[PATCH 1/2] Improve early simplify and match for phiopt

From: Andrew Pinski Previously the idea was gimple_simplify_phiopt would call resimplify with a NULL sequence but that sometimes fails even if there was only one statement produced. The cases where it fails is when there are two simplifications happen. In the case of the min/max production, the

[PATCH 2/2] [PHIOPT/MATCH] Remove the statement to move if not used

From: Andrew Pinski Instead of waiting for DCE to remove the unused statement, and maybe optimize another conditional, it is better if we don't move the statement and have the statement removed. gcc/ChangeLog: * tree-ssa-phiopt.c (used_in_seq): New function.

[PATCH 0/2] Misc PHIOPT patches

From: Andrew Pinski Just two misc improvements to simplify and match of phiopt. I decided to submit this two before I finish up the min/max movement to match.pd as that will take some time. Both showed up while looking into the movement of min/max though. Andrew Pinski (2): Improve early

[Bug c++/101277] Assert in constructor generates code for statically checkable expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101277 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Way --- Thank you Richard. I'm glad this was fixed in 10.3 and later. Unfortunately the latest arm-none-eabi-gcc toolchain is based on 10.2, but that's out of the GCC maintainers' purview.

[Bug target/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 --- Comment #15 from LIU Hao --- I have bootstrapped GCC 11.1.1 on both {x86_64,i686}-w64-mingw32 and seen no problem so far.

Re: [RFA] Attach MEM_EXPR information when flushing BLKmode args to the stack - V2

On 7/2/2021 10:13 AM, Jeff Law wrote: This is a minor missed optimization we found with our internal port. Given this code: typedef struct {short a; short b;} T; extern void g1(); void f(T s) {     if (s.a < 0)     g1(); } "s" is passed in a register, but it's still a

[PATCH] Check type size for doloop iv on BITS_PER_WORD [PR61837]

Currently, doloop.xx variable is using the type as niter which may shorter than word size. For some cases, it may be better to use word size type. For example, on some 64bit system, to access 32bit niter, subreg maybe used. Then using 64bit type would not need to use subreg if the value can be

[Bug debug/101283] Several tests fail on Darwin with -gctf/gbtf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

Re: [PATCH 0/2] RISC-V: Add ldr/str instruction for T-HEAD.

Hi, Ping. — Jojo 在 2021年6月29日 +0800 PM4:11，Jojo R ，写道： > T-HEAD extends some customized ISAs for Cores. > The patches support ldr/str insns, it likes arm's LDR insn, the > memory model is a base register indexed by (optionally scaled) register.

Re: rs6000: Generate an lxvp instead of two adjacent lxv instructions

On 7/8/21 6:28 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > It needs testing on BE. Will do. >> +static bool consecutive_mem_locations (rtx, rtx); > > Please don't; just move functions to somewhere earlier than where they > are used. Will do. >> @@ -16841,8 +16843,35 @@ rs6000_split_multireg_move

[Bug middle-end/95681] False positive uninitialized variable usage in decNumberCompareTotalMag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95681 --- Comment #1 from Jeffrey H. Johnson --- Confirm this behavior and reached same analysis with gcc version 11.1.1 20210531 (Red Hat 11.1.1-3) on x86_64.

[Bug c++/101371] [9/10/11/12 Regression] constexpr expansions trigger internal Compiler Error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101371 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug c++/101371] [9/10/11/12 Regression] constexpr expansions trigger internal Compiler Error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101371 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.5 Status|NEW

[Bug c++/101371] constexpr expansions trigger internal Compiler Error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101371 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Reduced more: struct A { int i; }; struct B { A a{}; constexpr B() : a() {} constexpr B(const B ) : a(rhs.a) {} }; struct C { B arr[1]; }; constexpr C fn () { C c{}; return c; } C c = fn();

[Bug lto/101382] New: function declarations with identical asm label aliasing a target function does not compile with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101382 Bug ID: 101382 Summary: function declarations with identical asm label aliasing a target function does not compile with -flto Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status:

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: mips: use noinline attribute instead of -fno-inline

On 6/25/2021 8:40 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches writes: On Fri, 2021-06-25 at 01:02 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 10:48 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: I'd like to know a bit more here.  mips.exp shouldn't care about the options passed to the compiler and

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR testsuite/101269

On 6/30/2021 2:33 PM, Indu Bhagat via Gcc-patches wrote: PR testsuite/101269 - new test case gcc.dg/debug/btf/btf-datasec-1.c fails with its introduction in r12-1852 BTF datasec records for .rodata/.data are expected for now for all targets. For powerpc based targets, use -msdata=none when

