https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93789
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93191
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek -
||2020-02-27
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Confirmed. The
||2020-02-27
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
Summary|User-defined conversion |[8/9/10 Regression]
|function not working in |User-defined conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93870
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Clearly we're trying to take the address of a TARGET_EXPR:
TARGET_EXPR
That's bad and we've had PRs about this in the past, e.g. Bug 87145. I suspect
the fix might be along the same lines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93870
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93870
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Completely untested:
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -7082,7 +7082,7 @@ convert_nontype_argument (tree type, tree expr,
tsubst_flags_t complain)
create a TARGET_EXPR, but in a template we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93870
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually perhaps we should create an IMPLICIT_CONV_EXPR for *any*
value-dependent argument.
at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Mine but it occurs to me I should get back to bug 91465 before attacking this
one. This one might even be fixed for free by the previous one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93898
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually most likely this is a dup of bug 90432.
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-01
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Confirmed, but clang++ warns too.
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93989
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93989
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Unfortunately that generates literally hundreds of errors when compiled with
-std=c++20 so it's nearly impossible for me to analyze it and see if there's a
real problem.
||2020-03-02
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Confirmed.
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-02
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|ICE in adjust_temp_type, at |[10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93998
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93998
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
It's the new
5452 /* Avoid evaluating a TARGET_EXPR more than once. */
5453 if (tree *p = ctx->global->values.get (TARGET_EXPR_SLOT (t)))
5454 {
5455 if (lval)
5456
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93958
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91678
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
I'm not sure yet -- I remember issues I'd seen with the patch, but those issues
were somehow resolved, so the maybe_lvalue_p bit was all that was needed on
trunk. I need to do a regtest/bootstrap on 9 to see
||2020-03-03
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Confirmed, presumable we (gcc) are wrong here.
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-03
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Confirmed with trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Summary|[9/10 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] g++ |[9 Regression] g++ rejects
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-05
12:16:08 UTC ---
So, what happens here is that tracer performs tail-duplication. That is per se
of course fine, but when we're re-scanning bodies in fix_loop_structure, we
correctly mark BBs in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-05
12:22:28 UTC ---
Hopefully it'll be somewhat clearer with a picture:
http://people.redhat.com/mpolacek/src/pr56181.png
the BB 4 is the one that is first marked as residing in loop 2 (because it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-05
15:53:44 UTC ---
Or maybe tracer shouldn't duplicate BB between headers, i.e. BB whose successor
and predecessor is a header. Testing a patch for that...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-05
16:33:45 UTC ---
Hmm, maybe I should have put it this way: we don't want to duplicate a BB,
which may be a preheader. Does it sound sane? Thus, something like
--- a/gcc/tracer.c
+++ b/gcc/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
||2013-02-09
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-09
12:14:45 UTC ---
Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56264
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44938
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51544
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
||2013-02-12
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-12
20:05:11 UTC ---
I have a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44938
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-12
20:07:30 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Feb 12 20:07:04 2013
New Revision: 195989
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195989
Log:
Fix bootstrap with -O3.
Modified:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44938
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2013-02-14
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.7.3
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56310
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56310
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
||2013-02-14
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.7.3
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56321
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-14
13:58:06 UTC ---
Better backtrace:
X.c: In function ‘foo’:
X.c:1:7: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
float foo(int n)
^
0xa40775 crash_signal
/home/marek/src/gcc/gcc/toplev.c:33
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56321
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-14
14:06:36 UTC ---
And yeah, with -fno-tree-reassoc -> no ICE.
||2013-02-14
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-14
22:03:06 UTC ---
Confirmed.
||2013-02-15
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from
||2013-02-15
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.6.4
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|ICE in |[4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE in
||2013-02-17
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot
||gnu.org, rguenth at gcc dot
||gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56398
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56403
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56398
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-20
15:33:52 UTC ---
Reduced. Should I add the testcase to into testsuite?
namespace
{
#0 "/usr/include/c/4.8/bits/postypes.h" 3
}
vtkpow (int b)
{
int a1;
int b1;
int c;
while
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56398
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-21
10:28:57 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Feb 21 10:21:19 2013
New Revision: 196199
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196199
Log:
New test for PR56398.
