https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109276
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109277
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
So INVALID? Is this change in behavior worth documenting in porting_to.html?
(does it make sense to have -fpermissive change the behavior of the builtin?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-27
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109184
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109290
Bug ID: 109290
Summary: warning: array subscript -50 is outside array bounds
of ‘struct kobject[36028797018963967]’
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109092
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109290
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 54760
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54760&action=edit
Preprocessed file
-Warray-bounds -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fcf-protection=branch
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109187
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109274
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109167
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109082
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109274
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
And I see the very same problem in opencv3 package.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109083
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109048
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The first threadfull pass ends up producing the three-argument PHI:
[local count: 1063004408]:
_7 = (long unsigned int) i_14;
_8 = _7 * 4;
_9 = af_24(D) + _8;
x_25 = *_9;
if (x_25 >= 0.0)
goto ; [59.00%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109040
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
I'm going to bisect that..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109040
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109274
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As I said on gcc-patches, both my above patch and your patch cause
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp-float-3a.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error"
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp-float-4a.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109291
Bug ID: 109291
Summary: type alias template rejects pack
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109292
Bug ID: 109292
Summary: GCC Static Analyzer NPD false negative because it does
not know a simple iterator of `for` loop
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109290
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 54761
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54761&action=edit
Minimized testcase
-Warray-bounds -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -O2
In function ‘btrfs_show_u64’,
inlined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109048
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 54762
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54762&action=edit
heuristic
I am testing this heuristic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109293
Bug ID: 109293
Summary: Missing memmem() prototype in fixincludes/fixfixes.c
on Windows/MinGW-W64
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> _1 shoud be [-Inf, nextafter (0.0, -Inf)], not [-Inf, -0.0]
Well, that is a consequence of the decision to always flush denormals to zero
in
frange::flush_de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> > BTW, I don't think it helps at all here, but casting from l_10 to a float,
> > we know _1 can't be either -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> We definitely should add range-ops for conversions from integral to floating
> point and from floating to integral and their reverses.
Do we have range-ops fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109140
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109140
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109294
Bug ID: 109294
Summary: Inconsistent exp function implementations for compile
time and run time evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109288
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109295
Bug ID: 109295
Summary: deducing brace-enclosed initializer list using import
fails to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108414
Gregory Dushkin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yagreg7 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109296
Bug ID: 109296
Summary: RISC-V build unexpected fails
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109048
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> Created attachment 54762 [details]
> heuristic
>
> I am testing this heuristic
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ranger-threader-3.c scan-tree-dump-times ethread
"Regist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109296
--- Comment #1 from JuzheZhong ---
It's related to thead extension.
can not cc to
christoph.muell...@vrull.eu
rjie...@linux.alibaba.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54766
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54766&action=edit
gcc13-pr109154-denorm.patch
Untested patch to honor denormals if floating point mode has them, unless
-funsaf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> I think flushing denormals makes sense for "forward" propagation,
Well, it still hurts quite a lot exactly for the ranges around zero.
Given that most CPU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> > I think flushing denormals makes sense for "forward" propagation,
>
> Well, it still hurts quite a lot e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108969
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, we likely use set also when just copying ranges and the like, so we'd
probably
need to move the flush_denormals_to_zero calls from set to somewhere else,
perhaps
range_operator_float::fold_range?
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108933
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> Hmm, I guess if users enable FTZ we could instruct them to tell that to
> the compiler, but requiring -funsafe-math-optimizations is quite a
> difficult sugge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.0
Summary|[10/11/12/13 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109296
Christoph Müllner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christophm30 at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108419
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108360
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I now see the following IL into the last VRP pass
[local count: 1073741824]:
b.2_1 = b;
_2 = b.2_1 <= 0;
h.0_19 = (unsigned short) _2;
_20 = h.0_19 + 65535;
_21 = (short int) _20;
_3 = _21 >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108947
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108358
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Both -O2 and -O1 can optimize away the call to foo. For -Os we end up with
[local count: 118111600]:
l = *.LC0;
goto ; [100.00%]
[local count: 955630225]:
bar31_ ();
i.0_1 = i;
_2 = i.0_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108784
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #2)
> Hello, Arseny,
>
> I have a hunch this could possibly be related with fixed bug 108573.
> Is this one by any chance fixed for you?
No, I still get this fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109296
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Philipp Tomsich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9da6f93144619b0f798c2b43d7cf4fc8d42c13a0
commit r13-6877-g9da6f93144619b0f798c2b43d7cf4fc8d42c13a0
Author: Christoph Müllner
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108357
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109297
Bug ID: 109297
Summary: typo: subcomand
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108357
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce4a00e29c71f2f51d52f407ecd265fa40688586
commit r13-6878-gce4a00e29c71f2f51d52f407ecd265fa40688586
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108250
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108357
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54498
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bff7c6f70166ee71ff6e42f58663dc255e4bc079
commit r13-6879-gbff7c6f70166ee71ff6e42f58663dc255e4bc079
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109297
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109297
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cffa72fde8ce9c767e20c058892929d9c9b33ae7
commit r13-6880-gcffa72fde8ce9c767e20c058892929d9c9b33ae7
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109297
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109295
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102576
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthewsatti at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109298
Bug ID: 109298
Summary: warning: array subscript ‘...’ is partly outside array
bounds of ‘...’
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107087
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108892
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Right. The fix is a 1-liner. I had it going through a test on x86 and riscv
and lost power. Finally got it re-spun and just need to look at the results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109294
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107087
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 54767
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54767&action=edit
patch I am testing
I can't verify the preprocessed sources with patched trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109294
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dávid Péter Jánosa from comment #0)
> Based on the calls, the same binary will provide different results for use
> case 1 vs 3 which is a bug.
> Also, the result will be different for use case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106998
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107087
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Comment 0 comes from 22_locale/money_put/cons/3.cc
make check RUNTESTFLAGS="conformance.exp=22_locale/money_put/cons/3.cc
--target_board=unix/-m32"
(but I don't see it failing now).
Comment 1 comes from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109159
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106608
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109274
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Macleod ---
I will provide a fix today, once I look deeper and settle it. Sorry, I was
busy and incommunicado all weekend.
The real root of the problem seems to be that previously if symbolically op1 ==
op2, we were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106543
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106124
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
Andrew Carlotti changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.carlotti at arm dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109299
Bug ID: 109299
Summary: wrong warning on std::wstring with -O2 -std=c++20
-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109276
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
/* PR target/109276 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-march=x86-64" } */
/* { dg-additional-options "-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2" } */
long long a;
long double b;
void
foo (v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109276
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The above testcase only started ICEing with r11-2259-g0a9d711df36b42b6494b73 ,
so I think the IPA pass is innocent here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109294
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59498
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ncm at cantrip dot org
--- Comment #21 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109098
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #8)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
> > The invalid UTF-8 in the patch seems to have broken the server-side script:
>
> Maybe the not-really-utf8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109276
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Neither the new ix86_lower_local_decl_alignment function is called, nor
SET_DECL_ALIGN in pass_adjust_alignment::execute.
What happens is that
#0 ix86_local_alignment (exp=,
mode=E_DImode, align=64, may_lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109299
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109293
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109293
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109293
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I'll make a patch to check if memmem is declared in configure.ac. memmem is
not a POSIX function, so it may be undeclared on systems other than MinGW as
well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109293
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> I'll make a patch to check if memmem is declared in configure.ac. memmem is
> not a POSIX function, so it may be undeclared on systems other than MinGW as
> well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109293
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> > I'll make a patch to check if memmem is declared in configure.ac. memmem is
> > not a POSIX function, so it may be undec
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
