https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109270
Bug ID: 109270
Summary: ssp/ssp.h should be adapted to use
__builtin_dynamic_object_size()
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109269
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109269
--- Comment #3 from vfdff ---
* test: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/5s4Wbs466
```
void mset (int *a, int num) {
for (int i=0; i< num; i++)
a[i] = 2;
}
```
* the issue is still exist with int type as we use 32-bits register? . see
detail on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109269
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109269
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
That would be undefined code as the largest array is 63bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109269
Bug ID: 109269
Summary: [sve] should check the upper bound for predicate sve
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103628
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b67db31236631432e7f6d74ed49af9ae2183a4d
commit r13-6843-g3b67db31236631432e7f6d74ed49af9ae2183a4d
Author: Haochen Gui
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109268
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109268
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109268
Bug ID: 109268
Summary: Guard variable still provided for static constinit
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267
Bug ID: 109267
Summary: -Og generates empty functions with
.cfi_startproc/.cfi_endproc that conflict with other
functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108915
--- Comment #6 from AK ---
For reference, I had opened a related bug in clang:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60967
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109266
Bug ID: 109266
Summary: Wanalyzer-null-dereference does not warn when struct
is at null
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105481
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105996
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4792bd1de0621932a47fb86aca09fafafdb2972
commit r13-6840-gc4792bd1de0621932a47fb86aca09fafafdb2972
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105996
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109260
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_ugn/Interfacing-with-C_002b_002b-at-the-Class-Level.html#Interfacing-with-C_002b_002b-at-the-Class-Level
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109260
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_ugn/Generating-Bindings-for-C_002b_002b-Headers.html#Generating-Bindings-for-C_002b_002b-Headers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 54739
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54739=edit
possible patch
An implementation of my guess at the clang rule, if we end up wanting to go
that way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107163
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #14)
For the testcase in comment #14, we don't get a warning since GCC 7 but the
original testcase we still get a warning on the trunk.
I have not looked into why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109265
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE for 527.cam4_r after|[13 Regression] ICE for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109238
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103387
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105229
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100955
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
Priority|P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108961
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109263
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|'-g0 -ggdb -flto' gives |[10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109137
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-23
Summary|[12/13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101150
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99739
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99739
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109238
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 54738
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54738=edit
Patch to fix the issue
Ah, sorry I missed that.
OK, I traced it through. The problem turns out to be in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99659
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84900
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.5|13.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84900
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80ed2a6471a39dd95192a334789fd63d5efd2e8a
commit r13-6836-g80ed2a6471a39dd95192a334789fd63d5efd2e8a
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109265
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think one way is to include all the needed modules by hand into the same
*.f90 source
(for each module, find in which source file it is defined and copy the module
... end module stuff) and repeat until
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109254
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And
--- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc.jj2023-03-13 00:11:52.328213351 +0100
+++ gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc 2023-03-23 16:57:29.957866005 +0100
@@ -7388,6 +7388,9 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109264
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109264
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ededfa5b23781c3be6fcf6bb373418aa8bd6541
commit r13-6835-g5ededfa5b23781c3be6fcf6bb373418aa8bd6541
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109257
--- Comment #5 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to jbeulich from comment #4)
> Being as compatible as possible with MASM has been the primary goal of
> supporting Intel syntax. Intel's SDM doesn't specify complete assembly
> language; it serves as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104713
--- Comment #8 from James Addison ---
(In reply to James Addison from comment #7)
> (In reply to Adrian Bunk from comment #6)
> > (In reply to James Addison from comment #5)
> > > Could the findings indicate that there are two bugs here?