Added:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53884
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53884
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.3 |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56421
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56344
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56344
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-22
14:33:37 UTC ---
Or probably s/break/continue/, in that case we'd issue error () on every
ill-sized parameter. And of course, it's completely untested.
||2013-02-22
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|Segmentation fault in |[4.8 Regression]
|find_var_scev_info, at |Segmentation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56426
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-25
10:58:12 UTC ---
(gdb)
358 slot = htab_find_slot (scalar_evolution_info, &tmp, INSERT);
(gdb) p scalar_evolution_info
$1 = (htab_t) 0x0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56426
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-25
12:15:05 UTC ---
Goes away with -fno-tree-pre. The thing is, PRE calls scev_finalize. But
before loop optimizing, especially estimate_numbers_of_iterations, which calls
estimate_numbers_of_ite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56426
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56426
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-26
11:06:28 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Feb 26 11:06:14 2013
New Revision: 196281
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196281
Log:
2013-02-26 Marek Polacek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56426
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56464
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
||2013-02-26
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.7.3
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|ICE in |[4.8 Regression] ICE in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56466
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56466
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-26
18:15:28 UTC ---
Unsurprisingly started with
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=195880, but must have been
latent before.
|unassigned at gcc dot |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-26
18:28:53 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg01183.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56466
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56466
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-28
10:13:53 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Feb 28 10:13:48 2013
New Revision: 196335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196335
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/56466
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56466
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
|unassigned at gcc dot |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-28
13:53:54 UTC ---
On it.
||2013-03-04
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.7.3
Summary|ICE in simplify_truncation, |[4.8 Regression] ICE in
|at simplify-rtx.c:619
||2013-03-05
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-05
16:34:13 UTC ---
Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56562
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56478
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-08
14:41:20 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Mar 8 14:41:14 2013
New Revision: 196547
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196547
Log:
PR tree-optimization/56478
* predict
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56478
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2013-03-23
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-23
09:19:11 UTC ---
Please provide a preprocessed source.
||2013-03-23
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.7.3
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-23
12:12:29 UTC ---
Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-26
15:20:34 UTC ---
vectorizable_condition gets this stmt:
patt_10 = i.1_17 == 0 ? 1 : 0;
We can't do just
if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (vectype)))
return false;
which quashes the ICE be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-26
16:20:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 29733 [details]
> Untested patch
>
> I was thinking about something like this. In 4.8, I added vec_cond_expr
> expansion when t
|unassigned at gcc dot |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-27
10:52:06 UTC ---
Let me try something.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56755
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
||4.7.3
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Last reconfirmed||2013-03-27
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56759
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56759
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19449
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
06:57:56 UTC ---
*** Bug 56759 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
||2013-03-28
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.7.3
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
07:38:04 UTC ---
Something goes wrong in LIM.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
09:54:58 UTC ---
It seems that move_computations_stmt firstly inserts into bb 11
# VUSE <.MEM_21>
D__lsm.5 = *_17;
and then
# VUSE <.MEM_21>
_17 = *q_8(D);
move_computations then commits t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
10:11:55 UTC ---
FWIW, started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=196769
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
11:15:20 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 28 11:14:44 2013
New Revision: 197192
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/56695
* tree-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2013-04-03
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.9.0
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-03
12:58:19 UTC ---
Confirmed.
|unassigned at gcc dot |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-03
13:18:16 UTC ---
I think I have a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55702
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54936
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54472
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55702
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-03
16:02:48 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Apr 3 16:01:38 2013
New Revision: 197430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/55702
* tsan.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55702
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-03
16:06:46 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Apr 3 16:06:26 2013
New Revision: 197432
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197432&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/55702
* tsan.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55702
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
1101 - 1200 of 9290 matches
Mail list logo
