Snapshot gcc-9-20220203 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20220203/
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
Hi Tom!
Taking this one to the mailing list; not directly related to PR104364:
On 2022-02-03T13:35:55+, "vries at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
> I've tested this using (recommended) driver 470.94 on boards:
(As not every user
> Do you need to adjust anything now that this is emitting into TEMP
> rather than TARGET?
The idea now is to emit to TEMP in the first pass and check if we read
the initial condition. Overwriting the condition (and of course reading
it in every sequence) is the reason temporaries were needed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104328
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54d21dd5b5c5c5539505b3e037cdecb3b0ab3918
commit r12-7011-g54d21dd5b5c5c5539505b3e037cdecb3b0ab3918
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
Hi!
The testcase shows some cases that weren't verified and we ICE on
invalid because of that.
One problem is that unlike before, we weren't checking if some expression
is EXPR_VARIABLE with non-NULL symtree in the case where there was
a conversion around it.
The other two issues is that we check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104328
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104361
Bug ID: 104361
Summary: Biased Reference Counting for the standard library
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Hi Martin,
> Either this:
>
>error ("% is unknown", orig_p);
>
> or this would be better:
>
>error ("attribute % is unknown", orig_p);
>
> The %< %> directives will render it in single quotes like keywords and
> identifiers. Using %qs would render it in double quotes like a string,
>
ping ?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 9:50 PM chenglulu wrote:
>
> The LoongArch architecture (LoongArch) is an Instruction Set
> Architecture (ISA) that has a Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC)
> style.
> The documents are on
> https://loongson.github.io/LoongArch-Documentation/README-EN.html
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
Bug ID: 104362
Summary: ICE in ix86_expand_epilogue, at
config/i386/i386.c:9362 since
r12-3433-ga25e0b5e6ac8a77a
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The wide-int.h templates expect that when an int/long etc. operand is used
> it will be sign-extended based on the types precision.
> wi_fold_in_parts passes 3 such non-zero constants to wi::lt_p, wi::gt_p
> and wi::eq_p - 1, 3 and 4, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
>
> --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment
Hi!
Eric mentioned we have a code trying to divide by zero intentionally
in gcc (since r0-241 !).
But, it clearly doesn't do what it wanted (which I think is raise
SIGFPE if the target normally raises it upon division by zero)
since r7-4470-g606f928d3805614, because we replace the division
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in |[12 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104247
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/analyzer/region-model-manager.cc: In
instantiation of ‘void ana::log_uniq_map(ana::logger*, bool, const char*, const
hash_map&) [with K = tree_node*; T =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104334
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de67f943b858099b40f73632a51e66147ec79c9b
commit r12-7012-gde67f943b858099b40f73632a51e66147ec79c9b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104327
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/s390/s390.cc (s390_valid_target_attribute_inner_p):
Use the error message for i386 target.
---
gcc/config/s390/s390.cc | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
index
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Eric mentioned we have a code trying to divide by zero intentionally
> in gcc (since r0-241 !).
> But, it clearly doesn't do what it wanted (which I think is raise
> SIGFPE if the target normally raises it upon division by zero)
> since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Bug ID: 104365
Summary: Overload ambiguity not detected
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
--- Comment #2 from Andris Pavenis ---
OK. Then warning would be nice.
Otherwise it is a trap when one chooses to add bool parameter at end after
string
parameter and other overloaded method with one more string parameter at end is
also
On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 11:23 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 03/02/22 12:08 +0100, David Seifert wrote:
> > * `-Werror` can cause issues when a more recent version of GCC
> > compiles
> > an older version:
> > - https://bugs.gentoo.org/229059
> > - https://bugs.gentoo.org/475350
> > -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
Bug ID: 104366
Summary: Regression: infinite loop in add_sibling_attributes
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
>
> --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> flag_non_call_exceptions can be used
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:59:43PM +0100, David Seifert wrote:
> I have an FSF copyright assignment, is there anything you need me to do
> to this end?
Ok.
> > > --- a/libsanitizer/configure.ac
> > > +++ b/libsanitizer/configure.ac
> > > @@ -400,6 +400,15 @@ fi
> > >
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:13:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > But as said, for the libgcc2.c case I'd simply remove all of it.
> >
> > I can't read RMS' mind, it is indeed UB,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> And, is it correct here to use the non-'atom' replacement, though? '%frame'
> comes from:
>
> .visible .func GOMP_taskwait
> {
> .reg .u64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
>
> --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
Hi!
I'd like to ping the following patch.
Thanks.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:07:26AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:27:20AM +, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * config/arm/arm.opt
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping the following patch.
OK (note the patch is obvious IMHO)
Richard.
> Thanks.
