https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108467
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
There's some special code dealing with checking on a conditional set value
but that's confused by the two-value guard here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108470
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108476
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Isn't --enable-version-specific-runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108423
--- Comment #4 from Martin Uecker ---
The specific problem is triggered by the change to pointer_int_sum in
gcc/c-family/c-common.cc, but the underlying problem is older. The following
example fails since gcc 7:
void f(int n, int (*a(void))[n]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85463
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Crossref: Thomas posted the following newlib patch:
[PATCH] nvptx: In offloading execution, map '_exit' to 'abort' [GCC PR85463]
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/newlib/2023/020140.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108457
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16bd9e14f226e07bf0ffb9d68084c9ad69bf7b45
commit r13-5268-g16bd9e14f226e07bf0ffb9d68084c9ad69bf7b45
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108457
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108474
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-20
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108476
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
I think all uses of $(inst_libdir)/$(MULTIDIR) should be replaced with
$(toolexeclibdir) and the redundant multi settings removed.
A first round of "cleanups" leads to
$ find /tmp/gcc -name libm2cor.so
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #14 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108477
Bug ID: 108477
Summary: fwprop over-optimizes conversion from + to |
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108478
Bug ID: 108478
Summary: Inconsistencies with
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs install
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108479
Bug ID: 108479
Summary: Internal compiler error: in type_memfn_rqual, at
cp/typeck.cc:10994
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53232
--- Comment #11 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Er, if you want to find portability problems for people not using C99 then
> > don't use -std=c99. Then -Wreturn-type warns abou
enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,m2 --disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-bootstrap
--enable-checking=release
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.1 20230120 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-o' 'a.out' '-fiso' '-v'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53232
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because GCC is primarily a compiler, not a linter for portability problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53232
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87204
niXman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.nixman at autistici dot org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53232
--- Comment #14 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Anyway, as I said initially, the warning would be interesting even in C99+
mode, because the lack of a return statement may be unintentional. For
instance, the developer may have forgotten a "return err;".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> > Updated patch submitted:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/589254.html
>
> I thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53232
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But much more often it is intentional than unintentional.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108481
Bug ID: 108481
Summary: UBsan missed a signed integer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53232
--- Comment #16 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> But much more often it is intentional than unintentional.
That's the same thing for many kinds of warnings.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53232
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, but warnings with high false positivity rates at least shouldn't be in
-Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108462
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
ah, oops, of course the testsuite checks in tree :-)
So after an install:
$ cd gcc/testsuite/gm2/isocoroutines/run/pass
$ gm2 -fiso coroutine.mod && ./a.out
would be a simple test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53232
--- Comment #18 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Yeah, but warnings with high false positivity rates at least shouldn't be in
> -Wall.
Well, there already is -Wunused, which is included in -Wall (such warni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108480
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107950
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> I suppose a fix would be to provide a dummy implementation for
> range_label_for_type_mismatch::get_text in lto/, but I wonder how
> for example the fortran f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108447
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #19)
> Created attachment 54313 [details]
> better patch
>
> A more consistent approach.. rather than directly call relation_intersect()
> from multiple places, add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108447
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #19)
> > Created attachment 54313 [details]
> > better patch
> >
> > A more consistent approach.. rather than direct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108447
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #19)
> > Created attachment 54313 [details]
> > better patch
> >
> > A more consistent approach.. rather than direct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108482
Bug ID: 108482
Summary: ice in expand_LOOP_DIST_ALIAS, at internal-fn.cc:2737
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108482
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code seems to be:
int g_30, g_261, g_263, func_1___trans_tmp_17;
int **g_120;
int *g_530;
void func_1() {
int *l_29 = &g_30;
*l_29 = 1;
g_263 = 0;
for (; g_263 <= 1; g_263 += 1) {
g_53
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101832
--- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
from the standard:
A structure or union shall not contain a member with incomplete or function
type (hence, a structure shall not contain an instance of itself, but may
contain a pointer to an i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108447
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #23)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> > (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #19)
> > > Created attachment 54313 [details]
> > > better patch
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108382
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108435
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |middle-end
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108135
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Gaius Mulle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108135
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108450
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Interestingly, it is resolved twice. First for:
(gdb) p gfc_debug_expr(e)
maxloc[((p:a) (mask = p:l))]
via
resolve_all_program_units → gfc_resolve → gfc_resolve → resolve_codes →
gfc_resolve_code → gfc_res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108483
Bug ID: 108483
Summary: gcc warns about suspicious constructs for unevaluted
?: operand
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108388
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting this. I've been working on this PR. I believe the PR
reveals the problem not only for PDP11. I guess the same can happen for some
other targets.
