On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 6:30 PM Zhao Wei Liew via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Sincere apologies for the issues. I wasn't aware of the need for a cast but
> after reading the PRs, I understand that now. On the other hand, the
> incorrect test case was simply a major oversight on my part.
>
> I'll be
Sincere apologies for the issues. I wasn't aware of the need for a cast but
after reading the PRs, I understand that now. On the other hand, the
incorrect test case was simply a major oversight on my part.
I'll be sure to be more careful next time.
Thanks for the fixes!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #10 from
These tests have always been failing for my cris-elf
autotester running a simulator; they take about 20 minutes
each, compared to the timeout of 720 seconds, doubled
because they timed out in another simulator setup.
They are the *only* libstdc++ tests that timeout for my
setup so I thought
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022, 20:25 Søren Holm via Gcc, wrote:
> Hi
>
> I believe I have found some kind of bug in GCC. The target is a
> cortex-m7 CPU. I do not have an isolated test software so I'm thinking
> of bisecting GCC between GCC 9.4 and 10.1.
>
> Are there any easy way do do a fast "change -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100623
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> There seems to be some IR difference on the gimple level which might be
> making this latent.
But that is not where the problem is located really as far as I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100623
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
There seems to be some IR difference on the gimple level which might be making
this latent.
In GCC 11.2.0 we have (bn_add_words) :
_2 = n_3 & -4;
...
if (_2 != 0)
While on the trunk we have:
_14 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100623
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.2.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#2403
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104127
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104127
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb05ddea976a7a8b3f02175050a5d53356ccab9d
commit r9-9932-gbb05ddea976a7a8b3f02175050a5d53356ccab9d
Author: Harald Anlauf
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 2:40 PM write2mark1--- via Gcc-bugs
wrote:
>
> Why does gcc use CVS and not git
GCC has used git for ~2 years now and before that it was using svn for
~14 years; before that used cvs for ~8 years and then used rcs (though
the overlap between rcs and cvs is real).
GCC's
Why does gcc use CVS and not git
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 5:27 PM admin at levyhsu dot com via Gcc-bugs <
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
>
> --- Comment #14 from Levy Hsu ---
> Hi Avieira and Richard
>
> I checked the data for the last half
Snapshot gcc-11-20220129 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20220129/
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104127
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83079
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83079
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa87c979d34bdea62586de79e8645fbddfa065b8
commit r10-10427-gaa87c979d34bdea62586de79e8645fbddfa065b8
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104127
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6da0c19bdcf992bd18c32335342fc3511683f314
commit r10-10426-g6da0c19bdcf992bd18c32335342fc3511683f314
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104286
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104286
Bug ID: 104286
Summary: gimple-match should cause an ICE for comparisons which
are not of "boolean" types
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101135
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
Dear Fortranners,
compiling with -fsanitize=undefined shows that we did mishandle the
case where a missing optional argument is passed to another procedure.
Besides the example given in the PR, the existing testcase
fortran.dg/missing_optional_dummy_6a.f90 fails with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104285
Bug ID: 104285
Summary: openmp offload linker issue
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104284
Bug ID: 104284
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression
'' of kind implicit_conv_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104283
Bug ID: 104283
Summary: nvptx-none needs more user friendly architecture
handling
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Hi
I believe I have found some kind of bug in GCC. The target is a
cortex-m7 CPU. I do not have an isolated test software so I'm thinking
of bisecting GCC between GCC 9.4 and 10.1.
Are there any easy way do do a fast "change - compile - test"- cycle -
and how do I do that? All the guide on
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 04:20:57PM +, build...@builder.wildebeest.org wrote:
> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder gccrust-debian-arm64 while
> building gccrust.
> Full details are available at:
> https://builder.wildebeest.org/buildbot/#builders/58/builds/1609
>
>
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:42:41PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I added a filesIsImportant filter to the buildbot gccrs scheduler:
>
> gccrs_files = ["gcc/rust/", "gcc/testsuite/rust/", "gcc/config/.*/*-rust.c"]
>
> def gccrsImportant(change):
> for file in change.files:
> for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Related to https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/107
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think there's any existing bug about this, and it's an open issue in the ABI
Respected Sir/Madam,
This is Krishna Narayanan a beginner in the gcc community.I have been
reading through a while about the cp-demangler non recursive project,
getting familiar with the basic terminologies about demangler.I would like
to work on it.
Topics which I have covered till now include
On Sat, 2022-01-29 at 20:22 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> Thank you for the detailed information.
>
> I've been looking into the integer posix file descriptor APIs and I
> decided to write proof-of-concept checker for them. (not caring
> about
> errno). The checker tracks the fd returned by open(),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104266
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
In your last example, I think Clang is right, because `Y` is not an aggregate
in C++11 due to the presence of default member initializer. And it becomes an
aggregate only in C++14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Both Clang and GCC do not change their output either with `-std=c++20` or with
`-std=c++17` options. And both reject the program with -std=c++14`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is c++17 requires Copy elision here while c++14 does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gcc 12 defaults to c++17. I have not looked but I suspect that is the
difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104279
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95424
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d41939c8799a51b1cd7f4610c06771bf6d52f15
commit r12-6932-g3d41939c8799a51b1cd7f4610c06771bf6d52f15
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104281
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
commit r12-6931-ga1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
commit r12-6931-ga1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104279
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
commit r12-6931-ga1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
On 1/29/2022 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:38:23AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
Thanks. Given the original submission and most of the review work was done
prior to stage3 closing, I went ahead and installed this on the trunk.
