https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98729
--- Comment #3 from Brecht Sanders
---
Strange, I'm using the same binutils to build GCC 10.2.0 and have no issues
there.
Configuring the GCC build with `LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET="-s"` works around this
issue for now, but only for win64. For the win3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98716
--- Comment #7 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #5)
> I'm not seeing any failures in the Go testsuite with GNU binutils 2.35.1.
> Anybody know what changed in newer version of the binutils?
The difference is tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98716
--- Comment #8 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #6)
> On the other hand the libbacktrace testsuite now fails when using dwz
> 0.13+20201015-2. But I guess that is not a GCC problem.
>
> dwz -m b3test_dwz_common.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98734
Bug ID: 98734
Summary: ABI diagnostics emitted despite always_inline
attribute
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98716
--- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #7)
> (In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #5)
> > I'm not seeing any failures in the Go testsuite with GNU binutils 2.35.1.
> > Anybody know what changed in new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98727
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9675ccd64efe78bc4791436c34d57cd894640f39
commit r11-6776-g9675ccd64efe78bc4791436c34d57cd894640f39
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98735
Bug ID: 98735
Summary: ICE with -std=c++20 -fmodules-ts -fsanitize=undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98727
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see how either TREE_NO_WARNING or some magic call would help.
Because the user can also write:
// PR c++/98646
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options "-Wnonnull" }
struct B { void foo (); };
struct D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98735
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98078
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Here is what happens. An IPA-CP clone for a particular
devirtualziation context is created but all devirtualziations based on
it are speculative. Then the clone is inlined at one of its call
sites and the d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51757
Language Lawyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||language.lawyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98690
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563790.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98736
Bug ID: 98736
Summary: Wrong partition order generated in loop distribution
pass
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98736
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
== 0;
}
When compiling for x86-64 with the current HEAD as of 20210118 the resulting
code is:
:
0: 48 f7 dfneg%rdi
3: 48 89 f8mov%rdi,%rax
6: f0 48 0f c1 05 00 00lock xadd %rax,0x0(%rip)# f
d: 00 00
f: 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78787
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
for (long i; i != compress_n_blocks; ++i)
"i" is uninitialized; accessing it is UB. So this is ice-on-invalid.
I have no doubt there is an actual bug somewhere here. We just do not
have valid code y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91782
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98738
Bug ID: 98738
Summary: task-detach-6.f90 hangs intermittently
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90859
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97847
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a89c5d3539c36f160ca5b997324ebcd3d601d56e
commit r11-6778-ga89c5d3539c36f160ca5b997324ebcd3d601d56e
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98738
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
I realized I didn't post the command line I used to build task-detach-6.exe
(there are multiple variants of this test); here it is:
gcc/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite$ ../../../../build/./gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98716
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:325e70b47c6c321710c7b9c792b8fbee95cecd63
commit r11-6779-g325e70b47c6c321710c7b9c792b8fbee95cecd63
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is not ice-on-invalid, the invalid in there stands for code that should be
rejected by the compiler (emit error).
UB at runtime can be even int foo (int x, int y) { return x + y; }
but we surely don't wan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98716
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> For UB at runtime, we can warn, but shouldn't error because the code might
> never be invoked at runtime.
As far as I can see at least the C standard disa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98739
Bug ID: 98739
Summary: -fprofile-reproducible is broken
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549
>
> --- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> (In reply to Jaku
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Needs -mcpu=power8. Confirmed with that (and the given options).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98712
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-19
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98714
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86883
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryan_greenblatt at brown dot
edu
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86883
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-19
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #15)
> Only if the undefined behavior is a property of the program, or of all
> possible executions of the program, as opposed to a property of a
> pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 49996
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49996&action=edit
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98717
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[c++20] variadic concept|[10/11 Regression] [c++20]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98740
Bug ID: 98740
Summary: FAIL: c37213j, c37213, kc37213l with stack overflow or
erroneous memory access
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98738
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98612
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Guillaume Piolat from comment #5)
> My reasoning for reporting (while it is minor) is the following:
> - it might not be a conscious choice from GCC developers
> - this is the only intrinsics I've
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98732
--- Comment #1 from 郑之为 ---
Get the gcc executables with this shell script(git must be installed first):
echo rm dir
rm -rf gcc
echo clone repo
git clone https://github.com/zero9178/GNU-Toolchain-for-Windows.git -b GCC-11
--depth=1 gcc
echo enter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98732
--- Comment #2 from 郑之为 ---
The video to tell you guys it's real is too big, so uploading it via
BaiduNetDisk
Link: https://pan.baidu.com/s/1AZqG97Ltg5jBh5nn1cd0wg
Code: wmqb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #10 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49997
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49997&action=edit
untested fix
Hi,
Sorry for late response. The option that seemed to be causing the issue wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98612
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> I asked my colleagues within intel to revise the descriptions in the
> intrinsics guide to make it more explicit about NAN operands.
>
> I'll fix this issue after th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98728
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98729
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|GCC 11 MinGW Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98729
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, the attached file contains DWARF 5 debug info. Try to build the test
file with -gdwarf-4 and see if that makes it work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98731
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.1, 11.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98737
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
101 - 154 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
