https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #20 from Xi Ruoyao ---
>From Mayshao (Zhaoxin engineer):
"On Zhaoxin CPUs with AVX, the VMOVDQA instruction is atomic if the accessed
memory is Write Back, but it's not guaranteed for other memory types."
Is it allowed to use VMOVD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107829
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107829
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107828
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-23
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What about loads? That is even more important than the stores. While atomic
store can be worst case done through cmpxchg16b, even when it is slower, we
can't use cmpxchg16b on atomic load because we don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107823
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-23
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107826
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107814
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Are you sure this is a regression? Isn't it the same case as PR104731, but
> that
> was only fixed for 27_io/filesystem/iterators/error_repo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107814
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think I'll push the patch in comment 2 and we can see if it helps :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107814
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> I think I'll push the patch in comment 2 and we can see if it helps :-)
I've just tried it on sparc and x86, 32 and 64-bit: the test PASSes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107831
Bug ID: 107831
Summary: Missed optimization: -fclash-stack-protection causes
unnecessary code generation for dynamic stack
allocations that are clearly less than a page
Pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107814
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> I'm unable to access the Solaris/x86 host in the compile farm (gcc210) so I
> can't test if this fixes it. It passes on Solaris/sparc.
Accor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107830
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107814
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
> According to https://cfarm.tetaneutral.net/machines/list/, gcc210 is a
> Solaris 10/SPARC system, so useless for trunk testing.
Oh right, yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104731
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1cac00d013856fea4cee0f13c4959c8e21afd2d9
commit r13-4262-g1cac00d013856fea4cee0f13c4959c8e21afd2d9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107814
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1cac00d013856fea4cee0f13c4959c8e21afd2d9
commit r13-4262-g1cac00d013856fea4cee0f13c4959c8e21afd2d9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107814
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.0|10.5
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #22 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> What about loads? That is even more important than the stores. While
> atomic store can be worst case done through cmpxchg16b, even when it is
> slower, we can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107830
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107830
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107811
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6a32c12b4ef87c084d29863c79503344126d101
commit r13-4263-ge6a32c12b4ef87c084d29863c79503344126d101
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107811
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107832
Bug ID: 107832
Summary: '-fcompare-debug' failure w/ -O2
-ftree-parallelize-loops=2 -fno-gcse-lm
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107558
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107831
--- Comment #1 from Petr Skocik ---
Sidenote regarding the stack-allocating code for cases when the size is not
known to be less than pagesize: the code generated for those cases is quite
large. It could be replaced (at least under -Os) with a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107317
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Prio
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
--with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.0 20221123 (experimental) [master r13-4262-g1cac00d0138] (GCC)
[562] %
[562] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[563] %
[563] % gcctk -Os small.c
[564
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107329
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
@Jason: May I ping this please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107317
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Corresponding C testcase:
-m32 -O2 -fsanitize=address
void bar (float *, float *);
void
foo (void)
{
float a[4];
float b[2];
bar (a, b);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>> The line before the assertion failure is
>>
>> 1.18973e+4932 1e+4932
>> /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/to_chars/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107833
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-23
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107834
Bug ID: 107834
Summary: #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wno-psabi" doe not
work
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107304
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107834
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107722
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107233
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
> ok, thanks for the suggestion. I've changed gcc/configure.ac to use
> AM_PATH_PYTHON and AM_CONDITIONAL:
>
> # Python3?
> AM_PATH_PYTHON(,, [:]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107722
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d601708870ad8dc3ef935e440bf03394891d42e2
commit r13-4265-gd601708870ad8dc3ef935e440bf03394891d42e2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107722
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107835
Bug ID: 107835
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in build2, at tree.cc:5020 since
r13-254-gdd3c7873a61019e9
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107835
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-23
Ever confirmed|0
/software/local/gcc-trunk
> --enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror
> --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib
> Thread model: posix
> Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
> gcc version 13.0.0 20221123 (experimental) [master r13-4262-g1cac00d0138]
> (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107833
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> Isn't there an uninitialized read from "i" here?
Yes ...
> At least on the second
> time through the outer loop, if (a < h) is true since 1 < 0.
>
> > c = *f;
> > }
> > for (h = 0; h <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107834
SHIH YEN-TE changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105392
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
Many thanks! I've changed all definition modules in gcc/m2/gm2-gcc for
consistency.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107836
Bug ID: 107836
Summary: x86_64 inline functions -O2/-O3 optimization error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107833
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > Isn't there an uninitialized read from "i" here?
>
> Yes ...
>
> > At least on the second
> > time through the outer loop, if (a < h) is true since 1 < 0.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107836
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||inline-asm
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105392
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107837
Bug ID: 107837
Summary: Missed optimization: Using memcpy to load a struct
unnecessary uses stack space
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Jonathan, shall we just #ifdef out the
> std::numeric_limits::max()
> test in that test for Solaris and maybe HP-UX if it suffers from the same
> bug?
Yes, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, we even have PR98384 for that.
