[Bug middle-end/64353] [5 Regression] ICE: in execute_todo, at passes.c:1986
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64353 Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- This bug triggers several times when building binutils. Ilya?
[Bug middle-end/64353] [5 Regression] ICE: in execute_todo, at passes.c:1986
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64353 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- This really worries me a lot, when -fcheck-pointer-bounds is not enabled, I'd really hope that the ipa-chkp changes make no difference at all on the generated code or order of passes.
[Bug ada/64349] [5 Regression] Bootstrapping Ada fails on darwin(9|10).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64349 --- Comment #4 from Arnaud Charlet charlet at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: charlet Date: Wed Jan 7 10:15:18 2015 New Revision: 219290 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219290root=gccview=rev Log: 2015-01-07 Vincent Celier cel...@adacore.com * clean.adb: Minor error message change. 2015-01-07 Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com PR ada/64349 * env.c (__gnat_environ): Adjust for darwin9/darwin10. 2015-01-07 Javier Miranda mira...@adacore.com * sem_ch10.adb (Analyze_With_Clause): Compiling under -gnatq protect the frontend against never ending recursion caused by circularities in the sources. Modified: trunk/gcc/ada/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/ada/clean.adb trunk/gcc/ada/env.c trunk/gcc/ada/sem_ch10.adb
[Bug ada/64349] [5 Regression] Bootstrapping Ada fails on darwin(9|10).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64349 Arnaud Charlet charlet at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Arnaud Charlet charlet at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed.
[Bug c/64518] New: Warning about comparison between signed and unsigned can be useless in some cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64518
Bug ID: 64518
Summary: Warning about comparison between signed and unsigned
can be useless in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: patrick.pelissier at gmail dot com
For the following function:
int f(int x) { return ( x = 0 x sizeof(int)); }
I get the following warning with gcc -Wsign-compare -c f.c :
f.c: In function 'f':
f.c:1:37: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions
[-Wsign-compare]
int f(int x) { return ( x = 0 x sizeof(int)); }
^
However, as x has been checked as positive due to the first comparison, I don't
see how the comparison between x (signed) and sizeof(int) (unsigned) can be
wrong.
The proposed enhancement is to improve the warning to handle this case properly
without adding a (useless) cast in the user code like this:
int f(int x) { return ( x = 0 (unsigned int) x sizeof(int)); }
[Bug c++/64519] New: variadic template as the first argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64519 Bug ID: 64519 Summary: variadic template as the first argument Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: roman.kurc at wp dot pl Created attachment 34392 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34392action=edit sample code It seems that passing an empty argument to a variadic template results in assigning void type to the argument. Such a behavior can be seen in the following cases: static_assert( std::is_same decltype(B::test()), B::CharA3 ::value == false, test( ) should evaluate to fun( ) ); test( TA... args ) is called with no parameters then ITA...::template sfinae_2B(args...,0) and args... gets void type. The same happens in calls presented below and it does not matter if template is instantinated or only its type is deduced. static_assert( (sizeof(B::test()) == sizeof(B::CharA1)), test( ) should evaluate to fun () ); static_assert( std::is_same decltype(B::test()), B::CharA1 ::value, test() should evaluate to fun() );
[Bug target/64338] [5 Regression] ICE in swap_condition, at jump.c:628
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 34393 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34393action=edit gcc5-pr64338.patch ix86_expand_int_movcc is called there with (ltgt (reg:CCFPU flags) (const_int 0)) condition, and I see several issues with that: 1) the code assumes that reverse_condition (whatever kind of that) always succeeds, which is not always true; we shouldn't swap things if we can't reverse condition 2) for CCFP/CCFPU modes, we should treat them like floating point modes, LTGT is reversible 3) in the first hunk, there are dead assignments: compare_code = reverse_condition_maybe_unordered (compare_code); and compare_code = reverse_condition (compare_code); when only a few lines below that there is unconditional: compare_code = UNKNOWN; 4) (not handled in the patch), diff uses HOST_WIDE_INT variable, signed, and the values can be arbitrary, so we can end up with undefined behavior in the compiler if cf - ct overflows, or if diff is HWI minimum on diff = -diff etc.