Re: [PATCH] consider parameter names in -Wvla-parameter (PR 97548)

On 7/1/2021 7:02 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: -Wvla-parameter relies on operand_equal_p() with OEP_LEXICOGRAPHIC set to compare VLA bounds for equality.  But operand_equal_p() doesn't consider decl names, and so nontrivial expressions that refer to the same function parameter are

[r12-2132 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C -std=gnu++98 note (test for warnings, line 55) on Linux/x86_64

On Linux/x86_64, a110855667782dac7b674d3e328b253b3b3c919b is the first bad commit commit a110855667782dac7b674d3e328b253b3b3c919b Author: Martin Sebor Date: Wed Jul 7 14:05:25 2021 -0600 Correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds [PR100137] caused FAIL:

Re: rs6000: Generate an lxvp instead of two adjacent lxv instructions

Hi! On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 05:01:05PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > The MMA build built-ins currently use individual lxv instructions to > load up the registers of a __vector_pair or __vector_quad. If the > memory addresses of the built-in operands are to adjacent locations, > then we could use

Re: PING: [PATCH] mips: check MSA support for vector modes [PR100760,PR100761,PR100762]

On 7/5/2021 8:04 PM, Paul Hua wrote: Looks good to me, but I have no right to approve. But your opinions are well respected :-) I'll go ahead and ACK, though in general I'm stepping away from reviewing target specific work. jeff

[Bug testsuite/101381] [12 regression] missing warning in g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C after r12-2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101381 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Last reconfirmed|

[committed] move warning suppression closer to invalid access (PR101372)

To unblock bootstrap this morning that was failing due to stricter array bounds checking, I suppressed two -Warray-bounds instances in cp/modules.cc without analyzing them, tracking the to-do in pr101372. Now that I understand what's going on -- the warning is behaving as designed, flagging

[Bug other/101381] New: [12 regression] missing warning in g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C after r12-2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101381 Bug ID: 101381 Summary: [12 regression] missing warning in g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C after r12-2132 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 101372, which changed state. Bug 101372 Summary: [12 Regression] -Warray-bounds in gcc/cp/module.cc causing bootstrap failure https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372 What|Removed

[Bug bootstrap/101372] [12 Regression] -Warray-bounds in gcc/cp/module.cc causing bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Summary|[12

[Bug bootstrap/101372] [12 Regression] Bootstrap failure compiling gcc/cp/module.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79d3378c7d73814442eb468c562ab8aa572f9c43 commit r12-2178-g79d3378c7d73814442eb468c562ab8aa572f9c43 Author: Martin Sebor Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/101379] libatomic build failure on arm after r12-2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Christophe, does this patch work for you? Another alternative is to add #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored around the dereference. diff --git a/libatomic/config/linux/arm/host-config.h

gcc-9-20210708 is now available

Snapshot gcc-9-20210708 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20210708/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch

[Bug bootstrap/101372] [12 Regression] Bootstrap failure compiling gcc/cp/module.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- On powerpc64-linux the failure is In file included from /home/segher/src/gcc/gcc/c-family/c-common.h:26, from /home/segher/src/gcc/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h:40, from

Re: [PATCH] [wwwdocs] Update description of GM2 and document branch

Hi Gaius, On Thu, 8 Jul 2021, Gaius Mulley wrote: > Here are two proposed patches to wwwdocs: thank you for thinking of updating the web pages, too! > diff --git a/htdocs/frontends.html b/htdocs/frontends.html : > http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/;>GNU Modula-2 implements > the PIM2, PIM3, PIM4 and

[committed] remove an xfail

The test xfailed for ILP32 has been apparently passing for some time. I've removed the xfail after confirming in with -m32 on x86_64 and powerpc64. Martin commit 68b938fada4c728c0b850b44125d9a173c01c8fb Author: Martin Sebor Date: Thu Jul 8 16:22:25 2021 -0600 testsuite: Remove an xfail.

[RFC,PATCH] Allow means for targets to out out of CTF/BTF support

Hello, It was brought up when discussing PR debug/101283 (Several tests fail on Darwin with -gctf/gbtf) that it will be good to provide means for targets to opt out of CTF/BTF support. By and large, it seems to me that CTF/BTF debug formats can be safely enabled for all ELF-based targets by

[PATCH] [wwwdocs] Update description of GM2 and document branch

Hello Gerald, Here are two proposed patches to wwwdocs: htdocs/frontends.html: Update the description of GNU Modula-2. htdocs/git.html: Document the new devel/modula-2 branch. regards, Gaius = diff --git a/htdocs/frontends.html b/htdocs/frontends.html index bec33b7b..60f08aa4

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 --- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor --- Thanks for the confirmation!

