https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98900
Bug ID: 98900
Summary: Wrong static analyses warning when optimisation is on
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98901
Bug ID: 98901
Summary: Static analyses warning disappears when the value is
passed to a function with variable number of arguments
when optimisation is on
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98902
Bug ID: 98902
Summary: -fmerge-all-constants leaves dangling reference
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98902
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
What's your target? There is supposed to be ".set a2,a1" at the end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98903
Bug ID: 98903
Summary: [Coarray, F2018] Implement TEAM_NUMBER in
image-selector-spec
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98902
Alexander Strange changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98902
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98904
Bug ID: 98904
Summary: valgrind error in gfc_trans_assignment_1 during
bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98904
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
The compile line of relevance is
/home/dcb/gcc/working.valgrind/./gcc/gfortran
-B/home/dcb/gcc/working.valgrind/./gcc/
-B/home/dcb/gcc/results.20210131.valgrind/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/dcb/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85428
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98905
Bug ID: 98905
Summary: lstat() confused with wrong struct stat
Product: gcc
Version: 5.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98900
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98904
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98901
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98905
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-31
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98900
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98906
Bug ID: 98906
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] Miscompiles code even at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87489
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 50098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50098&action=edit
Patch to move -Wnonnull to pass_merge_phi.
No change in GCC 11 so far. I've reduced the test case in attachmen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98906
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So ccp3 is doing it.
Visiting statement:
quo_lo_52 = floorf (_51);
which is likely CONSTANT
Match-and-simplified floorf (_51) to -8.6e+1
Lattice value changed to CONSTANT -8.6e+1. Adding SSA edges to workli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98906
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think this code is undefined/unspecified as -86 is outside the range of an
> unsigned int.
Even with changing to cast to int first still gives the same. Note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87489
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50098|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98906
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
unsigned quo = (uint32_t)(int64_t)(quo_hi) +
(uint32_t)(int64_t)(quo_lo);
Fixes the issue ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87489
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|deferred|patch
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98906
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98825
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The folowing patch fixes this and regression tests OK.
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/transfer.c b/libgfortran/io/transfer.c
index 8ab0583dd55..27bee9d4e01 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/transfer.c
+++ b/libgfortr
gcc (Debian 11-20210130-1) 11.0.0 20210130 (experimental) [master
revision 4d31df40899:799f8820257:2900f2f2c5fb234678eb8b76564e5994ec5970b9]
gcc -fanalyzer for the sample code below gives false positive results.
If I remove field ref from struct marker, no problem is reported.
Best regards
Hein
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98870
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98907
Bug ID: 98907
Summary: Failure to optimize abs pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
28 matches
Mail list logo