[Bug target/64507] SH inlined builtin strncmp doesn't return 0 for 0 length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64507 --- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- Actually, the code could be slightly better by factorizing the return sequences ;; check length mov#0,r0 ;; goto .l2 ;; else init r1,r0 ;; goto .l1 .l2: rtx nop .l1: rts subr1,r0 into ;; check length mov r1,r0 ;; goto l1 ;; else init r1,r0 .l1: rts sub r1,r0 however this creates an unitilized mov (which we don´t care) but the backend keeps forcing an useless mov #0,r1
[Bug c/64509] _Generic throws error in unselected generic association
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64509 --- Comment #4 from Martien de Jong maurits.de.jong at ericsson dot com --- I understand. What a shallow and ugly feature it is then. I think it can only usefully be employed using a preprocessor macro, yet it is part of the expression syntax. It is meant to resolve type issues, yet all variants should be type-sane. You can indeed implement something like tgmath.h with it, but only if the types can be implictly converted. BTW, I notice that ./gcc/ginclude/tgmath.h uses __builtin_classify_type __builtin_types_compatible_p __builtin_choose_expr Will it move to using _Generic() ?
[Bug c/64417] [SH] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr28865.c -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64417 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed.
[Bug c/64417] [SH] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr28865.c -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64417 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Jan 7 08:19:48 2015 New Revision: 219278 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219278root=gccview=rev Log: PR c/64417 c/ * c-typeck.c (process_init_element): Disallow initialization of a flexible array member with a string constant if the structure is in an array. testsuite/ * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr28865.c: Add dg-errors. * gcc.dg/pr64417.c: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr64417.c Modified: trunk/gcc/c/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/c/c-typeck.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr28865.c
[Bug c/64440] -Wdiv-by-zero false negative on const variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64440 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Jan 7 08:21:50 2015 New Revision: 219279 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219279root=gccview=rev Log: PR c/64440 * c-common.c (c_fully_fold_internal): Warn for division and modulo if orig_op1 isn't INTEGER_CST, op1 is INTEGER_CST and is zero. * gcc.dg/pr64440.c: New test. * c-c++-common/pr56607.c: Don't limit dg-warnings to C++. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr64440.c Modified: trunk/gcc/c-family/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/c-family/c-common.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr56607.c
[Bug c/64440] -Wdiv-by-zero false negative on const variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64440 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed.
[Bug c/64518] Warning about comparison between signed and unsigned can be useless in some cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64518 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Unfortunately, nobody so far has come up with any idea on how to fix this. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 38470 ***
[Bug c/38470] value range propagation (VRP) would improve -Wsign-compare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||patrick.pelissier at gmail dot com --- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 64518 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug fortran/64522] New: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] Free-form source code: -Wline-truncation is no longer enabled by default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64522 Bug ID: 64522 Summary: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] Free-form source code: -Wline-truncation is no longer enabled by default Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org Using GCC 4.4, a free-form source code which exceeds the 132 character limit showed by default the message: Warning: Line truncated at (1) Using GCC 4.8, 4.9 and 5, this message is only shown with -Wline-truncation (which is implied by -Wall). As other compilers by default use -ffree-line-length-none (unlimited line length), it makes sense to show this warning by default - or even to error out. Currently, it may lead to difficult-to-find bugs. [GCC 4.4 did not show this warning by default for fixed-form source code, which makes sense]
[Bug c++/64521] New: [4.9/5 Regression] ICE with -frepo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64521
Bug ID: 64521
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] ICE with -frepo
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
template typename H struct J { J(H); };
template unsigned long, typename... struct K;
template unsigned long I struct KI {};
template unsigned long I, typename H, typename... T
struct KI, H, T... : KI + 1, T..., JH {
K(const H p1, const T ... p2) : KI + 1, T...(p2...), JH(p1) {}
};
template typename... E struct C : K0, E... {
C(const E ... p1) : K0, E...(p1...) {}
};
template typename struct A {
A() = default;
};
struct M;
template typename struct L {
struct B {
template typename static M *__test(...);
typedef Aint _Del;
typedef decltype(__test_Del()) type;
};
Ctypename B::type, AM _M_t;
L(typename B::type) : _M_t(0, AM()) {}
};
struct M {};
void foo() { Lint(new M); }
ICEs starting with r206182 with -frepo -std=c++11. Doesn't ICE without -frepo
or with r206181 or earlier.
[Bug c++/64520] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE with std::initializer_list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64520 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.5
[Bug rtl-optimization/64532] [5 regression on ARM]internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
x is an integer w floating point constraint. I think you need a cast here as
below.
__attribute__((noinline)) float s32_to_f32_imm1(int x)
{
float y;
__asm__ (vcvt.f32.s32 %0, %1, #1 : =w(y) : 0((float)x));
return y;
}
[Bug target/36557] -m32 -mpowerpc64 produces better code than -m64 for a!=0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36557 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: segher Date: Thu Jan 8 03:46:41 2015 New Revision: 219336 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219336root=gccview=rev Log: PR target/36557 * config/rs6000/rs6000.md (*eqsi3_extmode, *nesi3_extmode): New. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
[Bug rtl-optimization/64532] [5 regression on ARM]internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #2)
x is an integer w floating point constraint. I think you need a cast here
as below.
