On Fri, 5 Mar 2021, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Nested functions are permitted for C but not C++ as extension.
> They are also permitted for Fortran, which generates DECL_CONTEXT
> == NAMESPACE_DECL for module variables.
>
> That causes the gcc_assert (decl_function_context (decl) == info->context)
>
On 3/4/21 3:08 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563799.html
> v1 -> v2:
> - Handle constraint modifiers, use AR constraint instead of R, add
> testcases for & and %.
>
> v2:
Chen Li 于2021年3月8日周一 下午2:35写道：
>
>
> When execute libstdc++ testcases on mips, I notice that last_write_time
> alawys failed, and the failed VERIFY is "VERIFY(
> approx_equal(last_write_time(f.path), time) );" where testing time before
> than epoch.
>
> Below is the minimal case:
>
> ```
> //
When execute libstdc++ testcases on mips, I notice that last_write_time
alawys failed, and the failed VERIFY is "VERIFY(
approx_equal(last_write_time(f.path), time) );" where testing time before
than epoch.
Below is the minimal case:
```
// gcc a.c
int main()
{
struct timespec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99314
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99457
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2017-July/479552.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99457
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
stabs support really should be removed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99457
Bug ID: 99457
Summary: gcc/gdb -gstabs+ is buggy.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99398
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 50329
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50329=edit
tested patch
Snapshot gcc-11-20210307 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20210307/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Hi all,
This is my first contribution for an open source project. Please guide
me if anything is missing.
diff --git a/gcc/gcc/asan.c b/gcc/gcc/asan.c
index 89ecd99b182..836f50bd44a 100755
--- a/gcc/gcc/asan.c
+++ b/gcc/gcc/asan.c
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If
Here is the patch to correctly deal with the new __dp_sign_max_size.
I prefer to introduce new __can_advance overloads for this to correctly
deal with the _Distance_precision in it. _M_valid_range was also
ignoring __dp_sign_max_size.
libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Fix management of
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/sv.po
(This file,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99422
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 99455 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99455
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99443
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is not well documented though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-10.2.0/gcc/Gcov-and-Optimization.html#Gcov-and-Optimization
Long-running applications can use the __gcov_reset and __gcov_dump facilities
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 50328
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50328=edit
trunk output (unoptimized)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 50327
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50327=edit
gcc-10 output (unoptimized)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
Bug ID: 99456
Summary: [11 regression] ABI breakage with some static
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
*, int, char const*)
???:0
0x5dddbe _fatal_insn(char const*, rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char
const*)
???:0
0x5a _fatal_insn_not_found(rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char const*)
???:0
==
gcc version 11.0.1 20210307 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99422
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raj.khem at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99454
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99218
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95432
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99218
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:547563ba5abd685077d37a67c7d6fc9b54653934
commit r8-10787-g547563ba5abd685077d37a67c7d6fc9b54653934
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99454
--- Comment #1 from Khem Raj ---
btw. another data point when compiling with -Os it works but fails with -O1 or
-O2
it was working ok with gcc snapshot from 10 days ago.
const*)
???:0
0x5a _fatal_insn_not_found(rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char const*)
???:0
===
attached is the preprocessed source
compiler version
gcc version 11.0.1 20210307 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99422
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I see the function is called before selecting a particular alternative, so
> perhaps it means to care only about constraints like "X" and "" and not say
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99218
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dfa6e6c50be570b8240793f58cdac95be9dd3ef
commit r9-9273-g1dfa6e6c50be570b8240793f58cdac95be9dd3ef
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99422
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #0)
> Created attachment 50314 [details]
> preprocessed source
>
> Commit 9105757a59b890194ebf5b4fcbacd58db34ef332 ("[PR99378] LRA: Skip
> decomposing address
> > > > This fixes a compilation error preventing bootstrap with Ada on
> > > > x86_64-pc-cygwin. See PR bootstrap/94918 for details.
> > > >
> > > > Compared to the initial patch sent in May 2020, this v2 patch places
> > > > the fix in Ada's raise-gcc.c instead of the shared unwind-generic.h,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85074
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by John David Anglin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d2f7f40629cc5d0b4f27ee8aadc98c212876959
commit r8-10786-g8d2f7f40629cc5d0b4f27ee8aadc98c212876959
Author: John David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99365
--- Comment #6 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Thank you. Can confirm it's working for my use case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85074
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by John David Anglin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f01123ca27e648611016d00c3ed95945f27ab30
commit r9-9272-g4f01123ca27e648611016d00c3ed95945f27ab30
Author: John David
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 2:04 PM Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:57 AM Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> >
> > > This fixes a compilation error preventing bootstrap with Ada on
> > > x86_64-pc-cygwin. See PR bootstrap/94918 for details.