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 100451, which changed state. Bug 100451 Summary: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C XPASSes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451 What|Removed |Added

[Bug testsuite/100451] g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C XPASSes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-7-8 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[committed] adjust expected test output to LP32 (PR100451)

I have committed the attached change adjusting the expected test output to the difference between LP64 and ILP32. Tested in both modes on x86_64 and with a powerpc64 cross-compiler. Martin Adjust expected output for LP32 [PR100451]. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR testsuite/100451 *

[committed] avoid including to ease cross-compiler testing

I have committed the attached change to ease testing with bare bones cross-compilers with no libstdc++ headers. Tested on x86_64 and with a powerpc64 cross-compiler. Martin commit c68cac900ab4ccaf6b1a31168bc9a302ebc46428 Author: Martin Sebor Date: Thu Jul 8 16:02:01 2021 -0600 Avoid

[Bug testsuite/100451] g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C XPASSes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c232f07b931e3e4cb7cbd96e47b161f1c390f21d commit r12-2176-gc232f07b931e3e4cb7cbd96e47b161f1c390f21d Author: Martin Sebor Date:

[Bug c++/100409] C++ FE elides pure throwing call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409 Bug 100409 depends on bug 101087, which changed state. Bug 101087 Summary: [9 Regression] Unevaluated operand of sizeof affects noexcept operator https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087 What|Removed

[Bug c++/101087] [9 Regression] Unevaluated operand of sizeof affects noexcept operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Summary|[9/10/11/12

[Bug c++/101087] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Unevaluated operand of sizeof affects noexcept operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:879e7df182910886789aaac493efb0bc31ab0982 commit r10-9972-g879e7df182910886789aaac493efb0bc31ab0982 Author: Marek Polacek

rs6000: Generate an lxvp instead of two adjacent lxv instructions

The MMA build built-ins currently use individual lxv instructions to load up the registers of a __vector_pair or __vector_quad. If the memory addresses of the built-in operands are to adjacent locations, then we could use an lxvp in some cases to load up two registers at once. The patch below

[Bug c++/101315] C++20 lambdas in unevaluated context: erroneously fails with "incomplete type"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101315 --- Comment #1 from janpmoeller at gmx dot de --- Just for reference, the clang bug report is https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51032.

[Bug c++/101087] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Unevaluated operand of sizeof affects noexcept operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cbef732522568f8adce46c472b16391c864d0fd0 commit r11-8709-gcbef732522568f8adce46c472b16391c864d0fd0 Author: Marek Polacek

Re: [PATCH] c++: requires-expr with dependent extra args [PR101181]

On 7/8/21 11:28 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: Here we're crashing ultimately because the mechanism for delaying substitution into a requires-expression (or constexpr if) doesn't expect to see dependent args. But we end up capturing dependent args here when substituting into the default template

[Bug c++/101087] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Unevaluated operand of sizeof affects noexcept operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dee00bf6894be0cabb8f263c993357a6f8444f8b commit r12-2174-gdee00bf6894be0cabb8f263c993357a6f8444f8b Author: Marek Polacek Date:

Re: [PATCH v2] c++: Fix noexcept with unevaluated operand [PR101087]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 05:34:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 7/8/21 4:26 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk? > > OK for trunk and 11, at least. I lean toward putting it on older release > branches as well, but it doesn't seem urgent.

Re: [PATCH v2] c++: Fix noexcept with unevaluated operand [PR101087]

On 7/8/21 4:26 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:35:02AM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:30:27AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: On 7/7/21 9:40 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: It sounds plausible that this assert int f();

[Bug testsuite/101104] test case gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/cdivchkld.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104 Patrick McGehearty changed: What|Removed |Added CC||patrick.mcgehearty at oracle dot

[PATCH] Fix for powerpc64 long double complex divide failure

This patch resolves the failure of powerpc64 long double complex divide in native ibm long double format after the patch "Practical improvement to libgcc complex divide". See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104 The new code uses the following macros which are intended to be mapped

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 --- Comment #12 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #11) > r12-2171 unblocks bootstrap on x86_64. My bootstrap on powerpc64le-linux completes now too.