__attribute__((noinline)) float s32_to_f32_imm1(int x)
{
float y;
__asm__ (vcvt.f32.s32 %0, %1, #1 : =w(y) : 0((float)x));
return y;
}
Why w means the floating point register. The instruction vcvt.f32.s32 converts
from signed 32bit int to a 32bit floating point (with an optional shift). The
inline-asm is correct and 100% valid.
[Bug c/64526] No warning on function call with excessive arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526
Chengnian Sun chengniansun at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |---
--- Comment #2 from Chengnian Sun chengniansun at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #1)
Not a bug -- fn1 is not a function with no arguments,
but an unprototyped function. To get a function with
no arguments you must write
void fn1 (void) {}
This is C, not C++.
Thanks for your reply. But I am still puzzled by a paragraph in the standard
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf):
-- C11 standard, sec 6.7.6.3, page 134 --
14. An identifier list declares only the identifiers of the parameters
of the function. An empty list in a function declarator that is part of
a definition of that function specifies that the function has no
parameters. The empty list in a function declarator that is not part of
a definition of that function specifies that no information about
the number or types of the parameters is supplied.
- END ---
So if I understand it correctly, the function fn1 does not have any
parameters. Please kindly advise. Thanks.
[Bug rtl-optimization/64532] New: [5 regression on ARM]internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
Bug ID: 64532
Summary: [5 regression on ARM]internal compiler error: Max.
number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved
(90)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pangbw at gmail dot com
I know this ICE has been reported many times, but I still want to report it
again because I am not sure if my case is same as other reported cases.
Steps to reproduce:
1. cat y.i
__attribute__((noinline)) float s32_to_f32_imm1(int x)
{
float y;
__asm__ (vcvt.f32.s32 %0, %1, #1 : =w(y) : 0(x));
return y;
}
2. ./xgcc y.i -B. -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=neon -O2
y.i: In function ‘s32_to_f32_imm1’:
y.i:6:1: internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per
insn is achieved (90)
}
^
0x973325 lra_constraints(bool)
../../../gcc/gcc/lra-constraints.c:4306
0x95f689 lra(_IO_FILE*)
This is the GCC used by me:
./xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
Target: arm-linux-gnueabi
Configured with: ../../gcc/configure --target=arm-linux-gnueabi
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150107 (experimental) (GCC)
[Bug rtl-optimization/64532] [5 regression on ARM]internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532 baoshan pangbw at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pangbw at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from baoshan pangbw at gmail dot com --- One observation is that without -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=neon, I will get this: ./xgcc y.i -B. -O2 y.i: In function ‘s32_to_f32_imm1’: y.i:4:3: error: inconsistent operand constraints in an ‘asm’ __asm__ (vcvt.f32.s32 %0, %1, #1 : =w(y) : 0(x));
[Bug c/64526] No warning on function call with excessive arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot com --- has no parameters does not mean has a type that includes a prototype with no parameters. See DR#317. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_317.htm
[Bug tree-optimization/64530] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect calculation when assigning to array with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64530 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Component|fortran |tree-optimization Known to work||4.8.5 Known to fail||4.9.2, 5.0 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Since the dump tree looks the same for 4.8 and 4.9, could it be a middle-end bug? Indeed! reassigned to tree optimization.
[Bug fortran/64530] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect calculation when assigning to array with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64530 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2015-01-07 CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- (1) The problem goes away if the code is compiled with '-O3 -fno-tree-loop-vectorize'. (2) The bug appeared between r204000 (OK, 2013-10-24) and r204945 (buggy, 2013-11-18).
[Bug ada/64349] [5 Regression] Bootstrapping Ada fails on darwin(9|10).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64349 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- I still get ld: warning: can't add line info to anonymous symbol __const@0 from s-arit64.o for r219318 on x86_64-apple-darwin10 (I have bootstrapped r219067 with Iain's patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01753.html).
[Bug c++/60753] Deleted definition of an explicit function template specialization, following a declaration, incorrectly accepted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60753 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Mine.
[Bug c++/64029] [4.9 Regression] const int (in)[]{1,2,3,4,5}; results in internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029 Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed for 4.9.3.