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109257
--- Comment #4 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #3)
> (In reply to jbeulich from comment #2)
> > Sure, but there's no reason for gas to not accept what MASM would. You also
> > don't really make clear why you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109137
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107569
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107569
--- Comment #50 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41ade3399bd1ec9927be1bb818965831232eda4b
commit r13-6834-g41ade3399bd1ec9927be1bb818965831232eda4b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109257
--- Comment #3 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to jbeulich from comment #2)
> Sure, but there's no reason for gas to not accept what MASM would. You also
> don't really make clear why you think this is an issue, and hence why it
> should be changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109253
--- Comment #1 from David Faust ---
See:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-December/608152.html
Also related as Andrew pointed out in the above thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48783
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109254
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
2023-03-23 Jakub Jelinek
PR target/109254
* config/aarch64/aarch64.cc (aarch64_function_arg_regno_p): Also
return true for p0-p3.
--- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc.jj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109263
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108927
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109265
Bug ID: 109265
Summary: ICE for 527.cam4_r after r13-6787-g0963cb5fde158c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109257
--- Comment #2 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #0)
> ptc_to_foo:
> jmp [QWORD PTR foo[rip]]
> ```
>
> The outer pair of brackets are superfluous.
Sure, but there's no reason for gas to not accept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109264
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 54737
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54737=edit
Proposed fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109264
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109264
Bug ID: 109264
Summary: Compiler hangs trying to resolve opaque type
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109262
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25979b6761516b9039004385e08141e0925e1a17
commit r13-6833-g25979b6761516b9039004385e08141e0925e1a17
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109262
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
--- Comment #29 from Andrey Alekseenko ---
> it seems like we should treat *any* class with a reference member as a
> reference wrapper.
And any class with a pointer, I suspect.
This is a reduced/simplified example from our codebase still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109263
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-23
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109263
Bug ID: 109263
Summary: '-g0 -ggdb -flto' gives linker error
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98850
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109254
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107569
--- Comment #49 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Does the has_zero_uses patch work for this? As there is both:
_4 = _6 u> 1.79769313486231570814527423731704356798070567525844996599e+308;
_8 = ~_4;
and _8 has_zero_uses while _4 has uses but all are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109262
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109262
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> PR84849 seems related, especially the comment #5 testcase from ensadc:
>
> template
> struct in_place_type_t { explicit in_place_type_t() = default; };
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41742
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107569
--- Comment #48 from Richard Biener ---
So instead of an extra DCE pass one could try harder to not leave around dead
code after folding, for example with the following (doesn't fix the testcase
yet, all the custom folding code would need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #8 from Mark Brown ---
Note that the issue was found in the Linux kernel - we were expecting to see
the BTI Cs there, it's certainly a lot simpler to work with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106040
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91319
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldalessandro at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59bfdd5f467292a368d0d628084a4b65d1bb06bb
commit r13-6830-g59bfdd5f467292a368d0d628084a4b65d1bb06bb
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
No templates (so it's ambiguous, but the problem is the same):
struct B { int a; };
struct C {
explicit C (int);
C& operator= (B);
C& operator= (const C&);
};
void f(C x)
{
x = { 42 };
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98850
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Great, what about gcc-12 release? Please close it if it's also fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98850
--- Comment #2 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I failed to reproduce it with a trunk build of arm-none-linux-gnueabihf.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98850
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109262
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
Sadly, this is likely my final GCC PR, at least for the foreseeable future. I
would like to thank all GCC contributors, past and present, for their tireless
effort of keeping GCC going. It was a real joy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109262
Bug ID: 109262
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
statement marked for throw in middle of block)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109231
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Used
> PATH=/export/home/jakub/gcc-11-inst/bin:$PATH
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/export/home/jakub/gcc-11-inst/lib/ CC='gcc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109231
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So, after installing gcc 11 I've tried
[...]
> Undefined first referenced
> symbol in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109231
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> BTW, I have also backported the r13-6739 commit to 12 branch in r12-9293, does
> that branch fail to bootstrap too?
I usually try the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109247
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109257
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109258
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109258
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or we could fix the go FE to make memcmp properly pure:
2023-03-23 Jakub Jelinek
PR middle-end/109258
* go-gcc.cc (Gcc_backend): Add new static data member builtin_pure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108959
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-March/614475.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109258
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109258
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm pretty sure it is r13-6690-g45641f3a99281bb0a4296 because that's where the
ICE is.
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
