https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99704
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> How should we handle -march=native on hybrid core?
Nevermind, assume you're meaning the bellow parts are different on hybrid core
02H
EAX Cache and TLB Information
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66728
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc9c4e5fc50c7fcbd27d6cb3dd372f7da8216954
commit r11-7757-gfc9c4e5fc50c7fcbd27d6cb3dd372f7da8216954
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99562
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc9c4e5fc50c7fcbd27d6cb3dd372f7da8216954
commit r11-7757-gfc9c4e5fc50c7fcbd27d6cb3dd372f7da8216954
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71009
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99689
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99694
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc: fatal error: Killed|[9/10/11 Regression] gcc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99702
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE: RTL|[11 Regression] ICE: RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99694
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99702
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Started with r11-7757-gfc9c4e5fc50c7fcbd27d6cb3dd372f7da8216954.
Thank you for the analysis! However I don't think that's possible, since I was
observing the failu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99702
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99702
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE: RTL|[11 Regression] ICE: RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99705
Bug ID: 99705
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in expand_expr_real_1 since
r10-3661
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99705
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99688
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e792ee11aa6ebb6f61e9ed33eb06e260f0ec703
commit r11-7758-g0e792ee11aa6ebb6f61e9ed33eb06e260f0ec703
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99673
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99675
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE during |[10/11 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99677
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I think Andrew is correct. Note we can't elide "unused" not statically
initialized variables (since the initialization is seen as use).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99693
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99677
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I think Andrew is correct. Note we can't elide "unused" not statically
> initialized variables (since the initialization is seen as use).
but here the result is alw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95985
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce it w/ yesterday's gcc-11.0.1-alpha20210321 snapshot
(g:fc24ea2374259d401a46ce3526688b7e79d4cc13).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98655
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce it w/ yesterday's gcc-11.0.1-alpha20210321 snapshot
(g:fc24ea2374259d401a46ce3526688b7e79d4cc13).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99696
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99706
Bug ID: 99706
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: maximum number of generated
reload insns per insn achieved (90)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Try --disable-cet as a workaround
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98655
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99693
--- Comment #4 from rafal at bursig dot org ---
but using -O2 -funswitch-loops will bring me those problems why this flag is
not in default -O2. Which is not a solution.
Maybe -O2 may have weaken version of this optimization and will work only i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89565
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Alemagna ---
Just encountered this bug myself, with trunk gcc (11.0.1 20210321
(experimental)).
See godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/TxW137Whh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55656
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
fixed on master
e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-March/669584.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-22
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99706
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Thos are some interesting options. How did you decide to use them?
TL;DR: they were randomly chosen.
I run (somewhat) automated gcc fuzz testing for several y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99693
--- Comment #5 from rafal at bursig dot org ---
Additional when I use c++ variant of this code and throw exception in else then
in -O2 level the 'if' is removed outside loop:
typedef struct Update {
int m_update;
//...
} Update;
extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99702
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:540dace2ed3949571f2ce6cb007354e69bda0cb2
commit r11-7759-g540dace2ed3949571f2ce6cb007354e69bda0cb2
Author: Kito Cheng
Date: Mon Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99702
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99707
Bug ID: 99707
Summary: missing -Woverflow in floating-point to integer
conversion for known but non-constant value
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99708
Bug ID: 99708
Summary: __SIZEOF_FLOAT128__ not defined on powerpc64le-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99707
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gcc does not know that x will be negative.
Note: x == -1.0 is well defined. As x is converted to double from unsigned int.
-Wconversion might warn about this but I have not tried.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99707
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also this might be caught at runtime with -fsanitizer=undefined but I have not
tried yet. Since this is undefined behavior in this case unlike the original
PR93806.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99702
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1aa525179b72fb7ea7822c794ec844893ed47e4
commit r10-9506-ge1aa525179b72fb7ea7822c794ec844893ed47e4
Author: Kito Cheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99702
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3100cdf24a88aecc428e77fc8a4268947836d66c
commit r9-9301-g3100cdf24a88aecc428e77fc8a4268947836d66c
Author: Kito Cheng
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99706
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Likely an "RTL expansion testcase" using the GIMPLE FE with IL as seen around
RTL expansion could more reliably produce the bad IL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55657
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> > FAIL: obj-c++.dg/property/at-property-13.mm -fgnu-runtime execution test
This is a dyld bug, the objc_setProperty() call should be provided from
libobjc-gnu.dyli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
--- Comment #36 from Richard Biener ---
Note that if we'd want to "preallocate" (or re-use) variables for argument
slots we have to properly arrange them according to the ABI. Consider
a function taking more than just a single argument [passed o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99707
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Gcc does not know that x will be negative.
Actually, the code should have been (without the volatile):
#include
int main (void)
{
double x = -1.0;
unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99705
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The *.original dump diff before/after is
@@ -32,11 +32,11 @@
}
:;
{
-struct C * D.2390;
+struct C * D.2390 = D.2378 + ((SAVE_EXPR <(sizetype) ((struct X *)
this)->n> - (sizetype) D.2380) +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90591
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|sandra at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99687
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4519fe3db366d781f342b7f04c4a09e4cc9fbd9
commit r11-7761-gc4519fe3db366d781f342b7f04c4a09e4cc9fbd9
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99687
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 99687, which changed state.
Bug 99687 Summary: AddressSanitizer: alloc-dealloc-mismatch (malloc vs operator
delete) on 0x60400d50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99687
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99215
--- Comment #7 from Nils Gladitz ---
(In reply to Nils Gladitz from comment #5)
> Apparently when the coroutine happens to be a member function (even a static
> one) printing *frame_ptr results in "{}".