[Bug c++/64524] gcc can't detect same expression in both parts of ternary operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
Sorry, typo in my original code. Better code:
enum E { a, b, c, d };
void f(int val)
{
int n = (val = 10) ? a : (d - 3);
}
[Bug c++/64524] gcc can't detect same expression in both parts of ternary operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524 Mikhail Maltsev maltsevm at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from Mikhail Maltsev maltsevm at gmail dot com --- int k = cond ? sizeof (x) : sizeof (y); By the way, this is a good example of probable false positives. Consider: constexpr std::size_t max_size = (sizeof(T1) sizeof(T2)) ? sizeof(T1) : sizeof(T2); This is an example of legal code, it could be used for allocating a buffer which could hold either object of type T1 or type T2. These sizes may be platform-dependent (or they may depend on template parameters), so this code makes sence, but it will produce a warning when sizes are equal. So, probably this warning only makes sence, if ASTs' would be compared, not the values.
[Bug c++/64524] gcc can't detect same expression in both parts of ternary operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
And really here is another false positive:
#define a 1
#define b 1
int t = c d ? a : b;
Assuming you meant
int t = (c d) ? a : b;
then I'd be interested to find out how that's a false positive.
Just to add some salt into the pot, another interesting case might be
enum E { a, b, c, d };
void f(int val)
{
int n = (val = 10) ? a : (d - 4);
[Bug c++/64529] New: Noexcept New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64529 Bug ID: 64529 Summary: Noexcept New Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: olafvdspek at gmail dot com Lots of programs abort / terminate when new fails to allocate memory. Would it be possible to have an option to make new noexcept, possibly allowing more optimizations as noexcept will have a ripple effect?
[Bug c++/64524] gcc can't detect same expression in both parts of ternary operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- This is also a style warning. And really here is another false positive: #define a 1 #define b 1 int t = c d ? a : b;
[Bug middle-end/59354] Unexpected result in g++ when casting int to char from an stl vector to an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59354 Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2015-01-07 CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com Component|c++ |middle-end Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com --- Moving to middle-end.
[Bug c/63886] float will fit into int with abs - possible missing warning Wabsolute-value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63886 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Seems like there's nothing to do for this bug.
[Bug c++/64520] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE with std::initializer_list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64520 Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2015-01-07 CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com --- Clang rejects the code, so I'm for now marking this ice-on-invalid-code.
[Bug c/64515] Segmentation fault during linker operation in gcc for arm-none-eabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64515 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed||2015-01-07 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Preprocessed source is missing, but I think you should report this to your vendor. (And it's not a linker error.)
[Bug c++/64520] New: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE with std::initializer_list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64520
Bug ID: 64520
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE with std::initializer_list
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
namespace std {
template class class initializer_list;
}
struct A {
template typename... B A(std::initializer_listB...);
};
A a { 0 };
ICEs with:
./cc1plus -quiet -std=c++0x rh1176446.ii
rh1176446.ii: In substitution of ‘templateclass ... B
A::A(std::initializer_listB ...) [with B = missing]’:
rh1176446.ii:7:9: required from here
rh1176446.ii:7:9: internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:18523
A a { 0 };
^
starting with r179436.
[Bug fortran/55901] [OOP] type is (character(len=*)) misinterpreted as array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901 --- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Hi Harald, Happy New Year! I have been away in Claifornia these last few weeks and just got back last night. I am working with Andre on pr60255 tonight. Once this is done, we should be in a position to fix pr55901 and have it do something useful! Cheers Paul On 6 January 2015 at 20:50, anlauf at gmx dot de gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901 --- Comment #10 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de --- (In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #9) By the way, the patch of comment 8 bootstraps and regtests OK Paul Hi Paul, any news on that patch? Harald -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug c++/64352] [5.0 regression] No SFINAE with deleted function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64352 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:32 2015 New Revision: 219310 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219310root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/64352 * pt.c (tsubst_copy_and_build): Pass complain to mark_used. Added: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/deleted9.C Modified: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/pt.c
[Bug c++/64487] [4.8/4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in fold_offsetof_1, at c-family/c-common.c:9857
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64487 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:39 2015 New Revision: 219311 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219311root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/64487 * semantics.c (finish_offsetof): Handle templates here. * parser.c (cp_parser_builtin_offsetof): Not here. Added: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/offsetof3.C Modified: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/parser.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/semantics.c
[Bug c/63886] float will fit into int with abs - possible missing warning Wabsolute-value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63886 --- Comment #6 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5) Seems like there's nothing to do for this bug. Suggest there are two cases 1. double to float 2. double or float into any integer type. The one warning, produced by -Wfloat-conversion, could be split into two warnings, as per the two cases. #1 isn't very useful, #2 seems useful to me. Then put case #1 into -Wall.