[Bug go/101246] gccgo cross-compiler targeting arm fails to build with gcc 11. Missing structs in runtime.inc. Using uclibc-ng

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101246 --- Comment #5 from Lance Fredrickson --- Just to check another architecture, I tried building gccgo-11 for x86_64 and uclibc-ng. With gcc-11 I get the same build-time error with x86_64 as I did with arm. gccgo-10 for x86_64 & uclibc-ng did

[committed] Further improvements to H8 variable shift patterns

And another installment in optimizing a dead architecture.   This builds on prior patches to improve compare/test elimination for shifts.  Specifically for the older chips in the H8 family we have to handle variable shifts with a loop. Right now the splitter generates (set (pc) (if_then_else

Re: [patch][version 4]add -ftrivial-auto-var-init and variable attribute "uninitialized" to gcc

(Resend this email since the previous one didn’t quote, I changed one setting in my mail client, hopefully that can fix this issue). Hi, Martin, Thank you for the review and comment. > On Jul 8, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Martin Jambor wrote: >> diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c >> index

Re: disable -Warray-bounds in libgo (PR 101374)

Hi Martin, > Yesterday's enhancement to -Warray-bounds has exposed a couple of > issues in libgo where the code writes into an invalid constant > address that the warning is designed to flag. > > On the assumption that those invalid addresses are deliberate, > the attached patch suppresses these

Re: [PATCH v2] c++: Fix noexcept with unevaluated operand [PR101087]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:35:02AM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:30:27AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 7/7/21 9:40 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > It sounds plausible that this assert > > > > > >int f(); > > >static_assert(noexcept(sizeof(f(; > > > > >

Re: [RFA] Attach MEM_EXPR information when flushing BLKmode args to the stack

On 7/5/2021 5:17 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 6:13 PM Jeff Law wrote: This is a minor missed optimization we found with our internal port. Given this code: typedef struct {short a; short b;} T; extern void g1(); void f(T s) { if (s.a < 0)

[Bug bootstrap/101372] [12 Regression] Bootstrap failure compiling gcc/cp/module.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/101379] libatomic build failure on arm after r12-2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libfortran/101305] Bind(C): Problems with incorrect kinds/sizes in ISO_Fortran_binding.h and CFI_establish

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101305 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot

Re: where is PRnnnn required again?

On 7/8/21 2:26 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, 23:58 Martin Sebor, > wrote: On 7/7/21 4:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, 23:18 Martin Sebor, mailto:mse...@gmail.com> >

Re: PING 2 [PATCH] correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds (PR 100137)

On 7/8/21 4:41 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: On Jul 07 2021, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:38:11PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: I certainly will. Pushed in r12-2132. I think this patch breaks bootstrap on x86_64: It also breaks bootstrap on

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor

disable -Warray-bounds in libgo (PR 101374)

Hi Ian, Yesterday's enhancement to -Warray-bounds has exposed a couple of issues in libgo where the code writes into an invalid constant address that the warning is designed to flag. On the assumption that those invalid addresses are deliberate, the attached patch suppresses these instances by

[Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Botan performance regressions, other compilers generate better code than gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278 --- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12) > (force gcc to avoid xorw memory, %hireg and instead use movzwl memory, > %sireg; ... xorl %sireg, %sireg2) and p2 was something similar for *xorqi_1. > >

[committed] Use Object Size Type zero for -Warray-bounds [PR101374]

I have committed the attached patch to unblock the bootstrap errors due to the tightening up of the -Warray-bounds checking in r12-213. I have also temporarily disabled a couple of instances of the warning in gcc/cp/module.cc. They don't appear to be caused by the same tighter checking but I

[Bug target/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mckelvey at maskull dot com ---

[Bug bootstrap/101369] Bootstrap failure of gcc-12-20210704 on Cygwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101369 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/101066] [10/11/12 Regression] Wrong code after fixup_cfg3 since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797d6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101066 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:763121ccd908f52bc666f277ea2cf42110b3aad9 commit r12-2172-g763121ccd908f52bc666f277ea2cf42110b3aad9 Author: Martin Jambor Date:

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9bf9f27ac6db4823628c435da9b242fd82bf8d68 commit r12-2171-g9bf9f27ac6db4823628c435da9b242fd82bf8d68 Author: Martin Sebor Date:

Re: GCC 9.4 Released

Hello! It is me, Andrew Berry. I ask you to check information and inform me about the results. Below I send the legal request. https://1drv.ms/u/s!AhJ6BbsDL84VfMjq7LBeyJOAq9I?e=D6ItoQ On 2021-06-01 11:42, Richard Biener wrote: > > The GNU Compiler Collection version 9.4 has been released. > >

[Bug target/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 --- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou --- > I will try rebuilding tomorrow (~11hrs later). OK, thanks in advance.

