https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99606
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Please run:
$ gcc -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
All right, can you please attach a pre-processed source file using -E option?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
@Jason: Can you please take a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98834
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
@Richi: Do you still need a bisection or is what Jakub provided accurately
identified?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99615
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fjahanian at apple dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99616
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > I'm going to handle it.
>
> actually, I was already on it .. but if you want to...
I have a patch with changelog don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99618
Bug ID: 99618
Summary: `.gnu.debuglto_.debug_macro' referenced in section
`.gnu.debuglto_.debug_macro' of X defined in discarded
section
Product: gcc
Version: 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99618
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Bug 92860 depends on bug 99592, which changed state.
Bug 99592 Summary: arm: internal compiler error using arm_neon.h with -pg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99108
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
@Jason: Do you tend to backport the fix? Or can we close as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-17
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 REGRESSION] |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to William Bader from comment #8)
> Created attachment 50404 [details]
> example program before creduce
I modified the file to:
find_ad_image_breaks("123", "4329652-1.eps", 0, 0, &breaks_blob,
bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to William Bader from comment #10)
> The program before creduce has debug code. Setting the variable to print the
> debug code makes the program work.
Can you please attach a version that works wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
> This is the real file. It looks like it matches your file.
Good. But then my comment 9 is still and I cannot reproduce your problem..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to William Bader from comment #16)
> Is your pr99621-2.c somewhere that I can look at it?
Sure, it's here:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/marxin/21562b2795430152de5a18ee89fc4e89/raw/5ffbcfb5d7f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
All right, I think it's a well-known problem called X87 FP unit.
The test-case is fixed with:
$ gcc pr99621-3.c -O2 -m32 && ./a.out
len 5167, expected bad
$ gcc pr99621-3.c -O2 -m32 -ffloat-store && ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99624
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||86656
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99627
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-17
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99627
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 50413
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50413&action=edit
Reduced .gcda file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99618
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> Just tried the #c14 testcase with GCC 4.7.2 (ok, not -gdwarf-5, just -g3) and
> with
> GNU ld version 2.22.52.0.1-10.fc17 20120131
> and it works fine.
> So it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 99617, which changed state.
Bug 99617 Summary: gcc/cp/coroutines.cc:2807: member variables not initialised
in constructor ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99616
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96092
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99660
Bug ID: 99660
Summary: Cross compiler cannot be built: i686-wrs-vxworksae
likely since
g:9a835ba4c00bc5f183a26a5335f14a2a428a2b78
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
Bug ID: 99661
Summary: Cross compiler cannot be built: powerpc-darwin8
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99660
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Similarly for powerpc-wrs-vxworksae:
g++ -fno-PIE -c -DSTANDARD_STARTFILE_PREFIX=\"../../../\"
-DSTANDARD_EXEC_PREFIX=\"/usr/local/lib64/gcc/\"
-DSTANDARD_LIBEXEC_PREFIX=\"/usr/local/lib/gcc/\"
-DDEFAULT_TA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99660
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
And powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99661
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
>
> How do you get the SDK and binutils in this case?
>
I don't do that. My ambition is to build host compilers, so I run make
all-host.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99663
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99679
Bug ID: 99679
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in construct_container at
gcc/config/i386/i386.c:2571 since
g:5e2eabe1eed1e53d39923517122d3c7de2013ad4
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99679
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-20
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99680
Bug ID: 99680
Summary: [11 Regression] AddressSanitizer:
global-buffer-overflow since g:04b4828c6dd2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99680
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99681
Bug ID: 99681
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in print_shift_count_operand, at
config/s390/s390.c:7630
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99681
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99675
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-20
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99687
Bug ID: 99687
Summary: AddressSanitizer: alloc-dealloc-mismatch (malloc vs
operator delete) on 0x60400d50
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99687
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-20
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99687
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99687
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99688
Bug ID: 99688
Summary: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address at
gfc_match_name(char*) gcc/fortran/match.c:685
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99688
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71009
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99689
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99694
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc: fatal error: Killed|[9/10/11 Regression] gcc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99702
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE: RTL|[11 Regression] ICE: RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99702
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE: RTL|[11 Regression] ICE: RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98655
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99687
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 99687, which changed state.
Bug 99687 Summary: AddressSanitizer: alloc-dealloc-mismatch (malloc vs operator
delete) on 0x60400d50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99687
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Worx from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > > Try --disable-cet as a workaround
> >
> > How apply this option ?
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99721
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99721
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Just for the record, started with g:ad2603433853129e847cade5e269c6a5f889a020.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99724
Bug ID: 99724
Summary: [11 Regression] CE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2770
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99726
Bug ID: 99726
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in
create_intersect_range_checks_index, at
tree-data-ref.c:1855 since
r10-4762-gf9d6338bd15ce1fae36bf25d3a0545e9678ddc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99726
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Do you want me to bisect that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #4)
> > I can reproduce it. You likely named the file x.f90 (and not x.f). Please
> > try that..
>
> Aha.. Fortran such a mystery :)
Yep, all black magic. Btw. one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
A bit reduced test-case:
SUBROUTINE CLAREF(A, WANTZ, Z, ICOL1, ITMP1, ITMP2, T1, T2, V2)
LOGICALBLOCK, WANTZ
COMPLEXT1, T2, V2
COMPLEXA(LDA, *), VECS, Z(LDA, *)
COMPLEX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99753
Bug ID: 99753
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in ix86_target_macros_internal, at
config/i386/i386-c.c:250 since
r11-5757-g3e2ae3ee285a5745
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99753
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-24
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99753
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99753
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99764
Bug ID: 99764
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2770
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-25
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Ba Jinsheng from comment #3)
> Created attachment 50471 [details]
> the payload to trigger the crash
Is it a valid symbol name? How did you come up with the name?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #7 from M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99751
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Maybe a nicer names:
$ cat pr99751.c
int *ptr1 = 0, **ptr2 = &ptr1;
int *identity(int *p)
{
return p;
}
void store_to_c(int *p)
{
*ptr2 = identity(p);
}
int main()
{
int f;
store_to_c(&f);
if (pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
@doko: Can you please reduce objects and then .ii files needed to reproduce the
issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99782
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99786
Bug ID: 99786
Summary: ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2770
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99786
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99787
Bug ID: 99787
Summary: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4133
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99780
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99787
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0
Summary|ICE in curr_ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99780
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
It's the same story we saw for no_stack_protector attribute:
--param stack-clash-protection-guard-size=12 --param
stack-clash-protection-probe-interval=12 + '#pragma GCC optimize 1'
is not equal to:
--param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99780
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
verify_curr_properties fails because is targetclone pass requires:
const pass_data pass_data_target_clone =
{
SIMPLE_IPA_PASS, /* type */
"targetclone",/* name */
OPTGROUP_N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99780
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99824
Bug ID: 99824
Summary: ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at tree.c:1572
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99824
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|ICE in wide_int_to_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99824
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
valgrind tells:
==2489== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==2489==at 0xCFBD22: wi::force_to_size(long*, long const*, unsigned int,
unsigned int, unsigned int, signop) (wide-int.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99694
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Confirmed, started with r9-7156-g33579b59aaf02eb7.
>
> Hi Martin. I am sorry to bother you, and I just have a question
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99801
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-30
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99814
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99824
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> It doesn't reproduce for me with a debug build. The backtrace you cite is
> impossible (with that STRING_CST). The GCC10 package from leap unfortunately
> doesn
101 - 200 of 5132 matches
Mail list logo
