Snapshot gcc-12-20211212 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20211212/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Hello,
I am attempting to build GCC 11.2.0 in a chroot environment, for use in some
projects.
Unfortunately, I am running into errors in the chroot environment, and I'm not
sure what's going on.
When building GCC, I am getting these errors:
/usr/bin/ld: .libs/gets-chk.o: in function
Hello,
When I tried to link two modules which were compiled with different c++
standards, I observed that the offset of some fields of struct were different
when the same struct was accessed from both the modules. The issue is due to
the use of tail padding to allocate member variables in some
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021, 01:16 Jamie Lee via Gcc, wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am attempting to build GCC 11.2.0 in a chroot environment, for use in
> some projects.
> Unfortunately, I am running into errors in the chroot environment, and I'm
> not sure what's going on.
>
> When building GCC, I am getting
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 9:04 PM Nayan Deshmukh via Gcc wrote:
> #include
> #include
> #include
> struct A {
> int a;
> uint64_t b;
> int c = -1;
> };
The question becomes is the above a standard layout class or not. I
Noticed clang does not change the rules for layout between C++11 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56541
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92053
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97141
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qianchao9 at huawei dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96091
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94787
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103668
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think this is valid C++.
A vector created in a constexpr function must be destroyed there as well, it
cannot escape from the function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103585
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586644.html
improves modref so it is almost able to remove the unnecesary stores to array
descriptors. Unforutnately to elinate them one needs to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 82171, which changed state.
Bug 82171 Summary: Cant use std::declval in concept testing map operator[]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82171
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82171
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81786
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-12
Ever confirmed|0
On 12/12/21 5:08 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> I want to WITHDRAW that patch.
>
> I should read _emails_ before acting on _commit_ logs ...
>
heh :)
> Reason is given by Tom at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586649.html
>
> However, we still shouldn't forget to update
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103624
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Status|NEW
Hello.
I propose to make that message more verbose. It sure would have helped
me once. You don't always have a Web search available :)
Andrea Monaco
diff --git a/gcc/diagnostic.c b/gcc/diagnostic.c
index 4ded1760705..8b67662390e 100644
--- a/gcc/diagnostic.c
+++ b/gcc/diagnostic.c
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83142
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 4:34 AM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On December 12, 2021 11:49:12 AM GMT+01:00, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >As discussed in the PR, we miss some optimization becuase
> >gimple-ssa-isolate-paths turns NULL memory accesses to volatile and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
The fix obvious: while the clause is 'allocate',
the 'allocate-modifiers' are 'allocator' (not 'allocate')
and 'align'.
Cf. https://www.openmp.org/spec-html/5.1/openmpsu63.html#x90-102.13.4
Tobias
-
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
With this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586644.html
we misoptimize unmodified testcase with -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58686
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58686
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103665
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e93809f62363ba4b233858005aef652fb550e896
commit r12-5915-ge93809f62363ba4b233858005aef652fb550e896
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98548
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC started to warn for f() at r12-2793:
Move more code to new gimple-ssa-warn-access pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103635
--- Comment #10 from Mark Harmstone ---
Created attachment 51977
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51977=edit
corecrt.h
>From the file:
#ifndef _SIZE_T_DEFINED
#define _SIZE_T_DEFINED
#undef size_t
#ifdef _WIN64
> >+ /* NULL memory accesses terminates BB. These accesses are known
> >+ to trip undefined behaviour. gimple-ssa-isolate-paths turns them
> >+ to volatile accesses and adds builtin_trap call which would
> >+ confuse us otherwise. */
> >+ if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93042
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Hi Tom,
this documents the new sm_35 value to -misa=, which Roger added
(and uses for _Float16).
OK?
Tobias
-
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
Heurung, Frank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103635
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Arguably sysv ABI on Windows is a distinct target, and you need to provide your
own libc for it.
Hi,
ipa-modref is using TBAA to disambiguate memory accesses inter-procedurally.
This sometimes breaks programs with TBAA violations including clang with LTO.
To workaround that one can use -fno-strict-aliasing or -fno-ipa-modref which
are both quite big hammers. So I added -fipa-strict-aliasing
pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-5916-20211212131849-gaeedb00a1ae-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211212 (experimental) (GCC)
Hi,
As discussed in PR103585, fatigue2 is now only benchmark from my usual testing
set (SPEC2k6, SPEC2k17, CPP benchmarks, polyhedron, Firefox, clang) which sees
important regression when inlining functions called once is limited. This
prevents us from solving runtime issues in roms benchmarks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58915
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Without the VRP, GCC 6.1.0 have this fixed by r6-5389.
Or it was fixed by r6-3351 but it was some patch in GCC 6 timeframe which got
tree-ssa-loop-niter.c to
Hi,
As discussed in the PR, we miss some optimization becuase
gimple-ssa-isolate-paths turns NULL memory accesses to volatile and adds
__builtin_trap after them. This is seen as a side-effect by IPA analysis
and additionally the (fully unreachable) builtin_trap is believed to load
all global
Pushed to the branch.
Generate config.h macros for IEEE128 math functions.
libgfortran/ChangeLog:
* acinclude.m4 (LIBGFOR_CHECK_MATH_IEEE128): New macro.
* configure.ac: Use it.
* config.h.in: Regenerate.