So either we add
// { dg-xfail-run-if "Non-conforming printf (see PR98384)" { *-*-solaris*
*-*-darwin* } }
to the test and thus xfail it all, or just ifdef out the max case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107836
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> The 1e+202L * __DBL_MAX__ number is:
> 17976931348623157081452742373170433637802939014881326705103053961532744011074502529640673538215420988836
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53953
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53953&action=edit
gcc13-pr107815.patch
Untested workaround. I've left out Darwin there for now, because I think
it just doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107838
Bug ID: 107838
Summary: spurious "may be used uninitialized" warning on
variable initialized at the first iteration of a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107839
Bug ID: 107839
Summary: spurious "may be used uninitialized" warning while all
uses are under "if (c)"
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107840
Bug ID: 107840
Summary: ICE when compiling cursed setjmp/longjmp that uses
__builtin_call_with_static_chain
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
--- Comment #10 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
A similar bug (all uses of the variable are under some condition) with a
simpler testcase I've just reported: PR107839.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80548
--- Comment #12 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #11)
> As I said in my previous comment, the best way forward is to get those two
> new instances filed as distinct bugs in BZ.
See PR107838 and PR107839.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107317
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107841
Bug ID: 107841
Summary: Incorrect generation of the function's epilogue code
when there is a _builtin_alloca call.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107840
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think it is directly __builtin_call_with_static_chain but rather the
non-local jump causing issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107841
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patches are submitted to gcc-patches@ after reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107840
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53955&action=edit
testcase not using C23 features
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107840
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
With the testcase that does not use C23 features (which was only implemented in
GCC 13), we can get the ICE happening all the way back to at least GCC 6 with
-fchecking. GCC 5 didn't have -fchecking so I can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107842
Bug ID: 107842
Summary: [avr] Set --param=min-pagesize=0 in the backend
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107843
Bug ID: 107843
Summary: error: incompatible type for argument in
___bpf_ctx_cast2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107831
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Say for
void bar (char *);
void
foo (int x, int y)
{
__attribute__((assume (x < 64)));
for (int i = 0; i < y; ++i)
bar (__builtin_alloca (x));
}
all the alloca calls are known to be small, yet they c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107844
Bug ID: 107844
Summary: error: argument is not a field access for
__builtin_preserve_field_info
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107845
Bug ID: 107845
Summary: __builtin_init_trampoline ICEs on invalid arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
Bug ID: 107846
Summary: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to
represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107842
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107847
Bug ID: 107847
Summary: error: integer overflow in expression in bpf-next
test_xdp_vlan.c
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106307
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
We'd need at least a test case so we can reproduce th issue. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to rudi from comment #5)
> Compiling atf with gcc-12.1.0 for the NXP iMX8 target results in the same
> error.
>
> CFLAGS=+“ --param=min-pagesize=0” allows the build to complete.
Yes ATF needs to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107831
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Right. You also have to know the distance from the last probe (possibly an
implicit one) to the start of the alloca space before you can contemplate
eliding the probes in alloca space. There's a hook we c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104875
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Is this fixed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #10 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> That inline-asm is not correct and GCC does not understand segments if you
> don't use named address space feature.
>
Named address space is not supported unless a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107837
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104875
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Only for gcc-12 and trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > That inline-asm is not correct and GCC does not understand segments if you
> > don't use named address space feature.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107127
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a0fce6a51915c29584427fd376b40073c328090
commit r13-4268-g8a0fce6a51915c29584427fd376b40073c328090
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107127
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] Long |[11/12 Regression] Long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #12 from Konrad Rosenbaum ---
It would be super helpful if the AVR target (and all its sub-architectures)
could have the min-pagesize=0 option(*) set implicitly. This architecture has
ONLY firmware - firmware is not special in that a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107845
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #1 from David Faust ---
I think this is a bug in the test itself (or with these macros from libbpf).
libbpf/src/bpf_endian.h
#define ___bpf_mvb(x, b, n, m) ((__u##b)(x) << (b-(n+1)*8) >> (b-8) << (m*8))
#define ___bpf_swab16(x) ((_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107577
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2eaa0cc45e8eae0fc4a440d28c602964bcb1014d
commit r13-4269-g2eaa0cc45e8eae0fc4a440d28c602964bcb1014d
Author: Steve Kargl
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107848
Bug ID: 107848
Summary: libbpf: ELF relo #0 in section #7 has unexpected type
12
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107848
--- Comment #1 from James Hilliard ---
Working LLVM BTF Dump:
$ /home/buildroot/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/tools/sbin/bpftool
--debug btf dump file
/home/buildroot/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_dctcp_release.bpf.o
format raw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107848
--- Comment #2 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
This is likely due to the fact they added new BPF relocations:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D102712
Or course not bothering telling us.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Faust from comment #1)
> I think this is a bug in the test itself (or with these macros from libbpf).
No I think there might be a bug in GCC though I have to double check.
cc1: error: res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, needs-bisection
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
#0 warning_at (location=0, opt=765, gmsgid=0x30ecaf8 "result of %qE requires
%u bits to represent, but %qT only has %u bits") at
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/diagnostic.cc:1845
#1 0x0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100705
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
See also: PR 80066
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
