https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The C standard says "The type of an integer constant is the first of the
corresponding list in which its value can be represented." The corresponding
list for decimal constants with no suffix is int, long i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97898
Bug ID: 97898
Summary: ICE in outermost_invariant_loop, at
tree-ssa-loop-im.c:431
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97860
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As I said, [0] is not a VLA bound.
And we don't record anything for constant bounds (even if they are in the
middle).
So perhaps:
/* array_type_nelts assumes the middle-end TYPE_DOMAINs, while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97895
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97523
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Better test:
// PR c++/97523
// { dg-do compile }
struct T {
explicit T();
T(int);
};
void
fn (int n)
{
new T[1]();
new T[2]();
new T[3]();
new T[n]();
#if __cpp_aggregate_paren_init
new T[](
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97506
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
--- Comment #7 from s.baur...@tu-berlin.de ---
I do understand that +2147483648 is not an int. I am aware of how the 2s
complement works. It seems to me the reason for INT_MIN being '(-2147483647 -
1)' instead of the mathematically equivalent '-21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RES
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you design your own programming language, you can define it whatever way you
want, but for C and C++ it is well defined how the compiler must behave in
these cases, that -2147483648 are two separate tokens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to s.bauroth from comment #7)
> > The type of an integer constant is the first of the corresponding list
> > in which its value can be represented.
> These kind of sentences make me think gcc's be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97880
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97876
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Github's poor life choices should not be our problem ;-)
If clang-8 doesn't ship and doesn't work with GCC's ,
I would interpret that as you can't test with clang-8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97860
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
What I mean is that unless error_mark_node necessarily implies (and guarantees)
the bound is a constant zero (as opposed to a similarly "broken" VLA bound),
simply bailing is safer than skipping it. I have no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
--- Comment #10 from s.baur...@tu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to s.bauroth from comment #7)
> > > The type of an integer constant is the first of the corresponding list
> > > in which its value can be re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97879
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-18
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab ---
2147483648 does not fit in 32 bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
Alan, didn't one of your recent patches fix this particular bug? So can we
mark this as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97873
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 49588
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49588&action=edit
Proposed patch
Attached patch introduces relevant peephole2 pattern (and fixes some other
issues).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #40 from Jim Wilson ---
If you look at riscv.opt you will see that the -mshorten-memrefs option sets
the variable riscv_mshorten_memrefs. If you grep for that, you will see that
it is used in riscv_address_cost in riscv.c. I believe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97873
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The attached patch generates:
movl%edi, %eax
negl%eax
cmovs %edi, %eax
ret
The patch changes CC mode of NEG instruction to CCGOCmode, which is the same
mode as the mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On November 18, 2020 3:55:44 PM GMT+01:00, amacleod at redhat dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
>
>--- Comment #12 from Andrew Macleod ---
>Maybe I'm a little de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
> If there is a git branch or so, I could also test it on my system with our
> code whether this works as expected.
Here you go - this is config.{sub, guess}, libt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96671
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f44e6091627372bd8fc4e72874a003643b021dca
commit r11-5146-gf44e6091627372bd8fc4e72874a003643b021dca
Author: Eugene Rozenfeld
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97873
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So then either we should expand the SWI48x mode abs for !TARGET_EXPAND_ABS
> into
> a pre-reload define_insn_and_split with abs that we'd split almost like
> smax,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #16 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
I've updated the bounty, and you can follow the work here:
https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu
Whenever something relevant happens, I'll report it here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97893
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3f312b535f57b5773953746f6ad0d890ce09b88
commit r11-5148-gf3f312b535f57b5773953746f6ad0d890ce09b88
Author: David Malcolm
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97893
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97847
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I can now reproduce it, with a compiler built yesterday (previous was a
few days older), and -O0.
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97888
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71c9d2b088c9d409a1bd3b50523ac4623a5bf1b4
commit r11-5150-g71c9d2b088c9d409a1bd3b50523ac4623a5bf1b4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91029
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71c9d2b088c9d409a1bd3b50523ac4623a5bf1b4
commit r11-5150-g71c9d2b088c9d409a1bd3b50523ac4623a5bf1b4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85811
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1be4878116a2be82552bd59c3c1c9adcac3d106b
commit r11-5152-g1be4878116a2be82552bd59c3c1c9adcac3d106b
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Wed Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91029
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97879
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97861
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97847
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This was caused (or exposed) by e3b3b59683c1:
commit e3b3b59683c1e7d31a9d313dd97394abebf644be
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
Date: Fri Nov 13 12:45:59 2020 -0500
[PATCH] Implementation of asm goto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97817
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I agree that the text of the warning could be improved. I'm hoping to make
changes along the lines you suggest for GCC 12 (it's too late for GCC 11),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
Bug ID: 97899
Summary: internal compiler error: in split_nonconstant_init_1,
at cp/typeck2.c:626
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #1 from Florin Iucha ---
Created attachment 49590
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49590&action=edit
pre-processed source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-19
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #3 from Florin Iucha ---
gcc version 11.0.0 20201108 (previous snapshot) is compiling fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r11-4959.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #5 from Florin Iucha ---
Curious, were you able to reduce it further, or just bisected it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced:
// PR c++/97899
template
T fn(T a)
{
return a;
}
template
struct C {
void bar() {
int d = 42;
const int i = int{fn(d)};
}
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #7 from Florin Iucha ---
Cool, thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89197
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89197
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97900
Bug ID: 97900
Summary: g++ crashes when instantiating a templated function
with a template-type vector parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97900
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Strobl ---
Created attachment 49593
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49593&action=edit
gcc -v and crash output
Attaching the output seems to have failed last time. Here it is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89197
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91029
--- Comment #8 from Bruno Haible ---
> what is the reason to require that b >= 0 in all of this?
In the 1990ies there were portability problems with a%b, b < 0. ANSI C said
that the result was machine-dependent if a < 0 or b < 0. Fortunately the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced even more:
// PR c++/97899
template
int fn()
{
return 1;
}
template
void bar() {
const int i = int{fn()};
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97900
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Confirmed. Started with r266055.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97900
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97900
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97891
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
This problem is very similar to the one pass_rpad deals with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97901
Bug ID: 97901
Summary: ICE at -Os: verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97579
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Actually still ICEs.
Yes, it was just a fix for the ISEL logic which was broken, not yet a fix for
the actual testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97895
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97897
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97898
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
CC|
101 - 165 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
