https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #4 from YunQiang Su ---
but where is the stat_t of D is defined?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
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=103253
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Summary|[12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66502
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> SCCVN preference changed. Missed optimization remains (now the other
> variant).
GCC 10 looks like it can handle both now. I don't know if that means this can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94267
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #0)
> Likewise
> &TARGET_MEM_REF[ptr_1 + 4] should be canonicalized to &MEM_REF[ptr_1 + 4]
> or even a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR.
We now canonicalized &MEM_REF[ptr_1 + 4] in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103632
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103350
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
*** Bug 103632 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103513
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b61f06b2e1e7e72fcb6c0cf3590cb25eb92c4f2
commit r12-5921-g3b61f06b2e1e7e72fcb6c0cf3590cb25eb92c4f2
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Mon D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103513
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82918
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103350
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103094
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonathan.wright at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103678
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103652
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #0)
> Building clang in the funny way (training with -O2 -flto -fprofile-generate)
> and use with -O3 -flto -fprofile-generate I get ICE here:
Do you mean, -O3 -flto -fp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103669
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] wrong code |[12 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #67 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #66)
> Should I file my commend 38 as a separate PR, then?
Yes, please.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #68 from Martin Liška ---
> Righto. This is proving unexpectedly hard to reproduce.
Ok, so please tell me exact steps how to reproduce it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103652
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103652
>
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #0)
> > Building clang in the funny way (training with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103661
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #69 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #68)
> > Righto. This is proving unexpectedly hard to reproduce.
>
> Ok, so please tell me exact steps how to reproduce it.
First of all, get a -march=bdver2 machin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103666
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103675
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103652
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> You need to disable those to build multithreaded programs like clang.
Well, I'm specifically speaking about:
error: the control flow of function ‘BZ2_compressBlock’ does not match its
profile data (counter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #6 from YunQiang Su ---
Index: gcc-12-12-20211211/src/libphobos/libdruntime/core/sys/posix/sys/stat.d
===
--- gcc-12-12-20211211.orig/src/libphobos/libdruntime/core/sys/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #7 from YunQiang Su ---
Where should we fallback this patch to?
>
> Well, I'm specifically speaking about:
> error: the control flow of function ‘BZ2_compressBlock’ does not match its
> profile data (counter ‘arcs’)
>
> this type of errors should not happen even in a multi-threaded programs.
There are some cases where I see even those on clang build - I am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103652
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
>
> Well, I'm specifically speaking about:
> error: the control flow of function ‘BZ2_compressBlock’ does not match its
> profile data (counter ‘arcs’)
>
> this type of errors should not h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103680
Bug ID: 103680
Summary: Jump threading and switch corrupts profile
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103680
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #9 from YunQiang Su ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #8)
> (In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #7)
> > Where should we fallback this patch to?
> I can submit it to upstream dlang/druntime (on github) and merged it in when
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103674
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
I really think with -fdelete-null-pointer-checks we should optimize away the
pointer adjustment relying on the fact that program will segfault.
I was wondering, -fdelete-null-pointer-checks currently requires
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103664
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef5d671cd80a4afa4f74c3dfe2904c63f51fcfde
commit r12-5924-gef5d671cd80a4afa4f74c3dfe2904c63f51fcfde
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103670
Robert M. Münch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103576
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:494ebfa7c9aacaeb6ec1fccc47a0e49f31eb2bb8
commit r12-5926-g494ebfa7c9aacaeb6ec1fccc47a0e49f31eb2bb8
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103576
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103664
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||102445
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103672
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-13
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103577
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> I recently tried to build master on Darwin 11 with gcc 11.0.1. That's the
> first
> release to build gdc, and while libphobos isn't marked as supported in
> libphobos/configure.tgt, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103577
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #1)
> I cannot yet tell if this is just an issue with GCC 11.1.0 gdc or
> libphobos that's fixed in 11.2.0 or gcc-11 branch.
It could be this patch fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103681
Bug ID: 103681
Summary: Unusual behavior for tail padding with different c++
standards
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103680
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103577
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
FYI, with darwin, I've only been using the most recent commit in
releases/gcc-11 for testing as there have been a number of issues exposed from
that port.
