http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
I've thought more like:
int
main ()
{
char p[] = "foobar";
int len = strlen (p);
p[1] = 'O';
p[6] = 'R';
int len2 = strlen (p);
foo (len, len2);
}
thus, there shouldn't be a need for the second str
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> That case is for the
> if (idx > 0)
> {
> si = get_strinfo (idx);
> ...
> }
> block in there, and si != NULL && si->length != NULL_TREE && TREE_CO
||2013-05-13
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.7.3
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.1
Summary|ICE in optab_handler, at|[4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57251
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
||2012-10-02
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-02
09:08:18 UTC ---
Happens also with 4.7 HEAD.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54783
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
||2012-10-03
CC||dehao at google dot com,
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-03
07:58:48 UTC
||2012-10-03
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-03
19:47:31 UTC ---
Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51238
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50211
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
,
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-07
11:34:37 UTC ---
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=190492
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2012-10-07
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-07
12:41:57 UTC ---
Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
||2012-10-07
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-07
16:48:00 UTC ---
Likely that's because we're missing the definiton of __sub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54846
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-07
16:54:01 UTC ---
Spoke too soon, we don't have these definition for any of *di* functions, nor
COMPAT_DIMODE_TRAPPING_ARITHMETIC. Sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-08
10:35:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 28384
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28384
Untested fix
Per #c5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-08
17:40:53 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Oct 8 17:38:13 2012
New Revision: 192218
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192218
Log:
PR54831.
Added:
trunk/gcc/tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2012-10-11
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-11
14:45:45 UTC ---
Confirmed. Will bisect in a bit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-11
15:37:41 UTC ---
In the second TC the user shouldn't lie to the compiler and put
__attribute__((noreturn)) to a function, that in fact returns. Without this
attribute, or with e.g. abort () in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-11
15:40:40 UTC ---
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=185913
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54903
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-17
12:50:42 UTC ---
I'll try something, mine for now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #3 from Marek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-17
16:11:08 UTC ---
In .ccp1 we have:
i_6 = (intptr_t) &MEM[(void *)&x + 4B];
j_7 = (intptr_t) &y;
_8 = i_6 == j_7;
_9 = (int) _8;
but in .forwprop1:
_8 = 0;
_9 = (int)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-18
10:29:50 UTC ---
Yep, this is exactly the patch I have right now. It passed testing/bootstrap.
Will post to ML today for review.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-18
15:42:22 UTC ---
Hmm, the fix isn't enough:
int
main (void)
{
int x = 30;
int y = 31;
int *p = &x + 1;
int *q = &y;
return p == q;
}
$ gcc -O2 pr54945.c && ./a.out ; echo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-19
13:18:12 UTC ---
I agree and do not plan to work on "fixing" that. (The intptr_t change is
already approved and will be comitted shortly though.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-19
16:55:13 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 19 16:53:39 2012
New Revision: 192617
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192617
Log:
PR54945
Modified:
trunk/gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-19
17:01:37 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 19 17:00:50 2012
New Revision: 192618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192618
Log:
PR54945
Modified:
branches/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-19
17:03:40 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 19 17:03:07 2012
New Revision: 192619
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192619
Log:
PR54945
Modified:
branches/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2012-10-21
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-21
16:10:30 UTC ---
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=192538
||2012-10-21
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot
||gnu.org, wschmidt at gcc
||dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55005
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-22
12:53:47 UTC ---
$ gcc -O2 -funroll-loops -fPIC testcase.c && ./a.out
$ gcc -O2 -fpeel-loops -fPIC testcase.c && ./a.out
seem to be fine with current trunk. The others are failing though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55005
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-22
13:08:40 UTC ---
In .jump there's
;; Function main (main, funcdef_no=2, decl_uid=1727, cgraph_uid=2) (executed
once)
Deleted 22 trivially dead insns
3 basic blocks, 1 edges.
(note 5 0 4
||2012-10-22
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-22
13:38:20 UTC ---
Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54982
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55054
Bug #: 55054
Summary: -Wuninitialized warning in tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55054
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55054
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-24
14:52:04 UTC ---
Ok, sorry. Then we should probably close this one as INVALID...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55054
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2012-10-26
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-26
15:15:50 UTC ---
Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55084
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2012-10-29
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot
||gnu.org, rth at gcc dot
||gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment
||2012-10-29
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot
||gnu.org, rguenth at gcc dot
||gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55125
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55124
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54012
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
||2012-10-29
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot
||gnu.org, vmakarov at gcc
||dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54012
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-30
10:47:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Have you compiled with -lgfortran?
Yeah.
||2012-10-31
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot
||gnu.org, vmakarov at gcc
||dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
||2012-10-31
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-31
21:52:21 UTC ---
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=192719
||2012-10-31
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-31
21:59:38 UTC ---
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=192719
||2012-10-31
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-31
22:06:12 UTC ---
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55164
Bug #: 55164
Summary: -fdump-*-all not working
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
||2012-11-03
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot
||gnu.org, steven at gcc dot
||gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
||2012-11-03
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot
||gnu.org, vmakarov at gcc
||dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
|unassigned at gcc dot |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2012-11-04
02:33:36 UTC ---
Looking into it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2012-11-04
12:49:27 UTC ---
I think the problem is that we somehow arrive at this:
loop_1 (header = 2, multiple latches, niter = )
{
bb_2 (preds = {bb_0 }, succs = {bb_4 bb_3 })
{
(note 5 0
||2012-11-04
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot
||gnu.org, rsandifo at gcc
||dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek 2012-11-08
09:12:01 UTC ---
And I'd say that something in bypass_block from cprop.c is the culprit. Not
calling bypass_block -> no ICE, and compilation proceeds fine. Working on a
patch.
||2012-11-10
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek 2012-11-10
17:07:57 UTC ---
With current
||2012-11-10
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot
||gnu.org, steven at gcc dot
||gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
||4.8.1
Last reconfirmed||2013-05-15
Component|c |tree-optimization
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|ice in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57294
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57294
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
void baz (void);
int func ();
static void
bar (int a, int foo (void))
{
baz ();
foo ();
}
void
baz (void)
{
bar (0, func);
}
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Not a GCC issue, you should simply install glibc-devel package.
||2013-05-20
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz,
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.7.3
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.1
Ever
||2013-05-28
CC||eraman at gcc dot gnu.org,
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.8.1
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
||2013-05-29
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|c++ |middle-end
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail
,
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Confirmed. Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/r198745
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57402
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57454
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57454
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57454
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |RESOLVED
Resolution|WONTFIX
||4.8.1
Last reconfirmed||2013-05-31
Component|c |tree-optimization
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|ice in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57478
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 31 10:58:52 2013
New Revision: 199531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199531&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add testcase for PR57478
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57497
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
||2013-06-08
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
I see that too.
||2013-06-17
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 ---
Created attachment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57630
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30315|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57630
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jun 18 07:41:19 2013
New Revision: 200163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=200163&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/57630
* c-decl.c (check_for_loop_decls): Improve diagnostics
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57630
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
It should work for any type, but, why don't you do only foo++;, i.e. drop the
cast? In that case there shouldn't be value computed is not used warning.
||2013-06-21
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Confirmed, bisecting now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57664
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Can't really bisect it further due to autoconf version, but it started between
186994 and 187108.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57750
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57750
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2013-07-05
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, I think you're right. Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57661
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57889
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
Known to fail||4.8.1, 4.9.0
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56417
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Cleaned-up & reduced testcase:
/* PR sanitizer/56417 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-w" } */
int
foo (void)
{
return __builtin_strlen (&foo);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57960
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1301 - 1400 of 9290 matches
Mail list logo
