https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104406
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Almost positive this is a dup of bug 31485
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104407
Bug ID: 104407
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure
(length) w/ -std=c++17 -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am almost positive there are duplicates of this bug already. It is similar to
the struct argument passing one too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104406
Bug ID: 104406
Summary: SLP discovery doesn't use TWO_OPERAND nodes as seeds
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104405
Bug ID: 104405
Summary: Inefficient register allocation on complex arithmetic
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104404
Bug ID: 104404
Summary: Incorrect CFI_cdesc_t "type" member for assumed-type,
assumed-rank complex dummy arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104402
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104398
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513
Feng Xue changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxue at os dot
amperecomputing.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104402
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.1.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104403
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-05
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104358
--- Comment #2 from qingzhe huang ---
Here are more tests (https://www.godbolt.org/z/5qc8jTGa8) to show that only
msvc is giving the correct result.
It just illustrates the use cases of this definition and why it should be
allowed.
1. By
Snapshot gcc-11-20220205 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20220205/
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=104403
Bug ID: 104403
Summary: ICE while optimizing lambda that returns address of a
static variable hidden in a switch
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104402
Bug ID: 104402
Summary: ICE on valid code: in do_jump_1, at dojump.c
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104401
Bug ID: 104401
Summary: [x86] Failure to recognize min/max pattern using
pcmp+pblendv
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
> In the past stack sharing has been quite important for the linux
> kernel. So perhaps one of the tests we should do if we wanted to go
> forward in this cycle would be to test kernel builds to see if any start
> tripping over the stack space diagnostics they've put in place over the
> years.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104399
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-05
Ever confirmed|0
On 04/02/2022 11:25, Hafiz Abid Qadeer wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 09:46, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
>>
>> Abid, are you going to address these? I think it does make sense if the
>> C/C++ and Fortran test cases match as much as feasible.
>>
> Sure. I will do that.
The attached patch address those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104400
Bug ID: 104400
Summary: [12 Regression] v850e lra/reload failure after recent
change
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On 2/4/2022 6:49 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
This adds explicit variable birth CLOBBERs in an attempt to fix
PR90348 and duplicates. The birth / death CLOBBER pairs are
used to compute liveness and conflicts for stack variable
coalescing where the lack of an explicit birth but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85811
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104399
Bug ID: 104399
Summary: Mingw to generate bogus.o on French locale
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
On 2/3/2022 1:00 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
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)
Recent (mid Jan) changes in the diagnostic outputs have been triggering
failures on the s390s testsuite. In particular capitalization changed
in one diagnostic and the range representation changed in another. This
patch makes the obvious updates so the s390 testsuite
Pushed to the trunk,
Hi,
On Sat, 2022-02-05 at 16:58 +, 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/1620
>
> Buildbot
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/1620
Buildbot URL: https://builder.wildebeest.org/buildbot/
Worker for this Build: debian-arm64
Build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104398
Bug ID: 104398
Summary: [c++20] ICE triggered by templated class with base
class containing `using enum`
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On 2/5/22 07:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 12:02:14AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
You mean for folding_cxx_constexpr ? The code does that basically, with one
exception, the folding_initializer FUNCTION_DECL cmp FUNCTION_DECL case.
We don't track sizes of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104397
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104008
--- Comment #5 from Alex Hornby ---
(In reply to Alex Hornby from comment #3)
> Created attachment 52356 [details]
> preprocessed source from gcc 10.3.0
done, also captured the source from a failing 11.2.1 build at same system state
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104008
--- Comment #4 from Alex Hornby ---
Created attachment 52357
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52357=edit
preprocessed source from gcc 11.2.1 produced at same time as gcc 10.3.0
preprocessed source
captured at the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104008
--- Comment #3 from Alex Hornby ---
Created attachment 52356
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52356=edit
preprocessed source from gcc 10.3.0
On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 12:02:14AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> You mean for folding_cxx_constexpr ? The code does that basically, with one
> exception, the folding_initializer FUNCTION_DECL cmp FUNCTION_DECL case.
> We don't track sizes of functions, so the size of 1 is just a
Hi, Richard,
I have sent out my v4[1], please let me know if i got something wrong :).
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/589921.html
Thanks,
Dan.
On 1/31/22 09:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Dan Li writes:
Shadow Call Stack can be used to protect the return address
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] |[12 Regression] HUGE_VAL *
On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Am 05.02.2022 um 00:08 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > :
> > The recent PR95115 change to punt in const_binop on folding operation
> > with non-NaN operands into NaN if flag_trapping_math broke the following
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3763384a1f696260f3ee7bda8c0e7e4ad732ad9
commit r12-7072-gb3763384a1f696260f3ee7bda8c0e7e4ad732ad9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104397
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
- binutils will complain version info is not found if default ISA spec
is 2.2 for binutils.
Error: cannot find default versions of the ISA extension `zifencei'
gcc/ChangeLog:
* configure.ac: Fix detection for zifencei support.
* configure: Regenerate.
---
gcc/configure| 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104397
Bug ID: 104397
Summary: Wrong warning message about global static variable in
module(.hpp, .cpp)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
> Am 05.02.2022 um 09:21 schrieb Xi Ruoyao :
>
> On Sat, 2022-02-05 at 08:21 +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>>
Am 05.02.2022 um 00:08 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> The recent PR95115 change to punt in const_binop on folding
Committed to trunk :)
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:56 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> May I please PING this?
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> On 1/25/22 14:04, Kito Cheng wrote:
> > Add -misa-spec to OPTION_DEFAULT_SPECS to make sure -misa-spec will
> > always pass that into assembler, that prevent GCC and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> GCC's option is -faligned-new -fsized-deallocation -std=c++98
yeah gcc does not work either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83264
--- Comment #9 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
There is a related discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/a/47618530/7325599
And it is noted there that according to [over.ics.rank]/2 just before
[over.ics.rank]/3:
— a standard conversion sequence is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104219
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06e32a5ebf20c11dd31bc2677bede569fef84316
commit r12-7070-g06e32a5ebf20c11dd31bc2677bede569fef84316
Author: Kito Cheng
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104396
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 7:34 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:21 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, just realised I'd never replied to this.
> >
> > Marc Poulhies writes:
> > > Eric Botcazou writes:
> > >>> The new variables seem to be unused, so I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104396
Bug ID: 104396
Summary: [11/12 Regression] Invalid SIMD intriniscs accepted at
-O1 and above after r11-6794-g04b472ad0e1dc93aba
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
On Sat, 2022-02-05 at 08:21 +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> > Am 05.02.2022 um 00:08 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > :
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > The recent PR95115 change to punt in const_binop on folding operation
> > with non-NaN operands into NaN if
Thanks, LGTM :)
On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 7:56 AM Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> We have recently updated the default for the `-misa-spec=' option, yet
> we still have not documented it nor its `--with-isa-spec=' counterpart
> in the GCC manuals. Fix that.
>
> gcc/
> *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #14 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> I think there are two code spots whose pitfalls resulted in the PR.
>
> The first one is in rs6000.cc::legitimate_lo_sum_address_p which permits
> wrong
55 matches
Mail list logo