[Bug fortran/64530] New: [4.9 Regression] Incorrect calculation when assigning to array with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64530 Bug ID: 64530 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Incorrect calculation when assigning to array with -O3 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: jkaus at ucsd dot edu Created attachment 34398 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34398action=edit Minimal example illustrating the issue. With gfortran 4.9 using -O3, the assignment to an array can occur before the rest of the calculation, giving an incorrect result. I have attached a minimal example which shows the bug along with modified code that produces the correct results. With O3 we get the wrong result (0.0): gfortran -O3 a.F90 ./a.out buggy 0.0. 0. works 3.50003.5000 3.5000 With O2 we get the correct result (3.5): gfortran -O2 a.F90 ./a.out buggy 3.50003.5000 3.5000 works 3.50003.50003.500 gfortran -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gfortran COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.9/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu 4.9.2-0ubuntu1~12.04' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.9/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,java,go,d,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --program-suffix=-4.9 --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.9 --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-gnu-unique-object --disable-vtable-verify --enable-plugin --with-system-zlib --disable-browser-plugin --enable-java-awt=gtk --enable-gtk-cairo --with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.9-amd64/jre --enable-java-home --with-jvm-root-dir=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.9-amd64 --with-jvm-jar-dir=/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.9-amd64 --with-arch-directory=amd64 --with-ecj-jar=/usr/share/java/eclipse-ecj.jar --enable-objc-gc --enable-multiarch --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-abi=m64 --with-multilib-list=m32,m64 --enable-multilib --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu Thread model: posix gcc version 4.9.2 (Ubuntu 4.9.2-0ubuntu1~12.04)
[Bug fortran/56867] Missing temporary with string array assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56867 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: tkoenig Date: Wed Jan 7 22:31:54 2015 New Revision: 219325 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219325root=gccview=rev Log: 2015-01-08 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org Backport from trunk PR fortran/56867 * trans-array.c (gfc_conv_resolve_dependencies): Also check dependencies when there may be substrings of character arrays. 2014-01-08 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org PR fortran/56867 * gfortran.dg/dependency_45.f90: New test. Added: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dependency_45.f90 Modified: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug target/37440] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] GNAT Bug Box a-ngcefu.adb:397
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37440 Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #17 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org --- This is fixed on at least the 4.9 branch. I successfully built arm-rtems on that. Closing.
[Bug c++/64527] Constructor for empty struct not called in some situations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64527 --- Comment #1 from Brett Simmers gcc at swtaarrs dot com --- Sorry, the attachment should be named ctor.cpp. I didn't realize it was a filename and not a text description.
[Bug c++/64531] New: `casting between pointer-to-function and pointer-to-object` is still a warning instead of error with `-pedantic -pedantic-errors`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64531
Bug ID: 64531
Summary: `casting between pointer-to-function and
pointer-to-object` is still a warning instead of error
with `-pedantic -pedantic-errors`
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: iamsupermouse at mail dot ru
`-pedantic` causes g++ to emit a warning `ISO C++ forbids casting between
pointer-to-function and pointer-to-object` on this code:
int main()
{
(void (*)()) (void *) 0;
}
I would expect `-pedantic -pedantic-errors` to generate a error with the same
message on this code, but it's still a warning.
[Bug fortran/64530] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect calculation when assigning to array with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64530 Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gmx dot de --- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de --- (In reply to jkaus from comment #0) With O3 we get the wrong result (0.0): gfortran -O3 a.F90 ./a.out buggy 0.0. 0. works 3.50003.5000 3.5000 Interesting bug. I can confirm that it does not occur with 4.8, but with 4.9 and 5. Note that if one interchanges in subroutine buggy the lines old(i) = ave(i) tmp(i) = tmp(i) / scale_factor to tmp(i) = tmp(i) / scale_factor old(i) = ave(i) I also get the correct result. With gfortran 4.9 and 5 I also get the correct result with -O3 when e.g. using UBSAN (-fsanitize=undefined); it probably also reduces the optimization. Since the dump tree looks the same for 4.8 and 4.9, could it be a middle-end bug?
[Bug inline-asm/63900] memory constrains needlessly doing memory clobber
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63900 Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org --- (FWIW, I think Andrew is missing the discussion on gcc@ regarding fixing this so that it is true to the documentation, as being preferable by e.g. Richi to removing it from the documentation.)
[Bug target/64533] New: [5 Regression] [SH] alloca generates unsafe code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64533
Bug ID: 64533
Summary: [5 Regression] [SH] alloca generates unsafe code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: sh*-*-*
The trunk compiler compiles
void *foo() { return alloca (0x400);}
to
foo:
mov.l r14,@-r15
mov r15,r1
mov r15,r14
mov.w .L2,r15(*)
add r1,r15
mov r15,r0
mov r14,r15
rts
mov.l @r15+,r14
.align 1
.L2:
.short -1028
with -O2.
r15 has been set -1028 at (*) which isn't always safe. For example
sh-linux uses the negative stack values for software roll-back and
I've got a few sporadic and unreproducible errors on libjava testsuite
because of this. I've introduced a splitter which splits rA := rB + N
to rA := N and rA := rA + rB for LRA's register elimination phase.
