https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101045
Bug ID: 101045
Summary: config/i386/subst.md: 76: possible cut'n'paste error ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20210613 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101047
Bug ID: 101047
Summary: Pointer explicit initialization fails
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101048
Bug ID: 101048
Summary: Class pointer explicit initialization refuses valid
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101044
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The first neg also sets sign flag (SF) for the following CMOVS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101023
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f04e3782536ad2f9cfbb8cfe6630e9f9dd8af4c
commit r12-1409-g3f04e3782536ad2f9cfbb8cfe6630e9f9dd8af4c
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Jun 11 07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101023
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
This bug is exposed by r11-508.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494
--- Comment #3 from J.M. Eubank ---
Yes, this definitely seems specific to the native x86_64-w64-mingw32 build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build|x86_64-linux-gnu|
Last reconfirmed|2021-04-21 00:00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101048
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 50993
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50993&action=edit
Patch and changelog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101048
--- Comment #2 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056152.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101047
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056152.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101047
--- Comment #2 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 50994
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50994&action=edit
Patch and changelog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100683
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Can you provide some more detail on your setup?
program p
integer, parameter :: a(2) = 1
integer, parameter :: b = a(2)%kind
end
I get the ICE with a patched master and a genuine GCC11 with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101049
Bug ID: 101049
Summary: std::variant: missed optimization in std::visit() on
more than one variant
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101050
Bug ID: 101050
Summary: Range comparisons with more significant bits constant
are not optimised into masked equality tests
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88529
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101051
Bug ID: 101051
Summary: [ICE] in splice_late_return_type, at cp/pt.c:29738
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100917
--- Comment #2 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056154.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100917
--- Comment #3 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Please ignore patch wrong PR...
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Best regards,
José Rui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100916
--- Comment #2 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056154.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100916
--- Comment #3 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 50996
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50996&action=edit
Patch and changelog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100915
--- Comment #2 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056154.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100915
--- Comment #3 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 50997
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50997&action=edit
Patch and changelog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100914
--- Comment #5 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056154.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100914
--- Comment #6 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 50998
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50998&action=edit
Patch and changelog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100911
--- Comment #2 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056154.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100911
--- Comment #3 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 50999
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50999&action=edit
Patch and changelog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100907
--- Comment #7 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 51000
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51000&action=edit
Patch and changelog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100906
--- Comment #2 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056154.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100906
--- Comment #3 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 51001
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51001&action=edit
Patch and changelog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100948
--- Comment #5 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Partial patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056155.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100948
--- Comment #6 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 51002
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51002&action=edit
Patch and changelog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Eve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101021
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:681143b9b94d7f1c88a7c34e2250865c31191959
commit r12-1413-g681143b9b94d7f1c88a7c34e2250865c31191959
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Sun J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100970
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101052
Bug ID: 101052
Summary: Suggest stdlib.h when exit(1) is called
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101052
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Code link:
https://godbolt.org/z/vYTc87db1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100934
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So when we're finding jump threads we know if we thread through the loop latch
and we note when that's going to create an irreducible region. We generally
suppress threading through the latch before the l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100475
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:258aedd9ad1ea4597528632e93dee860acc2eaf5
commit r11-8566-g258aedd9ad1ea4597528632e93dee860acc2eaf5
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053
Bug ID: 101053
Summary: Incorrect code at -O1 on arm64
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101054
Bug ID: 101054
Summary: Compiler inconsistently gives error when constexpr
class function is called from lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From aapcs64:
Registers v8-v15 must be preserved by a callee across subroutine calls
...
Additionally, only the bottom 64 bits of each value stored in v8-v15 need to be
preserved
So the bug is in dlarfg_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The code for dlarfg_ looks correct.
78: 6d0627e8stp d8, d9, [sp, #96]
238: 6d4627e8ldp d8, d9, [sp, #96]
23c: fd402fealdr d10, [sp, #88]
240: 178a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053
--- Comment #3 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
Thanks for the clarification about which registers have to be preserved.
I will dig this a bit more from now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I tried to reproduce it but I could not on the trunk (it has one patch which
should not make a difference):
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ubuntu/upstream-gcc/libexec/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
And yes I got the d9 register having 1.0 inside dgehd2 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101055
Bug ID: 101055
Summary: should use __has_cpp_attribute() with __
prefixed/suffixed names
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053
--- Comment #6 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
I will set the watchpoint and follow the flow ...
That being said, I still see the issue with the latest snapshot
gcc (GCC) 12.0.0 20210613 (experimental)
./dgehd2
INFO =0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053
--- Comment #7 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
Note you have to 'make clean' before re-running 'make ...' with different
options.
Otherwise, pretty much nothing gets rebuilt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101056
Bug ID: 101056
Summary: std::compare_partial_order_fallback missing the
constraint of "F < E is well-formed"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101040
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101053
--- Comment #8 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
It seems OpenBLAS is to be blamed after all ...
>From kernel/arm64/dznrm2_thunderx2t99.c:
#define REGINF "d9"
static void nrm2_compute(BLASLONG n, FLOAT *x, BLASLONG inc_x,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101057
Bug ID: 101057
Summary: [gimplefe] GIMPLE frontend issues
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101057
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-14
Ever confirmed|0
55 matches
Mail list logo