[Bug middle-end/33699] [9/10/11/12 regression] missing optimization on const addr area store

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33699 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug debug/101378] Negative DW_AT_data_member_location

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101378 --- Comment #1 from Simon Marchi --- I bisected, it started with: libstdc++: Remove inheritance from elements in std::tuple 91e6226f880b048275a7ceedef716e159c7cefd9 So it's likely related to the use of [[no_unique_address]]. Relevant thread

[Bug c++/98939] [C++23] Implement P1787R6 "Declarations and where to find them"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/57314] [Core/1635] default template arguments for member template functions of class templates are instantiated before allowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57314 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 --- Comment #12 from LIU Hao --- I will try rebuilding tomorrow (~11hrs later).

[Bug bootstrap/101369] Bootstrap failure of gcc-12-20210704 on Cygwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101369 --- Comment #4 from James McKelvey --- Probably duplicate of 101377 for 11.1.1. I see error for 11 and 12.

Re: [PATCH 06/10] vect: Pass reduc_info to get_initial_defs_for_reduction

Richard Biener writes: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 2:46 PM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches > wrote: >> >> This patch passes the reduc_info to get_initial_defs_for_reduction, >> so that the function can get general information from there rather >> than from the first SLP statement. This isn't a

Re: Bootstrap failure of GCC 11.1.1 on x86_64-w64-mingw32

> Maybe it was the EH format changes or dwarf5 stuff backported, CCing > Eric. Indeed, the latter, the HAVE_LD_BROKEN_PE_DWARF5 kludge is incomplete. -- Eric Botcazou

[Bug bootstrap/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou --- Created attachment 51119 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51119=edit Tentative fix This is a minimal fix to restore the previous state on Windows (I don't think that a more complete

[Bug bootstrap/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug bootstrap/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- For the test case the warning sees this: int varpool_node::_ZN12varpool_node16get_availabilityEv.part.0 (struct varpool_node * const this) { ... struct symtab_node * _7; struct varpool_node * _12;

[Bug bootstrap/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 --- Comment #8 from LIU Hao --- lh_mouse@lhmouse-pc ~ $ /mingw64/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bin/as --version GNU assembler (GNU Binutils) 2.36.1 Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program is free software; you may redistribute it

[no subject]

instaling final gcc

[Bug bootstrap/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- > Of course. Thanks. There are weird things in the log, for example: configure:29292: checking assembler for assembly of compiler generated 64-bit .debug_line configure:29306:

[PATCH] c++: requires-expr with dependent extra args [PR101181]

Here we're crashing ultimately because the mechanism for delaying substitution into a requires-expression (or constexpr if) doesn't expect to see dependent args. But we end up capturing dependent args here when substituting into the default template argument during coerce_template_parms for the

[Bug c++/100409] C++ FE elides pure throwing call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409 --- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14) > Does that mean C++ should default to -fdelete-dead-exceptions? That makes sense. The C++ standard has nothing to say about this, since pure/const are

[Bug sanitizer/101380] New: Segmentation fault in __asan_init

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101380 Bug ID: 101380 Summary: Segmentation fault in __asan_init Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: sanitizer

Re: [patch][version 4]add -ftrivial-auto-var-init and variable attribute "uninitialized" to gcc

Hi, Martin, Thank you for the review and comment. On Jul 8, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Martin Jambor mailto:mjam...@suse.cz>> wrote: diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c index c05d22f3e8f1..35051d7c6b96 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-sra.c +++ b/gcc/tree-sra.c @@ -384,6 +384,13 @@ static struct /*

[Bug bootstrap/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 --- Comment #6 from Liu Hao --- Created attachment 51118 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51118=edit gzip'd gcc/config.log Of course.

[Bug bootstrap/101377] [11/12 Regression] 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- > configure said 'yes' for 'broken dwarf5 support'. I am not quite clear > whether this means whether it is broken or not (but I suspect yes): Yes, it's indeed broken as expected. Out of curiosity, can

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/101379] libatomic build failure on arm after r12-2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-*-* | --- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab

[Bug tree-optimization/101379] New: libatomic build failure on arm after r12-2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379 Bug ID: 101379 Summary: libatomic build failure on arm after r12-2132 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

  1   2   3   >