It should take rA=r15 case into account. I'm testing the patch below.
--- config/sh/sh.md
+++ config/sh/sh.md
@@ -2061,9 +2061,10 @@
;; The problem is that LRA expects something like
;;(set rA (plus rB (const_int N)))
;; to work. We can do that, but we have to split out an additional reg-reg
-;; copy before the actual add insn.
+;; copy before the actual add insn. Use u constraint for that case to avoid
+;; the invalid value in the stack pointer.
(define_insn_and_split *addsi3_compact
- [(set (match_operand:SI 0 arith_reg_dest =r,r)
+ [(set (match_operand:SI 0 arith_reg_dest =r,u)
(plus:SI (match_operand:SI 1 arith_operand %0,r)
(match_operand:SI 2 arith_or_int_operand rI08,rn)))]
TARGET_SH1
[Bug c++/64251] [5 Regression] Chromium build error only with --enable-checking=yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64251 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:27 2015 New Revision: 219309 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219309root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/64251 * decl2.c (mark_used): Don't mark if in_template_function. Added: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent14.C Modified: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/decl2.c
[Bug c++/63657] [4.9 regression] -Wunused-variable: warning supressed by virtual dtor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63657 --- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:05 2015 New Revision: 219306 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219306root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/63657 PR c++/38958 * call.c (set_up_extended_ref_temp): Set TREE_USED on the reference if the temporary has a non-trivial destructor. * decl.c (poplevel): Don't look through references. Added: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wunused-var-22.C Modified: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/call.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/decl.c
[Bug c++/38958] 'unused variable' warning emitted when extending the lifetime of a returned RAII type by holding a reference to const despite delayed destructor side-effects. [dtor]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38958 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:05 2015 New Revision: 219306 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219306root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/63657 PR c++/38958 * call.c (set_up_extended_ref_temp): Set TREE_USED on the reference if the temporary has a non-trivial destructor. * decl.c (poplevel): Don't look through references. Added: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wunused-var-22.C Modified: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/call.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/decl.c
[Bug c++/64297] [5 Regression] ICE: canonical types differ for identical types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64297 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:21 2015 New Revision: 219308 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219308root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/64297 * typeck.c (apply_memfn_quals): Correct wrong TYPE_CANONICAL. Added: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/ref-qual16.C Modified: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/typeck.c
[Bug c++/64029] [4.9 Regression] const int (in)[]{1,2,3,4,5}; results in internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:16 2015 New Revision: 219307 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219307root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/64029 * decl.c (grok_reference_init): Complete array type. Added: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist89.C Modified: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/decl.c
[Bug testsuite/62250] FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/alloc_comp_1.f90 -fcoarray=lib -O2 -lcaf_single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250 --- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2015-01-07 10:03 AM, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: David, could you please check if the attached patch still works for hppa*-*-hpux*? I've added your patch to my hpux tree for testing.
[Bug c++/64524] New: gcc can't detect same expression in both parts of ternary operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
Bug ID: 64524
Summary: gcc can't detect same expression in both parts of
ternary operator
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Given this source code
extern void g(int);
void
f( int n)
{
int i = (n = 10) ? 1 : 1;
g( i - 1);
}
then trunk gcc says nothing:
$ ~/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c -O2 -Wall -Wextra jan6c.cc
$
Here is cppcheck detecting the problem:
$ ~/cppcheck/trunk/cppcheck --enable=all jan6c.cc
Checking jan6c.cc...
[jan6c.cc:9]: (style) Same expression in both branches of ternary operator.
$
Fixing this bug would find about a dozen bugs in Linux kernel
and about 100 bugs in Fedora Linux.
