https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94786
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94786
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48475
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48475&action=edit
gcc11-pr94786.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94793
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94798
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for the subtraction followed by comparison, I think this is something
normally optimized through peephole2, but that one doesn't trigger in this case
due to RA decisions, where it sees different operands:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94857
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94857
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94783
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 11+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94913
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
|miscompilation of |miscompilation of
|word-at-a-time copy via |word-at-a-time copy via
|packed structs |packed structs
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94857
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94786
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95000
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95001
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95001
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The on-demand VRP (or if it can do non-zero bits too, even better), ought to
handle this kind of things, but it isn't something we can store in the
SSA_NAMEs unless we create the ASSERT_EXPRs (which means dur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95008
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95057
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95057
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It can't. The warning isn't flow sensitive, doesn't know about assignments,
conditionals etc.
What you are thinking of is something that can be only done much later, but at
that point one risks that there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is not valid OpenMP, clang is incorrect to accept it. Of course g++
shouldn't ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95063
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase that is valid:
template
struct S {
T a:12;
S () : a(0)
{
#pragma omp for linear(a)
for (int k = 0; k < 64; ++k)
a++;
}
};
S s;
I guess this boils down to what type shoul
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48510
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48510&action=edit
gcc11-pr95063.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95052
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48511
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48511&action=edit
gcc11-pr95052.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95060
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48515
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48515&action=edit
gcc11-pr95060.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95076
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95080
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48521
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48521&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95060
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95080
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] |[10 Regression]
|-fcom
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r10-3542
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95113
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95108
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95108
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in |[9/10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95140
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The warning should change, not the conservative assumption. There is a lot of
code in the wild with such trailing arrays, not everything uses flexible array
members, [0] or [1] for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95141
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95149
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95149
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With string merging even "foobar" + 3 == "bar" (or not, depending on alignment
decision, how hard does the linker optimize etc.). For static vars only if
-fmerge-all-constants and the var would be const and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94934
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Gabriel Ravier from comment #3)
> In that case, it looks really easy to reimplemnet `-ftrapv` as literally
> just enabling `-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
> -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94962
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 8192
> > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 16384
> > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 4096
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95063
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95216
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95216
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-23
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Regressed in r10-2769-g14b7950f126f84fa585e3a057940ff10d4c5b3f8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For memcmp, it looks completely wrong to use c_getstr, I think in that case it
should use string_constant instead, or if it uses it, it should punt if the
returned length by it is smaller than the length of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95307
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For - 0 it is diagnosed by:
/* Technically we should check this for all subexpressions, but that
runs into problems with our internal representation of pointer
subtraction and the 5.19 rules are s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
How would you know if there is or isn't an object at that those addresses?
Sure, if you in #c4 change p + 1 into p, then it is undefined behavior, but as
I said, UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer has no way to dete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Frantisek Sumsal from comment #7)
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't detecting pointer overflows
> (even in cases where it's apparently not an undefined behavior) the sole
> purpose of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > There is nothing wrong on addition of -1, whether signed or cast to
> > size_t/uintptr_t, to a pointer,
>
> Lookin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase, so that there is no UB.
void bar (void);
void
foo (long int *x, int y, int *z, int v)
{
int a[y];
int b;
for (b = 0; b < 3; ++b)
z[b] = x[b] + 1.0f;
if (v)
return;
bar (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> pointer-overflow is a cheap check without any context, for ptr + off
> it will do
> uintptr_t res = (uintptr_t) ptr + off;
> if (((intptr_t) res) < 0 ? res > (ui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Component|l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
unshare_expr can handle that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95197
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For e.g.
void bar (I &a);
void
foo (I &a)
{
#pragma omp task //firstprivate (a)
bar (a);
}
with the same templates this is handled by omp_cxx_notice_variable, which will
1068 get_copy_ct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95197
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
// { dg-do link }
typedef __PTRDIFF_TYPE__ ptrdiff_t;
template
class I
{
public:
typedef ptrdiff_t difference_type;
I ();
~I ();
I (T *);
I (const I &);
T &operator * ();
T
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-25
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48597
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48597&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95315
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95329
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95328
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95307
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried:
--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj 2020-05-25 10:06:59.886175941 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c 2020-05-26 22:02:23.661355854 +0200
@@ -6196,6 +6196,18 @@ cxx_eval_constant_expression (const cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95315
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #4)
> Shouldn't there be
>
> if (!node_removal_hook_holder)
> node_removal_hook_holder
> = symtab->add_cgraph_removal_hook (…
>
> instead?
Of course, go
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
complex(kind=10) :: a(6), b, d(2,2)
logical :: m(6), n, o(2,2)
integer :: c(1), e(2)
a = (/ 1., 2., 17., 2., 2., 6. /)
b
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-28
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95390
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48630
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48630&action=edit
gcc11-pr95390.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95402
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html one needs to use
GNU make to build gcc, are you sure make is a GNU make?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95315
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95390
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95052
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase with -O2 -fconserve-stack:
void bar (char *);
void
foo (void)
{
char buf[70] = "";
bar (buf);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95436
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/546851.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95430
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Already doing such address arithmetics is UB (though of course a + 10 is ok
above), but we don't have a warning for that and as I said in another PR, ubsan
could detect only the cases where the compiler can s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95455
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-01
Status|UNCONFIRME
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since r10-6426-g5f0653a8b75a5ad5a5405a27dd92d3a5759eed4c we on x86_64-linux
miscompile following testcase at -O2:
struct S
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
void
foo ()
{
sizeof (({ label: 0; }));
goto label;
}
ICEs with C++:
during GIMPLE pass: cfg
rh1842304.C: In function ‘void foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95465
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95475
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95474
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95467
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95474
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
4.0 had a clear
"A variable that is part of another variable (such as a field of a structure)
but is not an array element or an array section cannot appear in a map clause."
restriction, this has been lifted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95474
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Hopefully this year. What you can do in the meantime is
auto *mydata = data;
and use mydata instead of data.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95487
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Jakub, you added the scatter support - do you remember what the code tries to
> do here?
I've only added gathers myself (and only the AVX2-ish), scatters were a
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since r10-7096-gd417b4f5414d9076300ab41974a14424f722688c the following testcase
ICEs:
template
struct A;
template
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95508
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95496
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> The instrumentation added by the sanitizers is known to lead to introducing
> invalid code (typically by jump threading) that triggers spurious warnings.
I don't
|tree-optimization
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-04
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95532
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
1101 - 1200 of 42681 matches
Mail list logo
