https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108704
Bug ID: 108704
Summary: Many -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value false
positives seen in qemu's softfloat.c
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108704
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108704
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Adding -fno-analyzer-state-purge fixes the false positive, looks like it's
erroneously pruning the value of fp0 immediately after the first assignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108705
Bug ID: 108705
Summary: Unexpected CPU time usage with LTO in ranger
propagation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107602
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107602
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike ---
Better link(In reply to nightstrike from comment #1)
> Reverting 186d43a78e945ebe9fbe217fc341847af7f95d30 fixes this problem at
> least for me
Better link: r255433
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108706
Bug ID: 108706
Summary: [13 Regression] Indefinite recursion when compiling
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/static-operator-call5.C w/
-g
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108707
Bug ID: 108707
Summary: suboptimal allocation with same memory op for many
different instructions.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108707
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
--- Comment #1 from H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108708
Bug ID: 108708
Summary: __analyzer_dump_named_constant fails with derived
values
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108705
--- Comment #1 from Rimvydas (RJ) ---
Using assumed shape arrays "p(:),s(:)" in bar() requires longer chain of calls
to foo() and all time spent moves to "tree VRP", but produced assembly is more
cluttered than with assumed size array declaratio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108709
Bug ID: 108709
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/pipe-glibc.c
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108709
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike ---
Perhaps these are separate bugs, but:
1) gcc.dg/analyzer/pipe-manpages.c will need similar improvements
2) gcc.dg/analyzer/pipe-void-return.c passes with an incorrect declaration for
pipe(), implying that we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108710
Bug ID: 108710
Summary: Recognizing "rounding down to the nearest power of
two"
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108695
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> We need a better testcase than the direction on how to build a full package.
Sure, I'll try to reduce it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108695
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Also does adding -fno-strict-aliasing help?
Yes, it helps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108695
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am 99% sure there is aliasing violations in this code too:
#if _MSC_VER
#define GETU32(p) SWAP(*((u32 *)(p)))
#define PUTU32(ct, st) \
{
101 - 118 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