I have VMs set-up running 10.4 (PPC), 10.6 (x86_64),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103682
Bug ID: 103682
Summary: [12 regression] ICE on atomics: gimple check: expected
gimple_assign(error_mark), have gimple_nop() in
gimple_assign_rhs_code, at gimple.h:2852
Prod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103682
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103682
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[12 regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103682
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed.
C testcase:
int bug(unsigned *ready, unsigned u) {
return __atomic_fetch_and (ready, ~u, 0) & u;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103683
Bug ID: 103683
Summary: Redundant !__builtin_isnan not removed with
-fno-signaling-nans
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #70 from Martin Liška ---
I'm sorry, but I don't have an access to a bdver2 machine.
Anyway, can you please debug what I asked in #c57?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103577
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #1)
>> I cannot yet tell if this is just an issue with GCC 11.1.0 gdc or
>> libphobos tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103577
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
> FYI, with darwin, I've only been using the most recent commit in
> releases/gcc-11 for testing as there have been a number of issues exposed from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Unusual behavior for tail |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103684
Bug ID: 103684
Summary: Ambiguous template template overload resolution
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103684
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
template struct f{};
template struct g{};
template class T> constexpr int hello()
{
return 2;
}
template class T> constexpr int hello()
{
return 3;
}
void foo()
{
auto i = hel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103625
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Oh, duh, sorry. Yes, I can reproduce as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103625
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
And Kewen's analysis is spot-on, will fix that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103684
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82266
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
mark at hotpy dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at hotpy dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103624
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
We have __builtin_darn_32 for the 32-bit case. The changes for the two
64-bit-only interfaces reflect the previous behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103684
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Weidmann ---
Ok, thanks for the update!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103685
Bug ID: 103685
Summary: false positive error: dereference of NULL ‘params’
[CWE-476]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82266
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I put a in the alias because we had an ever older bug where GCC was
implementing DR150 even before it became part of the standard (before auto
even).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
Bug ID: 103686
Summary: ICE in rs6000_expand_new_builtin at
rs6000-call.c:15946
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103622
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
It seems to me the problem is that long double was resolved to _Float128 when
there is no _Float128 support on the target. There is no specific overloaded
interface that accepts "long double," so there must
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103652
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103636
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9eb8785b3fa3a180bd216cf68b53f1621628efc6
commit r12-5931-g9eb8785b3fa3a180bd216cf68b53f1621628efc6
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103622
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hm, no, it's probably just that it's iterating looking for long double and runs
across this instance with an uninitialized function type. So this patch solves
the problem:
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26731
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
In GCC 9 and above we get:
_2 = x_6(D) + 1;
_7 = (unsigned int) n_1;
_11 = _7 + 4294967295;
_15 = (int) _11;
_16 = n_1 > 0 ? _15 : 0;
x_3 = _2 + _16;
Which is okish, the loop has been removed but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103523
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Joel Hutton :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2cc8d059df8aea1b811a4a68512d137f4e83bd5
commit r11-9380-gf2cc8d059df8aea1b811a4a68512d137f4e83bd5
Author: Joel Hutton
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83145
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|Ambiguous overload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103372
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79857
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
I think that the MMA implementation is incompatible with -mno-fold-gimple.
We'll need to prevent that flag combination, I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103687
Bug ID: 103687
Summary: [12 regression] several time/date failures after
r12-5898
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103687
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It looks like a couple of these fail on some LE systems, too:
FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/char/2.cc execution test
FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/wchar_t/2.cc execution test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65157
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65157
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
Note if I change d not to be a template, then GCC is able to recognize the
friend and the code compiles.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with treating 0 + small offset
similarly to 0 when it comes to -fdelete-null-pointer-checks. I suspect it'll
break some poorly written low level code, thoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100339
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.1.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-08-02 00:00:00 |2021-12-13
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100339
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100339
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 103534, which changed state.
Bug 103534 Summary: [12 regression] Spurious -Wstringop-overflow warning with
std::string concatencation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103332
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 103332, which changed state.
Bug 103332 Summary: [12 Regression] Spurious -Wstringop-overflow on string
concatenation in libstdc++ tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103332
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103622
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586715.html
1 - 100 of 214 matches
Mail list logo
