https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104328
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54d21dd5b5c5c5539505b3e037cdecb3b0ab3918
commit r12-7011-g54d21dd5b5c5c5539505b3e037cdecb3b0ab3918
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104328
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104361
Bug ID: 104361
Summary: Biased Reference Counting for the standard library
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
Bug ID: 104362
Summary: ICE in ix86_expand_epilogue, at
config/i386/i386.c:9362 since
r12-3433-ga25e0b5e6ac8a77a
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
>
> --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in |[12 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104247
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/analyzer/region-model-manager.cc: In
instantiation of ‘void ana::log_uniq_map(ana::logger*, bool, const char*, const
hash_map&) [with K = tree_node*; T = ana::string_region]’:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de67f943b858099b40f73632a51e66147ec79c9b
commit r12-7012-gde67f943b858099b40f73632a51e66147ec79c9b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104327
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104327
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The testcase should be in a generic directory, so that we catch it on other
targets too.
Note, e.g. i386/ can_inline_p hook is quite different from this one.
E.g. for the ISA options it allows the caller to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104347
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104347
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102479
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dev at gutoehrlein dot eu
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104347
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh clang does not implement alias deduction even in C++20 mode. So yes this is
still valid C++20.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104302
m.cencora at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.cencora at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104361
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks for the link.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
index ad5a5caa413..a61a5390127 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
@@ -7403,6 +7403,10 @@ find_drap_reg (void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104327
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Krebbel ---
I will work on a patch. Thanks for the hint!
I agree for HTM. VX is an ABI switch since it changes the calling conventions
for vector types.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Or simply:
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
index ad5a5caa413..dd5584fb8ed 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
@@ -7400,7 +7400,8 @@ f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
Bug ID: 104363
Summary: hppa: __asm__ directive .global and multiple .symver
not supported
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104359
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Will Usher from comment #0)
> However, b's "value" is 255, which should evaluate to "true".
No. The only valid values of bool are true and false. If you set its bits to
some other value repre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
I've downgraded binutils to version from bullseye, and I am getting the exact
same symptoms:
```
libtool: link: ( cd ".libs" && rm -f "libkcapi.la" && ln -s "../libkcapi.la"
"libkcapi.la" )
/bin/bash ./
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Original description states:
> Steps using gcc-10 (Debian/buster):
This is a typo, it should states:
> Steps using gcc-10 (Debian/bullseye):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
Bug ID: 104364
Summary: [12 Regression] OpenMP/nvptx regressions after
"[nvptx] Add some support for .local atomics"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Bug ID: 104365
Summary: Overload ambiguity not detected
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> 'nvptx-none/mgomp/libatomic/cas_1_.o' (complete diff):
>
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
> .loc 3 80 9
> or.b64 %r61,%r60,%r39;
> .loc 3 82 11
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104319
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52337&action=edit
gcc12-pr104319.patch
Untested fix.
That said, now that I think about it, >>= doesn't need to be misspelling of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101885
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104319
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52338
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52338&action=edit
gcc12-pr104319.patch
Improved patch. The error recovery doesn't work well for some reason though as
can be se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So for Ada it would be valid to optimize it as
>
> tem = D;
> if (tem != 0)
> D := 1 / tem;
> else
> D = tem;
>
> basically carrying out the division conditionally only?
> (I've tried hard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
--- Comment #2 from Andris Pavenis ---
OK. Then warning would be nice.
Otherwise it is a trap when one chooses to add bool parameter at end after
string
parameter and other overloaded method with one more string parameter at end is
also presen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you provide an easier testcase that shows the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #2)
> I've downgraded binutils to version from bullseye, and I am getting the
> exact same symptoms:
Did you build from scratch or reuse the object files?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So what does Ada do on targets like powerpc that do not raise an exception?
>From what I can see, 1 / 0 yields 0 there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So what does Ada do on targets like powerpc that do not raise an exception?
