https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105883
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105885
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We diagnose only after template substitution where we cannot distinguish
literal if (nullptr == nullptr) from if (ARG == nullptr) I think.
I guess reporters reasoning is that ARG is defaulted to nullptr an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105967
Bug ID: 105967
Summary: Forming a pointer to ref-qualified member function
using a function typedef ignores the qualifier
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105917
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105967
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note it looks like the pointer to member function type is where it loses the
ref-qualifer and not earlier.
That is GCC correctly rejects:
using F = void() &;
F t;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105967
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105922
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105923
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105736
--- Comment #3 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
Here we go, I'll put it into builtin-dynamic-object-size-0.c, bootstrap and
post a patch.
struct TV4
{
__attribute__((vector_size (sizeof (int) * 4))) int v;
};
struct TV4 val3;
int *
f1 (struct TV4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105923
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
An alternative is taking vector complex as a 2*N length vector(just like
vectorizer did).
But __attribute__ ((__simd__ ("notinbranch"))) need to be extent for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105913
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105930
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
So we feed DImode rotates into RA which constrains register allocation
enough to require spills (all 4 DImode vals are live across the kernel,
not even -fschedule-insn can do anything here). I wonder if i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105932
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I suspect this is a dup of bug 81943.
That's for a 64bit target though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105933
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12/13 Regression] |[10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105938
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105938
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105942
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105943
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105944
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Note that GCC 9 is no longer supported. Note one common error resulting in
SIGILL is when you fall through to an unreachable place which could be padding
(like when there's a missing return in a function).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105951
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105952
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105965
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97185
--- Comment #1 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
While the missed optimization ought to be fixed, what's the value of
-Wstringop-* warning on an impossible range, i.e. when low > high? Shouldn't
it just bail out silently if it detects an impossible ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105942
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://github.com/dlang/dm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64 |i?86-*-*
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105819
--- Comment #10 from bug-reports.delphin at laposte dot net ---
Hi :
Ah, OK maybe a mistypping from my own. I will look at this.
Kind regards !
PS Please note taht my spectacles were too old, and I have new ones since last
friday. Progressive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105966
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105940
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #1)
> > Created attachment 53126 [details]
> > move_applying
>
> LGTM (maybe the suggested unroll factor should be only applied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105930
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, ix86_rot{l,r}di3_doubleword define_insn_and_split patterns were split
only after reload both before and after Roger's change, so somehow whether we
emit it as SImode from the beginning or only split
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105968
Bug ID: 105968
Summary: GCC vectorizes but reports that it did not vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105968
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105966
--- Comment #2 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> What's interesting is extending slp vectorizer to handle non-pow2p elements
> with vector mask.
Well, for starters I think proper pow2 element counts (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-14
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105923
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Hmm, it's in i386.cc
23455/* Set CLONEI->vecsize_mangle, CLONEI->mask_mode, CLONEI->vecsize_int,
23456 CLONEI->vecsize_float and if CLONEI->simdlen is 0, also
23457 CLONEI->simdlen. Return 0 if SIMD clo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to John Kanapes from comment #8)
> I hope, I have a couple of days before closing this ticket:)
Yes, we usually let a bug sit in WAITING status for a couple of months before
closing it, so you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105966
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||88670
--- Comment #3 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #11 from John Kanapes ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> Note that GCC 9 is no longer supported. Note one common error resulting in
> SIGILL is when you fall through to an unreachable place which could be
> padding
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105957
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105966
--- Comment #4 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Is not having AVX512VL relevant in the real world?
Wasn't the Xeon-Phi line of processors lacking VL? I have no idea how
widespread their use (still)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to John Kanapes from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > Note that GCC 9 is no longer supported. Note one common error resulting in
> > SIGILL is when you fall through
[(set (match_dup 4)
@@ -13801,6 +13800,7 @@
(match_dup 6)))) 0)))
(clobber (reg:CC FLAGS_REG))])]
{
+ operands[3] = gen_reg_rtx (mode);
operands[6] = GEN_INT (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode) - 1);
operands[7] = GEN_INT (GET_MODE_BITS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105930
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Of course, size comparisons of -O2 code aren't the most important, for -O2 it
is more important how fast the code is.
