Re: [PATCH] middle-end/100464 - avoid spurious TREE_ADDRESSABLE in folding debug stmts

On 5/7/21 6:21 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 12:17 PM Richard Biener wrote: canonicalize_constructor_val was setting TREE_ADDRESSABLE on bases of ADDR_EXPRs but that's futile when we're dealing with CTOR values in debug stmts. This rips out the code which was added for

[Bug c++/100490] New: gcc 11.1.0 hangs forever while building its own libstdc++ (c++17 floating_from_chars.cc) on aarch64 linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100490 Bug ID: 100490 Summary: gcc 11.1.0 hangs forever while building its own libstdc++ (c++17 floating_from_chars.cc) on aarch64 linux Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 8:49 AM abebeos via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Is there any private email where one can file complaints re > project-maintainers (or "those who are supervising the maintainers") ? > > Is there any information about the process for such complaints? > > Related Issue:

[Bug target/100152] [10/11/12 Regression] used caller-saved register not preserved across a call.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152 --- Comment #47 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu --- I downloaded [Bradleys-Mac-mini:~/programs/gcc/gcc-mainline] lucier% git log -1 --oneline 2254b3233b5 (HEAD -> master, origin/trunk, origin/master, origin/HEAD) PR middle-end/100325 -

[Bug c++/100489] [10.3/11/12 REGRESSION] ICE in cp/constexpr.c:3556

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100489 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at redhat dot com Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 06:49:11PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7) > > There is no default initialization in the code below. default > > initialization is

gcc-11-20210508 is now available

Snapshot gcc-11-20210508 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20210508/ 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

[Bug c++/100489] New: [10.3/11 REGRESSION] ICE in cp/constexpr.c:3556

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100489 Bug ID: 100489 Summary: [10.3/11 REGRESSION] ICE in cp/constexpr.c:3556 Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a test for PR tree-optimization/42587

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 7:25 AM H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 7:18 AM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > PR tree-optimization/42587 > > * gcc.target/i386/pr42587.c: New test. > > --- > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr42587.c | 35 + > > 1 file changed,

[patch] Remove call to gcc_unreachable in range-op.cc

Hi, the attached Ada testcase happens to stumble on the call to gcc_unreachable in operator_bitwise_xor::op1_range. My understanding is that there is nothing wrong going on and that it's safe to let it go through. Tested on x86-64/Linux, OK for mainline and 11 branch? 2021-05-08 Eric

[Bug fortran/100440] allocated() gives True for unallocated variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440 --- Comment #8 from David.Smith at lmu dot edu --- That is not good. The expected results from my test case with debug prints commented out should be this: Sample 10. Eigenvalue from matrix powers. Iterationeigenvalue approximation

[GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

(failed to join gcc, so posting here) Is there any private email where one can file complaints re project-maintainers (or "those who are supervising the maintainers") ? Is there any information about the process for such complaints? Related Issue:

[Bug web/100480] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480 --- Comment #4 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com --- This is essentially a bug in gcc's component "web". The website should inform clearly who can one contact (either in public or in private) to make a formal complaint. This is rally nothing

Re: [PATCH] tweak range-on-exit.

On 5/7/21 9:03 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: + else +{ + range_on_entry (r, bb, name); + // See if there was a deref in this block, if applicable + if (!cfun->can_throw_non_call_exceptions && r.varying_p () && + m_cache.m_non_null.non_null_deref_p (name, bb)) +

[Bug ada/100488] [12 Regression] trunk 20210508 fails to build ada on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100488 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Last

[PATCH v2] Add a test for PR tree-optimization/42587

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 7:18 AM H.J. Lu wrote: > > PR tree-optimization/42587 > * gcc.target/i386/pr42587.c: New test. > --- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr42587.c | 35 + > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+) > create mode 100644

[Bug ada/100486] Ada build fails for 32bit Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-05-08

[PATCH] x86: Add a test for PR tree-optimization/42587

PR tree-optimization/42587 * gcc.target/i386/pr42587.c: New test. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr42587.c | 35 + 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr42587.c diff --git

[Bug fortran/98411] [10/11] Pointless: Array larger than ‘-fmax-stack-var-size=’, moved from stack to static storage for main program variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411 Ryo Furue changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ryofurue at gmail dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/42587] bswap not recognized for memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42587 Peter Cordes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter at cordes dot ca --- Comment #12

