https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18907
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
New list:
libatomic/Makefile.am: $(MULTIDO) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) DO=all multi-do # $(MAKE)
libffi/Makefile.am:AM_MAKEFLAGS = \
libffi/Makefile.am:FLAGS_TO_PASS = $(AM_MAKEFLAGS)
libgo/Makefile.am:AM_MAKEFLAGS = \
libg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #9 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I will rewrite this testcase not to use alloca.
This particular case was originally XFAIL'ed at runtime because the
functionality it was supposed to test (assumed-length character
interoperabilit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
--- Comment #9 from Will Wray ---
Adding a reshape_iter, and checking has_designator_problem,
for a brace-enclosed string-literal fixes this secondary issue
+ reshape_iter e {CONSTRUCTOR_ELT (stripped_a_init, 0), e.cur + 1};
+ if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102923
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/libffi/l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102933
Bug ID: 102933
Summary: Can't use CTAD in template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102923
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102934
Bug ID: 102934
Summary: missing warning passing address of first member to
free()
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102934
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
--- Comment #10 from Will Wray ---
Note that the initialization of 'c0' takes a different codepath:
struct C {char a[2];};
C c0{.a="a"}; // [dcl.init.aggr]
C c1{.a=""};
C c2{.a={"a"}};
C c3{.a={""}};
c1, c2 and c3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 05:05:26PM +, sandra at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
>
> --- Comment #9 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I will rewrite this te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102932
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Rajpal Singh from comment #3)
> Thanks ! Yes, it's signed integer overflow, is there any way to catch it
> statically at compile time ?
Not really because there would so many false positives, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102935
Bug ID: 102935
Summary: [12 regression] new test case
gcc.target/powerpc/pr101384-1.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102914
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100354
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ardb at kernel dot org
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102914
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102936
Bug ID: 102936
Summary: Excessive warnings about passing NULL for an "%s"
specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #11 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-October/056807.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72dc270be793f159a3a038bef41542d85550b331
commit r12-4691-g72dc270be793f159a3a038bef41542d85550b331
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102936
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
In varargs context no implicit type conversions are performed. A pointer to
void may have a different representation than a pointer to char.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Heh, another example of __attribute__((optimize("..."))) problem:
>
> __attribute__ ((__optimize__ ("-fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns")))
> __memmove_ppc ( voi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
FYI, here's a smaller test case that still shows the issue with today's trunk:
extern void foo (void);
long int
__attribute__ ((__optimize__ ("-fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns")))
__memmove_ppc (long int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102440
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> All right, so the meaning of the UInteger type is actually that users can't
> set the flag/param to a negative value:
>
> $ gcc -fabi-version=-3 a.c
> gcc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102937
Bug ID: 102937
Summary: Miscompilation with -O3 and aliasing of char* and
size_t
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102900
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> The ICE is resolved by Jose's patch to PR100136, which was just accepted.
... but not for proc_ptr_52.f90 with -fcheck=pointer
I've stared at the logic and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102440
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The documentation for UInteger also says
Positive values of the argument in
excess of @code{INT_MAX} wrap around zero.
so C "unsigned" types are natural for it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102937
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> But I'm worried about larger TUs where not all dynamic initialization can be
> optimized into constants. E.g. if there remain any function calls where the
> ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102937
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is the following is undefined:
char *a = NULL;
size_t &t = reinterpret_cast(a);
t = 0x8;
printf("%p\n", a);
GCC does give a warning in the above case too:
: In function 'int main()':
:69:39: warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102938
Bug ID: 102938
Summary: [12 regression] ICE in fortran test cases after
r12-4240
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102938
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to PR 102860 (or really the same issue).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102923
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 51664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51664&action=edit
proposed patch
This is the patcgh I am currently testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102837
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102494
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102937
David Rohr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102937
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102494
--- Comment #11 from Peter Cordes ---
Also, horizontal byte sums are generally best done with VPSADBW against a zero
vector, even if that means some fiddling to flip to unsigned first and then
undo the bias.
simde_vaddlv_s8:
vpxorxmm0, xm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102929
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102939
Bug ID: 102939
Summary: Ridiculously long compilation times on (admittedly
ridiculous) pointer declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102939
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So if you place the variable inside a function, then both the C and C++
front-end take a long time to compile
Maybe we should cache variably_modified_type_p somewhere.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102477
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102471
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102930
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102930
>
> --- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> (In reply to Jak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3dbd3f36d55178d0a9e4431043cbc950524969a
commit r12-4697-gf3dbd3f36d55178d0a9e4431043cbc950524969a
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Mon Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
Status|ASSIGN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Martin Lišk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102940
Bug ID: 102940
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in gimple_bb)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, openacc
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102940
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e417eea8f3f14131f7370f9bd5dd568611d11df
commit r12-4701-g4e417eea8f3f14131f7370f9bd5dd568611d11df
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #8)
> FYI, here's a smaller test case that still shows the issue with today's
> trunk:
>
> extern void foo (void);
> long int
> __attribute__ ((__optimize__ ("-fno-tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102941
Bug ID: 102941
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2769 with
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102941
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102941
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102940
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102941
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in extract_insn, at |ICE in extract_insn with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102941
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a testcase which fails at all optimization levels (not DCEing out
stuff):
int test_cmpu_x;
long
test_cmpu_y() {
long le;
f(&le);
__asm__("cmp %"
"[x], %"
"[y]"
:
101 - 158 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