I hope the patch will be ready
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108484
Bug ID: 108484
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE building glibc for ia64 in
cselib_subst_to_values, at cselib.cc:2148
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #22 from Joseph S. Myers ---
The fix introduced a regression building glibc for ia64-linux-gnu, see bug
108484.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108483
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108483
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The testcase needs a NULL defined as (void *)0 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108483
--- Comment #3 from Michael Karcher ---
Thanks for the pointer to #4210. Note that 4210 is slightly different, though.
In that report, the condition and the warnable expression are in different
statements, and https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108485
Bug ID: 108485
Summary: CppArg is broken for whitespaces
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: modula2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108483
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I doubt this will be changed anytime soon, see PR 4210 for the history on
> why.
That PR is about an UB case though. In this case the code is perfectly we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108482
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-20
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108482
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
What is interesting is if we look at the IR:
_41 = .LOOP_DIST_ALIAS (3, _40);
if (_41 != 0)
goto ; [90.00%]
else
goto ; [10.00%]
[local count: 430033601]:
_29 = *_4;
_30 = (char) _29;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108482
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108483
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108486
Bug ID: 108486
Summary: explicit specialization of alias templates error
message should be improved
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57919
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC also rejects this code for the same reason as GCC:
(32): error C2752: 'foo<1,1,sequence<>>': more than one partial
specialization matches the template argument list
(19): note: could be 'foo...>>'
(25):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108487
Bug ID: 108487
Summary: ~20-30x slowdown in populating std::vector from
std::ranges::iota_view
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108488
Bug ID: 108488
Summary: segfault with -fmodules-ts and class-scope friend
declaration first in uninstantiated template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108488
--- Comment #1 from Wendell Baker ---
Created attachment 54321
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54321&action=edit
run cc1plus to echigit the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108488
--- Comment #2 from Wendell Baker ---
Created attachment 54322
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54322&action=edit
exhibited output of run.sh showing the segfault with and without -fmodules-ts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108136
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaius at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
When I tried to execute the attached file mycalc.c with a command line
argument, it could not be executed normally only in the case of '*'.
'+', '-' and '/' can be executed normally, but the compiler cannot
execute '*' normally. Isn't this a gcc bug?
~/Clearning$ ./mycalc 20 * 30
用法:mycalc 数値1 演算
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 5:05 PM naoki ueda via Gcc-bugs
wrote:
>
> When I tried to execute the attached file mycalc.c with a command line
> argument, it could not be executed normally only in the case of '*'.
> '+', '-' and '/' can be executed normally, but the compiler cannot
> execute '*' normal
Ok, I see.
2023年1月21日(土) 10:12 Andrew Pinski :
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 5:05 PM naoki ueda via Gcc-bugs
> wrote:
> >
> > When I tried to execute the attached file mycalc.c with a command line
> > argument, it could not be executed normally only in the case of '*'.
> > '+', '-' and '/' can be ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108488
--- Comment #3 from Wendell Baker ---
Created attachment 54324
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54324&action=edit
shell script and C++ to demonstrate with and in
combination
This happens in real life with the confluence of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80922
pefoley2 at pefoley dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pefoley2 at pefoley dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80922
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to pefoley2 from comment #8)
> Note that this appears to be affecting the gcc source tree.
>
> Attempting a build with --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto --enable-werror
> errors out with:
Yes but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
David Ledger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidledger at live dot com.au
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #16 from David Ledger ---
The above example produces the xmm instruction on a clearly misaligned value.
I was searching the assembly using:
```SH
#!/bin/bash
g++-11 main.cpp -std=c++2a -O3 -march=native -S
grep -E "vmovdqu\s%xmm0,\
71 matches
Mail list logo
