note that pr96996, that was marked as a duplicate of this report, talks
about a notable subcase of the case presented in this report. While this report
talks about constant complete objects (e.g. a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97047
Bug ID: 97047
Summary: missing warning reading past the end of a constant
string returned from a function
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Bug ID: 97048
Summary: bogus/missing -Wstringop-overread warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bogus/missing |[meta-bug] bogus/missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97047
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97029
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:35e3f0829d8e9cdc7ea19917c9f3a7add3f14847
commit r11-3188-g35e3f0829d8e9cdc7ea19917c9f3a7add3f14847
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96653
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:799dd4e10047a4aa772fd69c910c5c6a96c36b9f
commit r11-3190-g799dd4e10047a4aa772fd69c910c5c6a96c36b9f
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97029
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96653
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Compile time and memory hog |-Wanalyzer-too-complex on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > #ifndef RS6000_MODES_H
> > #define RS6000_MODES_H 1
> > #define FLOAT_PRECISION_IFmode 128
> > #define FLOAT_PRECISION_TF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97046
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
Patch posted at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553882.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96968
--- Comment #4 from Andrea Corallo ---
Patch posted at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553882.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91741
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97049
Bug ID: 97049
Summary: Cryptic warning "__builtin_memmove pointer overflow
between offset ... and size ..." with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #22)
> Closely related: the LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE target macro which assumes
> "size in bits" can uniquely determine the format of long double.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96475
--- Comment #23 from Dimitar Dimitrov ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #20)
> Could you guys please test the attached patch? Thanks in advance!
Yes, it fixed all new regressions for pru-elf. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|10.0|10.2.0
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Bug 97048 depends on bug 82456, which changed state.
Bug 82456 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overread on strcpy reading past the end
of an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82456
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Bug 97048 depends on bug 81437, which changed state.
Bug 81437 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overread reading past the end of a string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81437
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81437
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Blocks|88443
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #24 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've submitted the patch in comment#19 for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-September/055079.html
This would also change the affected testcase to include comment#2,
and defer t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97050
Bug ID: 97050
Summary: ICE with segfault in lambda overload resolution
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (devel/omp/gcc-10)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97050
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-14
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97050
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced:
namespace a {
template constexpr bool f = __is_same_as(d, e);
}
struct g {};
struct h;
template auto operator+(i, j) {
auto k = [](auto l) requires a::f{};
return k;
}
void m() {
struct n {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #25 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Remember that Fortran needs a correspondence between a storage representation
> (in bytes / bits) and the kind type on the language s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93608
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05f40bc4c116ba48843728201bc7290a5e518598
commit r11-3196-g05f40bc4c116ba48843728201bc7290a5e518598
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93608
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96650
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97049
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0, 9.3.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97042
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
That's easy. rs6000_emit_set_long_const doesn't generate that sequence.
Incidentally, a patch I had to generate more constants from li;rldicl also
fixes this pr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96041
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97042
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
and of course, li 0x is li -1 which sets all bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97046
Gilles Gouaillardet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gilles.gouaillardet at gmail
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #26 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What Joseph says in c#25. Also, the documentation currently says
The @code{KIND} value matches the storage size in bytes, [...]
which will have to change, too (the standard does not require this,
it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97046
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:56:18PM +, gilles.gouaillardet at gmail dot com
wrote:
> This is the libc subroutine
>
> void sync(void);
>
> The point here is any subroutine (that will not cause a crash) can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97042
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #7)
> and of course, li 0x is li -1 which sets all bits.
Erm, yes. Duh.
So that g:5d3ae76af13 splitter should not fire for numbers that fit in
32 bits but that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97046
--- Comment #4 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
I crafted the reproducer based on a previous one that has already been merged,
and using a libc subroutine was not an issue back then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/git?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/testsuite/gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97051
Bug ID: 97051
Summary: Evaluating is_constant_evaluated in requires clause
fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97042
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
I think that splitter should disappear and rs6000_emit_set_long_const handle
all special cases where you might want combinations of two logical instructions
before handling the li;rldicl, li;rldicr or any other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97052
Bug ID: 97052
Summary: Internal compiler error with substitution failure in
template parameter list of concept declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97052
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-15
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97051
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-15
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97051
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
This compiles when __builtin_is_constant_evaluated is used instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97035
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97053
Bug ID: 97053
Summary: an O3 codegen bug
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94234
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Feng Xue :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9d2def016410a2095df6b399097b482f82064a5
commit r11-3199-gf9d2def016410a2095df6b399097b482f82064a5
Author: Feng Xue
Date: Tue Sep 1 17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97054
Bug ID: 97054
Summary: [r10-3559 Regression] Runtime segfault with attached
test code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97054
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97055
Bug ID: 97055
Summary: Copy and move constructors shadowed by templatized
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97046
--- Comment #5 from Igor Gayday ---
I'd like to add that Gilles Gouaillardet is the author of the reproducer in my
original post.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97053
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
96 matches
Mail list logo