> From what I can see, 1 / 0 yields 0 there.
It generates an explicit check for division-by-zero in the general case (remove
th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9)
> > So for Ada it would be valid to optimize it as
> >
> > tem = D;
> > if (tem != 0)
> > D := 1 / tem;
> > else
> > D = tem;
> >
> > basically c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Anyway, if integer division by zero is not considered UB in Ada, we need some
flag_whatever that will represent that to the middle-end and check it in all
places where we assume it is UB. It can be of cour
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OK, so a division by zero is not invoking undefined behavior but is
> well-defined and traps. And the idea is that -fnon-call-exceptions alone
> carries this over to middle-end semantics? (I don't think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> What is odd is that the resulting insn is still validated, I would have
> expected that to fail.
Ah, the change is just silently rejected, this makes the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
And in rtlanal.cc, see may_trap_p_1:
/* Division by a non-constant might trap. */
case DIV:
case MOD:
case UDIV:
case UMOD:
if (HONOR_SNANS (x))
return 1;
if (FLO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Related simplifications:
/* X / bool_range_Y is X. */
(simplify
(div @0 SSA_NAME@1)
(if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) && ssa_name_has_boolean_range (@1))
@0))
/* X / abs (X) is X < 0 ? -1 : 1. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #14)
> > OK, so a division by zero is not invoking undefined behavior but is
> > well-defined and traps. And the idea is that -fnon-call-exceptions alone
> > carrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
Bug ID: 104366
Summary: Regression: infinite loop in add_sibling_attributes
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101340
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
So we'd add
(!flag_non_call_exceptions || tree_expr_nonzero_p (@..))
to the offending and extra listed match.pd transforms. I guess that works for
me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Those correctly say that division by zero may trap. That doesn't tell that
division by zero is not undefined behavior, but well defined to trap.
This new optimization, or e.g. operator_div::wi_fold's
//
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
flag_non_call_exceptions can be used even in C/C++ and other languages, so I'd
strongly prefer a new flag which will e.g. make it clearer what is it about,
will make it easier for grep for such dependencies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But sure, so you say that -fnon-call-exceptions makes operations that
> may trap according to the EH machinery well-defined, irrespective of what
> the language standards say? That certainly makes sense,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So we'd add
>
> (!flag_non_call_exceptions || tree_expr_nonzero_p (@..))
>
> to the offending and extra listed match.pd transforms. I guess that works
> for me.
For me as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
>
> --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> flag_non_call_exceptions can be used even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #22)
> > So we'd add
> >
> > (!flag_non_call_exceptions || tree_expr_nonzero_p (@..))
> >
> > to the offending and extra listed match.pd transforms. I guess tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GENERIC folding can be done with NULL cfun too though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Oh, with the little detail that it should be
> cfun->can_throw_non_call_exceptions
> (with the unfortunate reference to cfun)
Yes, and note that this will also solve the libgcc2.c issue because of:
ifeq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-03
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104367
Bug ID: 104367
Summary: Possible improvements for -Wmisleading-indentation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:635504510a9410844991c68880f2e7352cacfd86
commit r12-7021-g635504510a9410844991c68880f2e7352cacfd86
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Your original testcase shows one example where you want a warning, but that's
not a specification. Should it only warn when std::string and bool are
involved, and there's a char* argument? Or should it be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104367
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Oh, with the little detail that it should be
> cfun->can_throw_non_call_exceptions
> (with the unfortunate reference to cfun)
We have global references to flag_trapping_math in match.pd so I think that
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #22)
> > > So we'd add
> > >
> > > (!flag_non_call_exceptions || tree_expr_nonzero_p (@..))
> > >
> > > to the off
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> And, is it correct here to use the non-'atom' replacement, though? '%frame'
> comes from:
>
> .visible .func GOMP_taskwait
> {
> .reg .u64 %stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Why does cfun->can_throw_non_call_exceptions and
> cfun->can_delete_dead_exceptions exist btw?