Unfortunately this breaks quite a lot
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 03:14:16PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > This patch will add the missed pattern described in bug 103514 [1] to the
> > match.pd. [1] includes proof of correctness for the patch too.
> >
> > PR tree-optimization/103514
> > * match.pd (a & b) ^ (a == b) ->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88417
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
---
Hi!
This test fails everywhere, because ? doesn't match literal ?.
It should use \\? instead. I've also changed those .s in there.
Tested on x86_64-linux (-m32/-m64) and powerpc64le-linux, ok for trunk?
2022-01-29 Jakub Jelinek
PR tree-optimization/95424
*
Hi!
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:38:23AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> Thanks. Given the original submission and most of the review work was done
> prior to stage3 closing, I went ahead and installed this on the trunk.
Unfortunately this breaks quite a lot of things.
The main problem is that GIMPLE
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder gccrust-debian-arm64 while
building gccrust.
Full details are available at:
https://builder.wildebeest.org/buildbot/#builders/58/builds/1609
Buildbot URL: https://builder.wildebeest.org/buildbot/
Worker for this Build: debian-arm64
Build
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 10:37 AM VAISHNAVI DAYANAND via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Respected sir/madam,
> I am Vaishnavi Andhalkar, a junior undergrad at IIT Roorkee. I have
> recently started contributing to open source, and I am new at it. But, I am
> well aware of C++, programming and algorithms, and
Respected sir/madam,
I am Vaishnavi Andhalkar, a junior undergrad at IIT Roorkee. I have
recently started contributing to open source, and I am new at it. But, I am
well aware of C++, programming and algorithms, and javascript. I would like
to contribute to your organization. Would you please tell
Hi, Richard,
I have sent out my v3[1], and (probably) fixed the previous issues,
please let me know if i got something wrong :)
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/589471.html
Thanks,
Dan.
On 1/25/22 02:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Dan Li writes:
+
if
Shadow Call Stack can be used to protect the return address of a
function at runtime, and clang already supports this feature[1].
To enable SCS in user mode, in addition to compiler, other support
is also required (as discussed in [2]). This patch only adds basic
support for SCS from the compiler
Thank you for the detailed information.
I've been looking into the integer posix file descriptor APIs and I
decided to write proof-of-concept checker for them. (not caring about
errno). The checker tracks the fd returned by open(), warns if dup() is
called with closed fd otherwise tracks the fd
Hello,
the attached patch is a fix for PR104228.
Even if simple, I wouldn’t call it obvious, as it’s involving character
length and associate, so I don’t mind some extra review eyes.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for master/11/10/9?From 0819226560387b2953622ee3d5d051a35606d504 Mon Sep 17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
Bug ID: 104282
Summary: Copy elision when initializing a base-class subobject
with aggregate initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually you're right, we in fact enforce this:
/* The resulting type of a comparison may be an effective boolean type. */
if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
&& (TREE_CODE (type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > To me this looks like a bug in gimple-fold.cc.
> > The r12-6924-gc2b610e7c6c89fd4 simplifies
> > _5 = 1 / c.0_4;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(eq @1 { build_one_cst (type); })
Should be:
(convert (eq:boolean_type_node @1 { build_one_cst (type); }))
The other part of the match pattern needs a similar fix too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> To me this looks like a bug in gimple-fold.cc.
> The r12-6924-gc2b610e7c6c89fd4 simplifies
> _5 = 1 / c.0_4;
> into
> _5 = c.0_4 == 1;
No this is not valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 103929, which changed state.
Bug 103929 Summary: False warning: no return statement in function returning
non-void with lambda in template argument for non-class type as default
template argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99902
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103929
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE constexpr class |ICE with class non-type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104279
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this one and the other two are all caused by r12-6924.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104279
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104237
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because -fcompare-debug tells the driver to compile the TU twice, once without
and once with -gtoggle, and compare the result.
So, if there is a difference in the generated IL e.g. for -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104281
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/ovnrnEGj6
--with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220129 (experimental) [master r12-6930-gf6f2d6cfec1] (GCC)
[538] %
[538] % gcctk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
[539] %
[539] % gcctk -O3 small.c
[540] % timeout -s 9 5 ./a.out
Killed
[541] %
[541] % cat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
It might be related to PR 104279.
Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/szrGT9E7T
algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220129 (experimental) [master r12-6930-gf6f2d6cfec1] (GCC)
[549] %
[549] % gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
[550] %
[550] % gcctk -O1 small.c
[551] % ./a.out
Aborted
[552] %
[552] % cat small.c
int a(unsigned b, int c) { return b / c; }
int main() {
if (a(1, 2) != 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97024
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104279
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
>From Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/465M9Kvx1
-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220129 (experimental) [master r12-6930-gf6f2d6cfec1] (GCC)
[552] %
[552] % gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
[553] %
[553] % gcctk -O1 small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:6:1: error: bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104278
--- Comment #1 from Pubby8 ---
Oops I forgot to include the template instantiation:
// ---
int main(int argc, char const** argv)
{
qux::run();
}
// ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104278
Bug ID: 104278
Summary: ICE constexpr class non-type template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
85 matches
Mail list logo