When comparing -Os -m32 -mno-mmx -mno-sse, the numbers are
sub on %esp412 2564
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105966
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #35 from oyvind.harboe at zylin dot com ---
SPEC 2017 added SPEC_GCC_VARIADIC_FUNCTIONS_MISMATCH_WORKAROUND to cope with
this error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #13 from John Kanapes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to John Kanapes from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
>
> > I am trying to recreate this bug in a smaller, more concise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #14 from John Kanapes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to John Kanapes from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > > Note that GCC 9 is no longer supported. Note one common erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105969
Bug ID: 105969
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in Floating point exception
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105970
Bug ID: 105970
Summary: ICE in ix86_function_arg, at config/i386/i386.cc:3351
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105971
Bug ID: 105971
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in bitmap_check_index, at
sbitmap.h:104
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105972
Bug ID: 105972
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in lower_stmt, at
gimple-low.cc:312
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105965
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90467f0ad649d0817f9e034596a0fb85605b55af
commit r13-1085-g90467f0ad649d0817f9e034596a0fb85605b55af
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105946
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e07a876c07601e1f3a27420f7d055d20193c362c
commit r13-1086-ge07a876c07601e1f3a27420f7d055d20193c362c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression] x86:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] ICE in |[12 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Just running in GDB doesn't find bugs (and there is no -O6 level, -O3 is the
highest).
Did you try it with -fsanitize=undefined yet?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105973
Bug ID: 105973
Summary: Wrong branch prediction for if (COND) { if(x)
noreturn1(); else noreturn2(); }
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105973
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In fact we get it wrong even if both branches call the same noreturn function:
if (PREDICT(n > (__PTRDIFF_MAX__ / sizeof(T
{
if (n > (__SIZE_MAX__ / sizeof(T)))
throw1();
throw1();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105973
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://godbolt.org/z/asecWe6KK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105970
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 53133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53133&action=edit
unincluded, and reduced
This "reduced" testcase peaks at 3.8GB memory.
> /usr/bin/time /space/rguenther/inst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #16 from John Kanapes ---
Good to know (O3).
I have posted my -fsanitize=undefined.
Doesn't compile with it, but I need help to fix that,because I don't know what
it means:(
On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 02:35:05 PM GMT+3, redi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f6c317b3a16350698f3c9e0accb43a9b4acb4ae
commit r13-1089-g8f6c317b3a16350698f3c9e0accb43a9b4acb4ae
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you mean https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950#c2 , no, you
have just posted what is a user error in using the sanitizers and we've told
you how to fix that. The -fsanitize=undefined optio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Two of us have already explained that (comment 3 and comment 6, and now comment
17).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks, I have verified that on the #c0 testcase on 10 branch it makes both
__builtin_unreachable calls go away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #19 from John Kanapes ---
Aaaah. So it's different than the other gcc flags...
I just linked libubsan...
No compilation errors. At runtime it SIGILLS at the same gdb point as before...
Same as the rest of the recommended flags.
BTW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #20 from John Kanapes ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #18)
> Two of us have already explained that (comment 3 and comment 6, and now
> comment 17).
I couldn't understand what you were talking about. It is listed with t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101487
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101487
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100980
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What we said is to use -fsanitize=undefined when linking, not add -lubsan
manually. I don't know how I could have said that more clearly than comment 6.
This is not different to other flags, there are pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #22 from John Kanapes ---
OK. Removed -lubsan. Added -fsanitize=undefined to linking
Same result as all the other flags.
It took you 4 posts to explain me what to do.
It took me 4 posts to understand what you were talking about.
You
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101618
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|g++ 12.1.0 runs out of |[10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105920
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105638
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
This is caused by r12-5771.
-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-armv7a-hardfloat
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20220614 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105975
Bug ID: 105975
Summary: OpenMP/nvptx offloading: 'internal compiler error: in
maybe_legitimize_operand, at optabs.cc:7785'
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #23 from John Kanapes ---
Hi,
I have not been able to recreate the issue with simpler programs that use the
same resources. I will need to upload my sources. Is it OK to upload a tar.gz
archive with a test directory with the sources
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #25 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, based on all the discussion so far, how about the following:
** add the following gcc option:
-fstrict-flex-arrays=[0|1|2|3]
when -fstrict-flex-arrays=0:
treat all trailing arrays as flex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105970
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> Probably something like:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> index 3d189e124e4..f158cc3aaea 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> ++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59048
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #24 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to John Kanapes from comment #22)
> It took you 4 posts to explain me what to do.
> It took me 4 posts to understand what you were talking about.
> You should explain better.
You should read be
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