Jan asked me to create them when he was working on option merging for LTO.
> Now that both flag_non_call_ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #31 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 52340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52340&action=edit
Tentative fix
To be further tested.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104079
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
--- Comment #5 from Andris Pavenis ---
The warning should be in case when both
1) there is preferred standard conversion sequence for parameter of one
overloaded method
2) there is other user defined conversion sequences for one more more other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 52341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52341&action=edit
Tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 52340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52340
Tentative fix
For the X / bool_range_Y is X. case I think just !flag_non_call_exceptions
would be better. If @1 has b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91316
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
>
> --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91648
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 91648, which changed state.
Bug 91648 Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in
generate_finalization_wrapper, at fortran/class.c:2009
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91648
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> ... but only seen regressing for:
>
> - Nvidia Tesla K20c, Driver Version: 346.46
> - Nvidia Tesla K20c, Driver Version: 455.38
> - Nvidia Tesla K40c, Dr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
--- Comment #6 from Andris Pavenis ---
Suggested format (changed types to get real ambiguity and edited generated
message):
20220203-1.cpp: In function 'int main()':
20220203-1.cpp:19:24: warning: call of overloaded 'Tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
-member functions?
(In reply to Andris Pavenis from comment #6)
> 20220203-1.cpp:19:24: warning: call of overloaded 'Test(const char [4],
> unsigned
> char[4])' is ambiguous
"is ambiguous" is incorrect though, so it would have to be clear that there is
no ambiguity in C++ terms, just potential for confusion.
ve warning. I do not
have other examples currently.
>> 2) there is other user defined conversion sequences for one more more other
>> overloaded methods
>
>And non-member functions?
Should be handled in the same way as member functions
>> 20220203-1.cpp:19:24: warning: call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104345
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #1)
> The other patches in the "nvptx Boolean" series are:
> patchq3: nvptx: Expand QI mode operations using SI mode instructions.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 52342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52342&action=edit
Reduced test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104368
Bug ID: 104368
Summary: [12 Regression] Failure to vectorise conditional
grouped accesses after PR102659
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104369
Bug ID: 104369
Summary: False positive from
-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value with realloc
moving buffer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104337
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d5c7584fd6e72bfdbede86cef5ff04ae35f9744
commit r12-7026-g1d5c7584fd6e72bfdbede86cef5ff04ae35f9744
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104370
Bug ID: 104370
Summary: False positive from
-Wanalyzer-mismatching-deallocation with reallocarray
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
Svante Signell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||svante.signell at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104319
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, the cp_parser_next_token_ends_template_argument_p change can't be
right.
E.g.
struct A{};
A<1>=2> a;
is not A<1> =2> a;
I bet we can't treat at least >= as terminating template argument, perhaps we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #34 from Eric Botcazou ---
> For the X / bool_range_Y is X. case I think just !flag_non_call_exceptions
> would be better. If @1 has boolean range and is known to be non-zero, it is
> known to be 1, so we should be optimizing it els
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104359
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I meant something like:
with System.Unsigned_Types; use System.Unsigned_Types;
function F (X, Y : Unsigned) return Unsigned is
Z : Unsigned;
begin
if X >=2 then
return 0;
end if;
Z := Y;
if X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #36 from Eric Botcazou ---
> with System.Unsigned_Types; use System.Unsigned_Types;
>
> function F (X, Y : Unsigned) return Unsigned is
> Z : Unsigned;
> begin
> if X >=2 then
> return 0;
> end if;
> Z := Y;
> if X = 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #37 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #35)
> I meant something like:
> return Z / X;
> and there evrp does with -O2 -gnatp optimize away the division.
> Though that is likely the X / boolean_range_Y c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #37)
> As for ranger, range-ops will return UNDEFINED for the range if x is known
> to be [0,0]. This can be propagated around, and depending on how it ends up
> be
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