* configure: Regenerate.
diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103657
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82991
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103664
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103664
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91594
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103668
Bug ID: 103668
Summary: constexpr std::vector not working as expected
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51551
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
On December 12, 2021 11:49:12 AM GMT+01:00, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>Hi,
>As discussed in the PR, we miss some optimization becuase
>gimple-ssa-isolate-paths turns NULL memory accesses to volatile and adds
>__builtin_trap after them. This is seen as a side-effect by IPA analysis
>and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94301
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58915
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
On 9/17/21 10:24 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> some more generic remarks not specific to using new ISA features.
>
> On 17.09.21 00:53, Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>> Whilst there I also added -misa=sm_75 and -misa=sm_80 which are points
>> where other useful instructions were added to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #65 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #63)
> OR: I do a fishing trip for revisions some unknown time before
> 2020-06-11 (the known bad date), to find a known good date, then
> run git bisect from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55731
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59249
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81409
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
On December 12, 2021 1:22:09 PM GMT+01:00, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>Hi,
>ipa-modref is using TBAA to disambiguate memory accesses inter-procedurally.
>This sometimes breaks programs with TBAA violations including clang with LTO.
>To workaround that one can use -fno-strict-aliasing or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103635
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
> On December 12, 2021 1:22:09 PM GMT+01:00, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >ipa-modref is using TBAA to disambiguate memory accesses inter-procedurally.
> >This sometimes breaks programs with TBAA violations including clang with LTO.
> >To workaround that one can use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103661
--- Comment #4 from Stefan Kneifel ---
Created attachment 51978
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51978=edit
Testcase
Without the proposed patch, it compiles to:
:
0: 50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63864
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I noticed at -O3 on the trunk, test_slow SLP vectorizer can happen while
test_ok does not. Anyways I think the orginal problem was fully fixed in GCC 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
On 12/12/2021 3:49 AM, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi,
As discussed in the PR, we miss some optimization becuase
gimple-ssa-isolate-paths turns NULL memory accesses to volatile and adds
__builtin_trap after them. This is seen as a side-effect by IPA analysis
and additionally the
I want to WITHDRAW that patch.
I should read _emails_ before acting on _commit_ logs ...
Reason is given by Tom at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586649.html
However, we still shouldn't forget to update *.texi and t-omp-device
eventually.
Tobias
On 12.12.21 17:01,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103622
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
With a quick and dirty patch to implement this, I get:
$ /home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-e300/gcc/xgcc -c -O2 pr103623.c
-B/home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-e300/gcc -mcpu=401
pr103623.c: In function 'main':
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103670
Bug ID: 103670
Summary: Incorrect optimization of loop termination: Early exit
with any optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103672
Bug ID: 103672
Summary: using with template class> causes
internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Hi,
In evaluate_conditions_for_known_args we use range_fold_unary_expr and
range_fold_binary_expr to produce value ranges of the expression.
However the expression also may contain ternary COND_EXPR on which we
ICE. I did not find interface to do similar folding easily on ternary
exprs and since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103677
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 51984
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51984=edit
error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103677
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 51983
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51983=edit
config.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103677
--- Comment #8 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 51986
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51986=edit
new config.log
Still does not work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88569
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
> Arseny, does this properly diagnose the issue for you?
Sure, thanks. But please note that I don't do any real computations on 32-bit
powerpc. I've filed this series of PRs during my regular testing of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103671
Bug ID: 103671
Summary: arrays with negative strides are wrongly passed as
argument.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
>
> I think this is common pattern in C++ code originating from cast with
> multiple inheritance. I would vote towards optimizing out the conditial
> move in this case and I think it is correct.
I crafted a testcse and filled in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103674
Honza
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103606
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce80f2c0e7a86e555201e9e61a26306adff4a074
commit r11-9378-gce80f2c0e7a86e555201e9e61a26306adff4a074
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103668
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 41464, which changed state.
Bug 41464 Summary: vector loads are unnecessarily split into high and low loads
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41464
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80937
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-13
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103677
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> configure:13965: checking for as
> configure:13998: result: no
> configure:14076: checking for x86_64-apple-darwin20.6.0-as
> configure:14106: result: no
> ...
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103678
Bug ID: 103678
Summary: [concepts] Constrained partial specialization of
dependent template conflicts with unconstrained
partial specialization
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103668
--- Comment #2 from Andrei-Edward Popa ---
This code is valid in MSVC compiler, that's why I'm wondering about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103472
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Antoni Boucher :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b52083ea2c2dd9897031fdc3802a68fd4aa45ef
commit r12-5917-g0b52083ea2c2dd9897031fdc3802a68fd4aa45ef
Author: Antoni Boucher
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103677
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> configure:13965: checking for as
> configure:13998: result: no
> configure:14076: checking for x86_64-apple-darwin20.6.0-as
> configure:14106: result: no
> ...
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Agreed that this needs a new attribute, and digging through the macros used to
guard the associated patterns, this really does need to be restricted to the
case when long double is implemented by IBM-128.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103668
--- Comment #4 from Andrei-Edward Popa ---
Yes, I really missed this constexpr instead of const, this is clear for me.
Thank you!
I think this thread can be closed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99256
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
Bug ID: 103676
Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2671
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103670
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Please read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/. A code snippet is not what we want. We
need a full compilable (not always runable) testcase for wrong code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103624
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It should work for 32-bit though?
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