[Bug fortran/55901] [OOP] type is (character(len=*)) misinterpreted as array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901 --- Comment #12 from Andre Vehreschild vehre at gmx dot de --- Hi Paul, hi Tobias, I am guilty in asking both of you to look at the issue. I would be very happy, if one of you two can really have a look into the issue and notify the other one, that he found a reason for the issue and may be already has a solution. I just want to get the issue resolved but not produce duplicate work. Regards, Andre On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:16:25 + paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901 --- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Hi Harald, Happy New Year! I have been away in Claifornia these last few weeks and just got back last night. I am working with Andre on pr60255 tonight. Once this is done, we should be in a position to fix pr55901 and have it do something useful! Cheers Paul On 6 January 2015 at 20:50, anlauf at gmx dot de gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901 --- Comment #10 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de --- (In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #9) By the way, the patch of comment 8 bootstraps and regtests OK Paul Hi Paul, any news on that patch? Harald -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug go/61204] gccgo: ICE in in fold_convert_loc [GoSmith]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61204 --- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ian Date: Wed Jan 7 16:14:50 2015 New Revision: 219316 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219316root=gccview=rev Log: PR go/61204 * go-gcc.cc (Gcc_backend::temporary_variable): Don't initialize zero-sized variable. Modified: trunk/gcc/go/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/go/go-gcc.cc
[Bug c/64526] New: No warning on function call with excessive arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526
Bug ID: 64526
Summary: No warning on function call with excessive arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chengniansun at gmail dot com
GCC does not warn on the following function call to fn1. The function fn1
is defined with no parameters. Based on the standard, the empty parameter list
in a function declarator that is part of a definition of that function
specifies that the function has no parameters.
$ cat test.c
void fn1 () {}
void fn2 (int p) { fn1 (p); }
$ gcc-trunk -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c11 -c test.c
$ clang-trunk -c test.c
test.c:2:27: warning: too many arguments in call to 'fn1'
void fn2 (int p) { fn1 (p); }
~~~ ^
1 warning generated.
$
[Bug c/64526] No warning on function call with excessive arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Not a bug -- fn1 is not a function with no arguments,
but an unprototyped function. To get a function with
no arguments you must write
void fn1 (void) {}
This is C, not C++.
[Bug c++/64524] gcc can't detect same expression in both parts of ternary operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should it complain only when the expressions are the same (e.g. token-wise), or
even when just two different expressions have the same value?
I mean, say:
enum X { E = 5, F = 5 };
int i = cond ? E : F;
int j = cond ? x + 3 : x + 2 + 1;
int k = cond ? sizeof (x) : sizeof (y);
etc.
[Bug c++/64524] gcc can't detect same expression in both parts of ternary operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
Should it complain only when the expressions are the same (e.g. token-wise),
or even when just two different expressions have the same value?
I mean, say:
enum X { E = 5, F = 5 };
int i = cond ? E : F;
int j = cond ? x + 3 : x + 2 + 1;
int k = cond ? sizeof (x) : sizeof (y);
etc.
All would be good ;-
I suspect token-wise comparison would be simple and cheap, so
suggest do that first. That would cover my example.
I suspect more complex would be making sure two compile time
constants have the same value, so suggest do that second.
That would cover cases i and k above.
Suspect case j would be more difficult, since it involves
expression comparison. Suggest leave till last.
Feel free to adjust the priority order if my guesses are wrong.
[Bug target/64525] Duplicate instructions in both paths in conditional code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64525 --- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- compiler options: arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc -O3 -S test.c arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=/home/kugan/work/builds/gcc-fsf-gcc/tools/bin/arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/kugan/work/builds/gcc-fsf-gcc/tools/libexec/gcc/arm-none-linux-gnueabi/5.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: arm-none-linux-gnueabi Configured with: /home/kugan/work/sources/gcc-fsf/gcc/configure --target=arm-none-linux-gnueabi --prefix=/home/kugan/work/builds/gcc-fsf-gcc/tools --with-sysroot=/home/kugan/work/builds/gcc-fsf-gcc/sysroot-arm-none-linux-gnueabi --disable-libssp --disable-libgomp --disable-libmudflap --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --with-arch=armv7-a --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --with-float=softfp --with-thumb Thread model: posix gcc version 5.0.0 20141203 (experimental) (GCC)
[Bug c++/64524] gcc can't detect same expression in both parts of ternary operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #2) Well, tokenwise comparison is difficult, as lots of things are folded early. So if you don't mind the same value as folding, implementing that wouldn't be that hard.
