https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106731
--- Comment #6 from federico ---
Yeah this popped up playing with DTIO, this feature is not widely used
apparently. I'll also try to get a copy of the gcc source code and build
pipeline to see if I can help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106738
Bug ID: 106738
Summary: -Wlarger-than triggering for *.LASAN0 section
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102316
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102316
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106737
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106737
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
OK, easily fixed - transform_to_exit_first_loop_alt performs SSA verification
but a previous change delayed all SSA updates so the verification cannot
expected to succeed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106737
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:818073fe9ddc384f0cf702306c672b935fa42325
commit r13-2197-g818073fe9ddc384f0cf702306c672b935fa42325
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106737
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jyasskin at gmail dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
For completeness, this is what LLD says:
ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: vtable for A
>>> referenced by example.cpp:7
>>> /tmp/example-5d8b98.o:(A::A())
>>> the vtable symbol may be und
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106739
Bug ID: 106739
Summary: runtime error coredump case on c++17/20
Product: gcc
Version: 10.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: saniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, and it 1) refers to the key function and 2) is done by the linker not the
compiler.
Which is what I've been suggesting.
If binutils wants to do this and wants to provide a URL, we'll need a more
per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106728
Brecht Sanders changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brechtsanders at users dot
sourcef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85518
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The PR106652 WIP patch should fix this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85518
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually not fully. While it adds mangling for _Float{16,32,64,128}, it
doesn't add mangling for _Float{32,64,128}x.
https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#mangling doesn't have
anything for tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106739
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-25
Summary|runtime er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #2)
> I wonder if we want to support types __vector_quad and __vector_pair without
> MMA support (or supposed to be fixed with Power10 later). If no, we need to
> guard re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106101
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andreas Krebbel :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:585a21bab3ec688c2039bff2922cc372d8558283
commit r13-2201-g585a21bab3ec688c2039bff2922cc372d8558283
Author: Andreas Krebbel
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106740
Bug ID: 106740
Summary: Internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106652
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53504|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106652
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53507
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53507&action=edit
gcc13-pr106652-bf16.patch
And if the answer to 1) is that it is ok for std::bfloat16_t to be __bf16
with u6__b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91299
--- Comment #12 from Eason Lai ---
Hope this information could help.
I added "-fopt-info-inline-optimized-missed=inline.txt" in the CFLAGS to see
what happens between -Os and -O1.
Here is the output when using "-O1":
missed: not inlinable: ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106101
--- Comment #21 from Andreas Krebbel ---
I have committed a patch now which accepts only SUBREGs before reload and then
also REGs to deal with how LRA operates right now.
I've continued a bit with the patch from Comment 18. It bootstraps on s39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106740
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91299
--- Comment #13 from Eason Lai ---
The inline rule in ipa-inline.c::inline_small_functions can be bypassed by
adding "noinline" attribute as shown below.
__attribute__((weak, noinline)) int get_t(void)
{
return 0;
}
It's an alternative solu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106740
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat ice.ii
template struct EnumClass { friend int toString(EnumClass); };
struct AmhsConvInfoCoFw {
enum AftnTypeXMsgTypeEnum {};
typedef EnumClass AftnTypeXMsgType;
const int get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106740
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106101
--- Comment #22 from Andreas Krebbel ---
The longer a have been looking at these STRICT_LOW_PART issue the more I think
that STRICT_LOW_PART is an awful way to express what we need:
- the information needed to understand what it is doing is dis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106652
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53506|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106101
--- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #22)
> The longer a have been looking at these STRICT_LOW_PART issue the more I
> think that STRICT_LOW_PART is an awful way to express what we need:
>
> - th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.3.1
Priority|P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106741
Bug ID: 106741
Summary: suspicious %qE related warning when building gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106742
Bug ID: 106742
Summary: ICE in gen_lowpart_general, at rtlhooks.cc:57, or ICE
in expand_vec_perm_broadcast_1, at
config/i386/i386-expand.cc:21870
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106725
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Thornburgh ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> As said, GCC shouldn't assume this since leaf is defined at translation
> unit level, not at LTO level.
Sure, but what prevents GCC from making this ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106647
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-25
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106741
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106741
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* If we haven't already defined a front-end-specific diagnostics
style, use the generic one. */
#ifdef GCC_DIAG_STYLE
#define GCC_PPDIAG_STYLE GCC_DIAG_STYLE
#else
#define GCC_PPDIAG_STYLE __gcc_diag__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106738
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe DECL_IGNORED_P or DECL_ARTIFICIAL should be checked before calling
warning in stor-layout.cc?
Because:
in asan.cc:
ASM_GENERATE_INTERNAL_LABEL (buf, "LASAN", 0);
var = build_decl (UNKNOWN_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106743
Bug ID: 106743
Summary: Illegal assembly code with -march=skylake
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41453
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106743
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
xchgb %bpl, %bp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106743
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #20)
> With your patch I still see
>
> __attribute__((fn spec (". r ")))
> real(kind=8) derfc (real(kind=8) & restrict x)
> {
> integer(kind=4) jint;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #21)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #18)
> > Tentative patch, regtests cleanly but otherwise untested:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41453
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |fortran
--- Comment #9 from a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #22)
>
> The remaining problem from PR41453#c8 is the following code in trans-expr.cc:
>
> (gdb) l 9539,9548
> 9539 else if (add_clobber && expr->ref == NULL)
> 95
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101832
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> This is intentional, if you embed an aggregate with flex array into another
> struct and ask not to cross the field boundaries (i.e. bos1), then the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
--- Comment #25 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #22)
> >
> > The remaining problem from PR41453#c8 is the following code in
> > trans-expr.cc:
> >
> > (gdb) l 95
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
--- Comment #26 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #25)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #22)
> > >
> > > The remaining problem from PR41453#c8 is the following code in
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
--- Comment #27 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #26)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #22)
> > > >
> > > > Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
--- Comment #28 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #23)
>
> No, they're not, when the procedures are in the same file.
> At least that's what gdb tells me...
gdb tells me the same. :-)
It is a side effect of calling gfc_che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
--- Comment #29 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #28)
> With the following, I get the expected result.
> Indeed, with se->want_pointer set, gfc_conv_expr generates an address
> expression, so it has to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94920
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Paul Hua from comment #5)
> >
> > Yes, we should do. This also fails the ABS_EXPR scan-tree-dump on LoongArch.
>
> And on riscv32. I will look into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94920
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Paul Hua from comment #5)
> > >
> > > Yes, we should do. This also fails the ABS_EXPR scan-tree-dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106704
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:388f1a8cf0851854cc4d2ee99ed85600f0822afc
commit r13-2208-g388f1a8cf0851854cc4d2ee99ed85600f0822afc
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106704
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f78e7eb8e064556adf466444197aae8e52a1eb3
commit r12-8715-g9f78e7eb8e064556adf466444197aae8e52a1eb3
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106704
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12.3 and GCC13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106742
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Should be caused by r13-2111-g6910cad55ffc33.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106744
Bug ID: 106744
Summary: phiopt miscompiles min/max
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106745
Bug ID: 106745
Summary: segfault in bpf_core_get_sou_member_index
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
x=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r13-2206-20220825175413-g60d84e82639-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20220825 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106744
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-26
Summary|phiopt m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106747
Bug ID: 106747
Summary: Regression: go version does not print a number in 12.x
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
71 matches
Mail list logo