I reported the "{}" issue at the gdb issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99215
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nils Gladitz from comment #7)
> (In reply to Nils Gladitz from comment #5)
> > Apparently when the coroutine happens to be a member function (even a static
> > one) printing *frame_ptr results in "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99215
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to Nils Gladitz from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Nils Gladitz from comment #5)
> > > Apparently when the coroutine happens to be a member function (even a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99709
Bug ID: 99709
Summary: VALUE attribute for an object with nonconstant length
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #4 from Worx ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> It seems the binutils was fixed. Does it help in your scenario?
Yes ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #5 from Worx ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> It seems the binutils was fixed. Does it help in your scenario?
Yes ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #6 from Worx ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Try --disable-cet as a workaround
How apply this option ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Worx from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > Try --disable-cet as a workaround
>
> How apply this option ?
At configure time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Worx from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > > Try --disable-cet as a workaround
> >
> > How apply this option ?
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99710
Bug ID: 99710
Summary: coroutines: co_yield and co_await should only be
allowed in suspension context
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #10 from Worx ---
When I deep dive, in the logs
No issue at the root level :
c3eden /opt/gcc-10.2.0 # ./configure --disable-cet
checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking host system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99701
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99705
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50447
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50447&action=edit
gcc11-pr99705.patch
One possible fix. The reason I've made the build_vec_delete_1 changes was that
P0784R7 was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99694
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b931e4792b8696f3da69f70988720c4d1ec6142a
commit r11-7762-gb931e4792b8696f3da69f70988720c4d1ec6142a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] gcc: |[9/10 Regression] gcc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99649
--- Comment #4 from Filip Bascarevic ---
Thank you so much for your replies. I also contacted the GDB community and will
see what will they reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711
Bug ID: 99711
Summary: Crash when reading an allocated character array in
namelist
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97252
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:150a829accd76ddd73c20628774cb0781f6e8bfe
commit r11-7764-g150a829accd76ddd73c20628774cb0781f6e8bfe
Author: Alex Coplan
Date: Mon Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97252
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] arm: ICE |[10 Regression] arm: ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99712
Bug ID: 99712
Summary: Cannot elide aggregate parameter setup
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99425
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87e3c2ef682e2ba7692ee56142a4eb5b6441c4d3
commit r11-7765-g87e3c2ef682e2ba7692ee56142a4eb5b6441c4d3
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99425
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227
Bug 99227 depends on bug 99425, which changed state.
Bug 99425 Summary: [modules] ICE tree check: expected tree_vec, have tree_list
in lookup_template_class_1, at cp/pt.c:9803
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99425
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99713
Bug ID: 99713
Summary: Add _GLIBCXX_CHECK_PREDICATES that violates runtime
guarantees and ensures predicates are valid
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99714
Bug ID: 99714
Summary: warn about alloca/dealloc mismatches based on calls
with same object in different functions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99715
Bug ID: 99715
Summary: bogus/missing Wmismatched-dealloc warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99714
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99715
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99716
Bug ID: 99716
Summary: -Wanalyzer-double-fclose when fclose is called inside
a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99717
Bug ID: 99717
Summary: ICE in finish_expr_stmt, at cp/semantics.c:681
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99480
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99705
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50449
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50449&action=edit
gcc11-pr99705-2.patch
Another untested fix instead of the above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99673
--- Comment #4 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I posted a set of kernel patches to address all the warnings I found at
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210322160253.4032422-1-a...@kernel.org/T/#t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99716
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks. Looks very similar to bug 93695 - the analyzer "gets confused" in how
it tracks allocations in a loop (albeit with a different kind of resource, and
thus worth tracking as a separate bug).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
Bug ID: 99718
Summary: [11 regression] ICE in new test case
gcc.target/powerpc/pr98914.c for 32 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97926
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba16797fe69a0fae47355aa2c102ffac1c48c3bd
commit r11-7767-gba16797fe69a0fae47355aa2c102ffac1c48c3bd
Author: Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97926
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |testsuite
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99708
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, the __SIZEOF_* macros do not say whether some type can be used. This is
true for all targets!
What would it be useful for to define these macros? They all are equivalent to
#define SIXTEEN 16
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99707
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The front end does not normally do constant prop if the variable is not a
const/constexpr so the warning would be done in the middle end and might have
false warnings so it might not be useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69549
--- Comment #4 from Thiago Macieira ---
And in GCC 11.
gcc version 11.0.1 20210308 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:02f2dc441b1954736cc61e3f97687cd23d5586c5
commit r11-7768-g02f2dc441b1954736cc61e3f97687cd23d5586c5
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99708
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The __SIZEOF_*__ macros are widely used to detect both if a type can be used
and what sizeof (the_type) is when it needs to be checked in preprocessor
conditionals, including hundreds of times in GCC testsuit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69549
--- Comment #5 from Thiago Macieira ---
BTW, Clang solved this by making __seg_fs, __seg_gs macros that resolve to
__attribute__:
$ clang -dM -E -xc /dev/null | grep __seg_.s
#define __seg_fs __attribute__((address_space(257)))
#define __seg_gs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Worx from comment #10)
> When I deep dive, in the logs
>
> No issue at the root level :
>
> c3eden /opt/gcc-10.2.0 # ./configure --disable-cet
> checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
> ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #12 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Downstream bug report is https://gcc.gnu.org/PR99703 (has all config.log files
and build log files). Caveat: Gentoo's gcc-10.2.0 has a
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/gcc-patches.git/tree/10.2.0/gentoo/4
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