[Bug c++/64527] New: Constructor for empty struct not called in some situations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64527 Bug ID: 64527 Summary: Constructor for empty struct not called in some situations Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gcc at swtaarrs dot com Created attachment 34396 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34396action=edit c++ code exposing the bug Build ctor.cpp with the following command: g++ -std=c++11 -Os -S -o ctor.S ctor.cpp The optimization level doesn't appear to affect the presence of the bug, I just used -Os to keep the output more compact. Expected results: The m() function in ctor.S should contain a call to A::A(). Actual results: m() does nothing but zero out accessor::x. I've found at least three ways to perturb the bug out of existence which are documented in comments in the file. The bug is also present in gcc 4.8.1 (I haven't tried anything older). Compiling with -Wextra reports warning: missing initializer for member ‘accessor::a’ [-Wmissing-field-initializers] but I believe this shouldn't affect the ouput. gcc build info: Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Configured with: ./configure --prefix=/home/matthew/gcc-4.9.0-prefix Thread model: posix gcc version 4.9.0 (GCC)
[Bug tree-optimization/64528] New: [5 Regression] ICE: in process_constraint, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:3002 with -O -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-dce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64528 Bug ID: 64528 Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: in process_constraint, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:3002 with -O -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-dce Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: zsojka at seznam dot cz Created attachment 34397 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34397action=edit reduced testcase (from gfortran.dg/value_test.f90) Compiler output: $ gcc -O -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-dce testcase.f90 testcase.f90:11:0: end program valueTests ^ internal compiler error: in process_constraint, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:3002 0xe7907d process_constraint /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c:3002 0xe793b3 process_all_all_constraints /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c:3581 0xe84cd3 find_func_aliases /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c:4748 0xe87c26 compute_points_to_sets /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c:6825 0xe87c26 compute_may_aliases() /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c:7161 0xbbd8ec execute_function_todo /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/gcc/passes.c:1912 0xbbe563 execute_todo /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/gcc/passes.c:1997 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions. Tested revisions: r219277 - ICE r218446 - ICE r212099 - ICE 4_9 r219040 - OK
[Bug c++/64521] [4.9/5 Regression] ICE with -frepo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64521 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
[Bug target/56025] ARM NEON polynomial types have broken overload resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56025 --- Comment #5 from Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot gnu.org --- ACLE states that poly8_t and poly16_t are defined as unsigned integer types. It is unspecified whether these are the same type as uint8_t and uint16_t for overloading and mangling purposes Presently, poly types are implemented as distinct types in the ARM backend with default mangling which is wrong. This obviates the need for their own mangling scheme in the ABI which it does not specify. Therefore, it cannot be modelled as a distinct type until the ABI says that it is a distinct type. Also, poly8_t and poly16_t are presently modelled as signed types which is incorrect. When we change this to an unsigned type, it will be incompatible with legacy anyway wrt mangling among other things. So, till the time the ABI decides to make poly types as distinct types, we can model it as an unsigned type or as another type name for uint8_t or uint16_t. This will disallow overloading of uint8_t and poly8_t for eg and break current overloads, but correcting poly to unsigned type is a greater good. This is also future-proof because if the ABI decides to model poly and unsigned types as distinct types, previously disallowed overloading will then be allowed which isn't breaking legacy in the broad sense.
[Bug middle-end/63510] Wrong line number in Wstrict-overflow message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510 --- Comment #3 from Chen Gang gang.chen.5i5j at gmail dot com --- It still exists in gcc version 5.0.0 20141109 (experimental) (GCC), I shall try to solve it. Hope I can finish within 2 months.
[Bug testsuite/62250] FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/alloc_comp_1.f90 -fcoarray=lib -O2 -lcaf_single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250 --- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 34394 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34394action=edit Patch to add -latomic only when available; -p0 -d path/to/gcc/testsuite David, could you please check if the attached patch still works for hppa*-*-hpux*? I've verified that it fixes the regressions I see (cross to cris-elf; a system without a -latomic port and where the operations are built-in) and that -latomic is still added for a native x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu build, with tests still passing. Though, as -latomic is redundant on that last system, I haven't actually tested it on a system where -latomic is *required*; the point if this PR (and BTW sorry for being lazy and hijacking it - a pointer to a new PR would have been more appropriate).
[Bug c++/63658] [4.9 Regression] Using class reference as template parameter causes compilation to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63658 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Wed Jan 7 15:17:59 2015 New Revision: 219305 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219305root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/63658 * pt.c (convert_nontype_argument): Call convert_from_reference. (check_instantiated_arg): Don't be confused by reference refs. (unify): Look through reference refs on the arg, too. * mangle.c (write_template_arg): Look through reference refs. Added: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/ref9.C Modified: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/mangle.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/pt.c
[Bug c/63886] float will fit into int with abs - possible missing warning Wabsolute-value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63886 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID |--- --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Reopening then.
[Bug target/64525] New: Duplicate instructions in both paths in conditional code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64525 Bug ID: 64525 Summary: Duplicate instructions in both paths in conditional code Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kugan at gcc dot gnu.org Created attachment 34395 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34395action=edit testcase gcc is generating the same instructions down both paths of conditional execution. For exmaple, in the attached test case. ... cmp r0, #0 movtr2, #:upper16:tree_code_length_0 ldr r0, [r2] movweq r2, #:lower16:permanent_obstack movteq r2, #:upper16:permanent_obstack movwne r2, #:lower16:permanent_obstack moveq r3, r2 movtne r2, #:upper16:permanent_obstack ...