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:07:26AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:27:20AM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
--- Comment #6 from Andris Pavenis ---
Suggested format (changed types to get real ambiguity and edited generated
message):
20220203-1.cpp: In function 'int main()':
20220203-1.cpp:19:24: warning: call of overloaded 'Test(const char [4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
* `-Werror` can cause issues when a more recent version of GCC compiles
an older version:
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/229059
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/475350
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/667104
Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, tested without --disable-werror and
with ./configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
Svante Signell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||svante.signell at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104370
Bug ID: 104370
Summary: False positive from
-Wanalyzer-mismatching-deallocation with reallocarray
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
The following avoids NRV from massaging DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN after
variable creation since NRV runs _after_ the function was inlined and thus
affects the inlined variables copy indirectly. We may adjust the abstract
origin of a variable only at the point we create it, not further along the
path
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101885
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So what does Ada do on targets like powerpc that do not raise an exception?
> From what I can see, 1 / 0 yields 0 there.
It generates an explicit check for division-by-zero in the general case (remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OK, so a division by zero is not invoking undefined behavior but is
> well-defined and traps. And the idea is that -fnon-call-exceptions alone
> carries this over to middle-end semantics? (I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101340
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Your original testcase shows one example where you want a warning, but that's
not a specification. Should it only warn when std::string and bool are
involved, and there's a char* argument? Or should it be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:635504510a9410844991c68880f2e7352cacfd86
commit r12-7021-g635504510a9410844991c68880f2e7352cacfd86
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #22)
> > > So we'd add
> > >
> > > (!flag_non_call_exceptions || tree_expr_nonzero_p (@..))
> > >
> > > to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104079
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
On 2/3/22 05:27, Richard Biener wrote:
The following avoids NRV from massaging DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN after
variable creation since NRV runs _after_ the function was inlined and thus
affects the inlined variables copy indirectly. We may adjust the abstract
origin of a variable only at the point
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 11:52 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> After the fix for PR102659, the vectoriser can no longer group
> conditional accesses of the form:
>
> for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
> if (...)
> ...a[i * 2] + a[i * 2 + 1]...;
>
> on LP64 targets. It has to
After the fix for PR102659, the vectoriser can no longer group
conditional accesses of the form:
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
if (...)
...a[i * 2] + a[i * 2 + 1]...;
on LP64 targets. It has to treat them as two independent
gathers instead.
This was causing failures in the sve
* `-Werror` can cause issues when a more recent version of GCC compiles
an older version:
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/229059
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/475350
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/667104
libatomic/ChangeLog:
* libatomic/configure.ac: Support --disable-werror.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Anyway, if integer division by zero is not considered UB in Ada, we need some
flag_whatever that will represent that to the middle-end and check it in all
places where we assume it is UB. It can be of
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:30:11PM +0100, David Seifert wrote:
> * `-Werror` can cause issues when a more recent version of GCC compiles
> an older version:
> - https://bugs.gentoo.org/229059
> - https://bugs.gentoo.org/475350
> - https://bugs.gentoo.org/667104
>
> libatomic/ChangeLog:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
And in rtlanal.cc, see may_trap_p_1:
/* Division by a non-constant might trap. */
case DIV:
case MOD:
case UDIV:
case UMOD:
if (HONOR_SNANS (x))
return 1;
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> ... but only seen regressing for:
>
> - Nvidia Tesla K20c, Driver Version: 346.46
> - Nvidia Tesla K20c, Driver Version: 455.38
> - Nvidia Tesla K40c,
The fur_list constructor for two ranges is leaving [1] in an undefined
state. The reason we haven't noticed is because after all the
shuffling in the last cycle there are no remaining users of it
(similarly for fur_list(unsigned, irange *)).
Since it's very late in the cycle, I would prefer to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104369
Bug ID: 104369
Summary: False positive from
-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value with realloc
moving buffer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
Many of the XFAILed TSVC tests pass for SVE. This patch updates
the markup accordingly.
Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu & pushed.
Richard
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/vect/tsvc/vect-tsvc-s1115.c: Don't XFAIL for SVE.
* gcc.dg/vect/tsvc/vect-tsvc-s114.c: Likewise.
*
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> But as said, for the libgcc2.c case I'd simply remove all of it.
I can't read RMS' mind, it is indeed UB, so we can do anything, but I bet
it was just a QoI attempt, when (most of the time) normal single-word
or smaller division
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9)
> > So for Ada it would be valid to optimize it as
> >
> > tem = D;
> > if (tem != 0)
> > D := 1 / tem;
> > else
> > D = tem;
> >
> > basically
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Michael Matz wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>> > This adds a flag to CONSTRUCTOR nodes indicating that for clobbers this
>> > marks the end-of-life of storage as opposed to just ending the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
flag_non_call_exceptions can be used even in C/C++ and other languages, so I'd
strongly prefer a new flag which will e.g. make it clearer what is it about,
will make it easier for grep for such
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 91648, which changed state.
Bug 91648 Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in
generate_finalization_wrapper, at fortran/class.c:2009
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91648
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91648
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 52342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52342=edit
Reduced test-case
On Feb 03 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
> -mkdir $LIB/root
Why did you remote that line?
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."
Following on from GCC 11 patch g:f31ddad8ac8, this one gives clean
guality.exp test results for aarch64-linux-gnu with modern gdb
(this time gdb 11.2).
The justification is the same as previously:
--
For people using older gdbs, it will trade one set of noisy results for
another set. I
At some point we started generating the intended code for
aarch64/sve/struct_vect_25.c. This patch removes the xfails
and the scan-assembler-times that replaced the xfailed forms.
Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu & pushed.
Richard
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/aarch64/sve/struct_vect_25.c:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > This adds a flag to CONSTRUCTOR nodes indicating that for clobbers this
> > marks the end-of-life of storage as opposed to just ending the lifetime
> > of the object that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> What is odd is that the resulting insn is still validated, I would have
> expected that to fail.
Ah, the change is just silently rejected, this makes the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #14)
> > OK, so a division by zero is not invoking undefined behavior but is
> > well-defined and traps. And the idea is that -fnon-call-exceptions alone
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So we'd add
>
> (!flag_non_call_exceptions || tree_expr_nonzero_p (@..))
>
> to the offending and extra listed match.pd transforms. I guess that works
> for me.
For me as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But sure, so you say that -fnon-call-exceptions makes operations that
> may trap according to the EH machinery well-defined, irrespective of what
> the language standards say? That certainly makes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Oh, with the little detail that it should be
> cfun->can_throw_non_call_exceptions
> (with the unfortunate reference to cfun)
Yes, and note that this will also solve the libgcc2.c issue because of:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Oh, with the little detail that it should be
> cfun->can_throw_non_call_exceptions
> (with the unfortunate reference to cfun)
We have global references to flag_trapping_math in match.pd so I think that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
--- Comment #5 from Andris Pavenis ---
The warning should be in case when both
1) there is preferred standard conversion sequence for parameter of one
overloaded method
2) there is other user defined conversion sequences for one more more other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104337
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d5c7584fd6e72bfdbede86cef5ff04ae35f9744
commit r12-7026-g1d5c7584fd6e72bfdbede86cef5ff04ae35f9744
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
On 2/3/2022 7:56 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
In my case:
$ rm ./stmp-fixinc ; time make -j16
takes 17 seconds, where I can reduce it easily with the suggested
change. Then I get to 11.2 seconds.
The scripts searches ~2500 folders in my case with total 20K header
files.
Ready to be installed?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 05:40:48PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > About the rest of the patch, I thought I had seen richi comment on IRC (but
> > can't find the comment now) that these cases where we could give a constant
> > answer but decide not to because of C++ rules should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104319
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52337=edit
gcc12-pr104319.patch
Untested fix.
That said, now that I think about it, >>= doesn't need to be misspelling of
> >=,
The VALL_F16MOV iterator now has the same modes as VALL_F16,
in the same order. This patch removes the former in favour
of the latter.
This doesn't fix a bug as such, but it's ultra-safe (no change in
object code) and it saves a follow-up patch from having to make
a false choice between the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
On 03/02/22 12:08 +0100, David Seifert wrote:
* `-Werror` can cause issues when a more recent version of GCC compiles
an older version:
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/229059
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/475350
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/667104
Honouring --disable-werror everywhere seems reasonable
On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 12:50 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:30:11PM +0100, David Seifert wrote:
> > * `-Werror` can cause issues when a more recent version of GCC
> > compiles
> > an older version:
> > - https://bugs.gentoo.org/229059
> > -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #22)
> > So we'd add
> >
> > (!flag_non_call_exceptions || tree_expr_nonzero_p (@..))
> >
> > to the offending and extra listed match.pd transforms. I guess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104367
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
> Yes, I think the intent is clear. The question is whether we should
> re-instantiate the clear intent of preserving a literal / 0 as well
> (for C, without -fnon-call-exceptions).
Note that the code is precisely compiled with -fnon-call-exceptions:
ifeq ($(LIB2_DIVMOD_EXCEPTION_FLAGS),)
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91316
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Hello,
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > This adds a flag to CONSTRUCTOR nodes indicating that for clobbers this
> > > marks the end-of-life of storage as opposed to just ending the lifetime
> > > of the object that occupied it. The dangling pointer diagnostics uses
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104368
Bug ID: 104368
Summary: [12 Regression] Failure to vectorise conditional
grouped accesses after PR102659
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104359
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
This patch addresses PR rtl-optimization/101885 which is a P2 wrong code
regression. In combine, if the resulting fused instruction is a parallel
of two sets which fails to be recognized by the backend, combine tries to
emit these as two sequential set instructions (known as split_i2i3).
As each
* `-Werror` can cause issues when a more recent version of GCC compiles
an older version:
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/229059
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/475350
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/667104
---
libatomic/configure.ac| 6 --
libbacktrace/configure.ac | 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #2)
> I've downgraded binutils to version from bullseye, and I am getting the
> exact same symptoms:
Did you build from scratch or reuse the object files?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you provide an easier testcase that shows the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Related simplifications:
/* X / bool_range_Y is X. */
(simplify
(div @0 SSA_NAME@1)
(if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) && ssa_name_has_boolean_range (@1))
@0))
/* X / abs (X) is X < 0 ? -1 : 1. */
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Michael Matz wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>
> >> > This adds a flag to CONSTRUCTOR nodes indicating that for clobbers this
> >> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-03
1 - 100 of 299 matches
Mail list logo
