https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59465
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1d8fd2884b44598d80de1038b086eec41519d4b
commit r14-9622-gd1d8fd2884b44598d80de1038b086eec41519d4b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59465
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114423
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112975
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6cf5789135236c5639075c8f235e7dd461b6ff6
commit r14-9625-gc6cf5789135236c5639075c8f235e7dd461b6ff6
Author: David Malcolm
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112974
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6cf5789135236c5639075c8f235e7dd461b6ff6
commit r14-9625-gc6cf5789135236c5639075c8f235e7dd461b6ff6
Author: David Malcolm
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106358
Bug 106358 depends on bug 112974, which changed state.
Bug 112974 Summary: [14 Regression] -Wanalyzer-tainted-array-index false
positive seen on Linux kernel
drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112974
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112975
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106358
Bug 106358 depends on bug 112975, which changed state.
Bug 112975 Summary: [14 Regression] -Wanalyzer-tainted-allocation-size false
positive seen in Linux kernel's drivers/xen/privcmd.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112975
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114408
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 57781
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57781&action=edit
WIP patch for the the ICE
The attached patch seems to fix the ICE. AIUI I'm lazily creating dominance
info as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114434
Bug ID: 114434
Summary: gdc.test/runnable/test23514.d FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114434
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114434
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|amd64-pc-solaris2.11, |i386-pc-solaris2.11,
|s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114419
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is indeed the assert added in that patch.
When cp_fold_function is called on the _ZN12ConfiguratorD0Ev body which
contains
Configurator::~Configurator(this); call
Now, maybe_constant_value is called on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
2024-03-22 Jakub Jelinek
PR c++/114426
* cp-gimplify.cc (cp_fold): Don't call maybe_const_value on
CALL_EXPRs to cdtors.
* g++.dg/cpp2a/pr114426.C: New test.
--- gcc/cp/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have the workaround now, so not urgent for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114433
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-22
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114408
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114408
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or the option option would be try if it also ICEs without your patch with
-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize-trap=undefined -O1 -fanalyzer -flto , then you
could put it into gcc.dg/analyzer/ and just use fsanit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114435
Bug ID: 114435
Summary: Bad code generated when SSA and PCOM are enabled.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> but even when overflow is undefined we don't know whether we introduce
> additional overflow then. Consider MAX (INT_MIN, 0) * -1 where we compute
> 0 * -1 (fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > but even when overflow is undefined we don't know whether we introduce
> > additional overflow then. Consider M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It isn't just those 2 values though.
MAX (INT_MIN / 2, 0) * -2 etc. would be a problem too.
So maybe play safe and only do it for MULT_EXPR when TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED
and c is non-negative? Maybe non-pow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #19 from Richard Earnshaw ---
This is another problem with (I suspect) incorrect aliasing information. If I
compile with -fno-strict-aliasing, I get
88: f4432a1fvst1.8 {d18-d19}, [r3 :64] // {>E} SP+96/16
8c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114436
Bug ID: 114436
Summary: #pragma GCC system_header vs. _Pragma("GCC
system_header")
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114408
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps
--- fold-const.cc.jj8 2024-03-11 22:37:29.0 +0100
+++ fold-const.cc 2024-03-22 19:31:44.189686120 +0100
@@ -7104,6 +7104,27 @@ extract_muldiv_1 (tree t, tree c, enum t
if (TYP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114101
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This two depend on _GLIBCXX_USE_NL_LANGINFO_L which is set by:
AC_TRY_COMPILE([
#include
#if __has_include()
# include
#endif
#include
],[
locale_t loc = newlocale(LC_ALL_MASK, "", (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The following testcase at least reproduces the unsigned multiplication issue,
but doesn't reproduce the signed multiplication nor division by -1.
int
main ()
{
unsigned a = (1U + __INT_MAX__) / 2U;
unsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114436
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114101
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2024-03-22 3:00 p.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114101
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> This two depend on _GLIBCXX_USE_NL_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #31 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c083a453dbe51853e26e02edd8b9346fb8618292
commit r14-9631-gc083a453dbe51853e26e02edd8b9346fb8618292
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104848
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
--- Comment #6 from anl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104848
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
Bug ID: 114437
Summary: Inline asm with "+m,r" operand ignores input value
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
"+m" does not do what you think it does ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
--- Comment #3 from xog4n...@a-n.cc ---
Just to confirm, is this an incorrect constraint for the intended goal of
convincing the compiler that the value is used and modified, without actually
doing either and preserving the value, or am I just us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109835
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> FWIW, after doing more of this work, I've decided I don't really care that
> much about this one.
>
> I still think FP mismatches are often worse, but there's enoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114394
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31ef58b18da930b09ea0dfc1d6533c5ef97d8446
commit r14-9632-g31ef58b18da930b09ea0dfc1d6533c5ef97d8446
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at westcontrol dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113841
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:142cc4c223d695e515ed2504501b91d8a7ac6eb8
commit r14-9635-g142cc4c223d695e515ed2504501b91d8a7ac6eb8
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94180
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114401
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c2e28df90a1640cebadef6c6c8ab5ea964071bb1
commit r14-9636-gc2e28df90a1640cebadef6c6c8ab5ea964071bb1
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frederic.recoules@univ-gren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xog4n...@a-n.cc
--- Comment #18 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leppkes at stce dot
rwth-aachen.de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114401
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> There's another bug in the node move assignment operator, so I'll fix that
> too.
Turns out there wasn't, just the one you reported originally. It's fixed o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114394
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-22
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114438
Bug ID: 114438
Summary: Missed constraint F2023:c7108
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114438
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
xog4n...@a-n.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from xog4n...@a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
You can juse use "+mr" without the comma. There is no way to use alterantives
in inline-asm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92597
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 114437 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114101
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Here's a patch to make it UNSUPPORTED on any target that doesn't define the
feature's feature test macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648266.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114433
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 57786
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57786&action=edit
probably related, not fully reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110682
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648270.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10153
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
101 - 169 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