[Bug ada/100488] New: [12 Regression] trunk 20210508 fails to build ada on x86_64-linux-gnux32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100488 Bug ID: 100488 Summary: [12 Regression] trunk 20210508 fails to build ada on x86_64-linux-gnux32 Product: gcc Version: 9.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug tree-optimization/100487] New: A possible divide by zero bug in jump_table_cluster::emit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100487 Bug ID: 100487 Summary: A possible divide by zero bug in jump_table_cluster::emit Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH] c++: argument pack expansion inside constraint [PR100138]

On 5/7/21 12:33 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: This PR is about CTAD but the underlying problems are more general; CTAD is a good trigger for them because of the necessary substitution into constraints that deduction guide generation entails. In the testcase below, when generating the implicit

[Bug ada/100486] New: Ada build fails for 32bit Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486 Bug ID: 100486 Summary: Ada build fails for 32bit Windows Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ada

Re: Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC

> > Hi all, > > > > I`m using GCC 9.3 AutoFDO and the old version create_gcov on arm64 > > and it works well. Actually it support not only LBR like mode but > > also inst_retired even cycles event, which`s the early implementation > > of AutoFDO[1]. There is no difference in output format of

[Bug fortran/46991] [OOP] polymorphic assumed-size actual arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46991 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7920c05ce0b737da1abf644cf4b3fa862a1b3df1 commit r12-636-g7920c05ce0b737da1abf644cf4b3fa862a1b3df1 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Fri

[PATCH v2] MIPS: R6: load/store can process unaligned address

MIPS release 6 requires the lw/ld/sw/sd can work with unaligned address, while it can be implemented by full hardware or trap Since it is may be fully done by hardware, we add an option -m(no-)unaligned-access, the kernel may need it. gcc/ChangeLog: * config/mips/mips.h

[PATCH v5 2/2] MIPS: add builtime option for -mcompact-branches

For R6+ target, it allows to configure gcc to use compact branches only if avaiable. gcc/ChangeLog: * config.gcc: add -with-compact-branches=policy build option. * doc/install.texi: Likewise. * config/mips/mips.h: Likewise. --- gcc/config.gcc | 13 +++--

[PATCH v5 1/2] MIPS: Not trigger error for pre-R6 and -mcompact-branches=always

For MIPSr6, we may wish to use compact-branches only. Currently, we have to use `always' option, while it is mark as conflict with pre-R6. cc1: error: unsupported combination: ‘mips32r2’ -mcompact-branches=always Just ignore -mcompact-branches=always for pre-R6. This patch also defines

[Bug c++/100485] New: False positive in -Wmismatched-new-delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485 Bug ID: 100485 Summary: False positive in -Wmismatched-new-delete Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Make density_test only for vector version

Hi Will, Thanks for the comments! on 2021/5/7 下午7:43, will schmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2021-05-07 at 10:28 +0800, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: >> Hi, >> >> When I was investigating density_test heuristics, I noticed that >> the current rs6000_density_test could be used for single scalar >>

[PATCH] rs6000: Move rs6000_vect_nonmem into target cost_data

Hi, This patch is to move rs6000_vect_nonmem (target cost_data related information) into target cost_data struct. Following Richi's comments in the thread[1], we can gather data from add_stmt_cost invocations. This is one pre-step to centralize target cost_data related stuffs. Is it ok for

[PATCH 2/2 v2] rs6000: Guard density_test only for vector version

Hi, v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569790.html This is the updated version with one new parameter costing_for_scalar passed by init_cost hook, instead of checking the passed data point identity. Bootstrapped/regtested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu P9. Is it ok for trunk?

[PATCH 1/2] vect: Add costing_for_scalar parameter to init_cost hook

Hi Richi, Thanks for the comments! on 2021/5/7 下午5:43, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 5:30 AM Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> When I was investigating density_test heuristics, I noticed that >> the current rs6000_density_test could be used for single scalar >>

[Bug c++/100482] namespaces as int in decltype expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100482 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Ever confirmed|0

[Bug web/100480] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- It's an invalid bug report, because it's not a bug in GCC. I don't know how to answer your question, because it's not clear who you want to contact. Which maintainers? There are many of them listed in

[Bug testsuite/100484] [12 regression] Test case gcc.dg/sso-9.c fails after r12-622

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100484 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/100467] [12 regression] g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/thunk1.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467 --- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger --- Rainer, I would be happy if you could give this patch a try. Thanks Bernd.