> > >
> > > Compared to the initial patch sent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99453
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99430
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
They're simply not supported at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45896
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lewis at sophists dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99439
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99453
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99429
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Dup of PR 94162 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99453
Bug ID: 99453
Summary: libstdc++*-gdb.py installation depends on library
naming
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99452
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Here's another:
using value_t = unsigned long;
unsigned obj;
constinit value_t failed
= reinterpret_cast () + (11 << 0);
constinit value_t accepted
= reinterpret_cast () + (11);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99452
Bug ID: 99452
Summary: Inconsistent constinit handling
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99451
Bug ID: 99451
Summary: [plugin] cannot enable dumps for plugin passes
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95432
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Assembly:
> .loc 1 12 3 is_stmt 1 view .LVU12
> .loc 1 10 8 is_stmt 0 view .LVU13
> movaps %xmm0, (%rsp)
> .loc 1 11 8 view
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99378
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99437
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
cpplib-11.1-b20210207.eo.po.gz
Description: Binary data
The Translation Project robot, in the
name of your translation coordinator.
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'cpplib' has been submitted
by the Esperanto team of translators. The file is available at:
https://translationproject.org/latest/cpplib/eo.po
(This file,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99450
Bug ID: 99450
Summary: ICE: unrecognizable insn with lto build
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57871
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> As this issue is about documentation, if I read the later comments correctly:
> Can you check whether the documentation is now sufficient or whether more is
> needed? > If so, what is needed? — If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99441
--- Comment #2 from Yang Wang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> So line 27 has a short cutting conditional included, so technically it is
> executed 30 times, one for each side of the &&.
$ gcc -O0 --coverage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99443
--- Comment #3 from Yang Wang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This behavior might even be documented but I have not looked yet.
Thanks for your reply! So, this is expected (as well as bug 99442) rather than
a bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99449
Bug ID: 99449
Summary: lto1: fatal error: multiple prevailing defs for
‘_ZTIN4sdsl14rank_support_vILh1ELh1EEE’ with -msse3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like a stack overflow while doing gc. To me die_struct GTY could use a
recursive note added to it. That is just by looking at the backtrace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99170
--- Comment #8 from Rémi Galan Alfonso ---
I tested it and it works perfectly, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70508
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70508
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |libstdc++
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99448
Bug ID: 99448
Summary: ICE in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at
lto/lto-common.c:2739
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
object files at
https://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/guymager-tst.tar.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
Bug ID: 99447
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE (segfault) in
lookup_page_table_entry
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99446
Bug ID: 99446
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in
linemap_position_for_loc_and_offset, at
libcpp/line-map.c:1005
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98533
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
reconfirmed with 20210306, building the actiona package.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99321
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a18ebd6c439227b048a91fbfa66f5983f884c157
commit r11-7548-ga18ebd6c439227b048a91fbfa66f5983f884c157
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
Bug ID: 99445
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99441
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So line 27 has a short cutting conditional included, so technically it is
executed 30 times, one for each side of the &&.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99442
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is no way really to recover from a segfault in a manner that is suitable
for all programs. The developer could set a sigv handler if they want to do any
recovery from it. The library should not do it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99443
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This behavior might even be documented but I have not looked yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99443
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is expected behavior. Aborting should not dump the coverage file
at all as it should be used for an really bad unexitable situation only.
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 9:41 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 01:39:23PM +0100, Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > One possibility would be to change the meaning of Yw, because it
> > > is an internal undocumented constraint and all uses in GCC currently use
> > > it
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99444
Bug ID: 99444
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage with "case" label in "switch"
statement block
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 01:39:23PM +0100, Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > One possibility would be to change the meaning of Yw, because it
> > is an internal undocumented constraint and all uses in GCC currently use it
> > as xYw:
> > constraints.md:(define_register_constraint "Yw"
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99443
Bug ID: 99443
Summary: [GCOV] No coverage with "Aborted(core dumped)"
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99442
Bug ID: 99442
Summary: [GCOV] No coverage with "Segmentation fault (core
dumped)"
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99441
Bug ID: 99441
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage with complex "if" condition
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
78 matches
Mail list logo
