[Bug tree-optimization/87873] New: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: incompatible types in PHI argument 0)

2018-11-03 Thread asolokha at gmx dot com 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87873

Bug ID: 87873
   Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
incompatible types in PHI argument 0)
   Product: gcc
   Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: tree-optimization
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: asolokha at gmx dot com
  Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

gcc-9.0.0-alpha20181028 snapshot (r265575) ICEs when compiling the following
snippet w/ -O1 (-O2, -O3, -Ofast) -ftree-loop-vectorize:

__int128 k3;
int gs;

void
s2 (int aj)
{
  while (aj < 1)
{
  gs ^= 1;
  k3 = (__int128) gs * 2;
  if (k3 != 0)
k3 = 0;

  ++aj;
}
}

% x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc-9.0.0-alpha20181028 -O1 -ftree-loop-vectorize -c
d9ofj1fe.c
d9ofj1fe.c: In function 's2':
d9ofj1fe.c:5:1: error: incompatible types in PHI argument 0
5 | s2 (int aj)
  | ^~
int

__int128

_50 = PHI 
during GIMPLE pass: vect
d9ofj1fe.c:5:1: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
0xd1bb7d verify_gimple_in_cfg(function*, bool)
   
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20181028/work/gcc-9-20181028/gcc/tree-cfg.c:5422
0xbf0e0f execute_function_todo
   
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20181028/work/gcc-9-20181028/gcc/passes.c:1925
0xbf1d0e execute_todo
   
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20181028/work/gcc-9-20181028/gcc/passes.c:1979

[Bug fortran/87838] Segmentation fault with function pointer to contained function

2018-11-03 Thread menospaamthereaper at hotmail dot com 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87838

--- Comment #2 from menospaamthereaper at hotmail dot com ---
Thank you Dominique for testing this on a Mac. So perhaps the problem is
specific to Linux.

Additional information that might help with debugging the segmentation fault:

1) Compiling this code with

gfortran -ffree-form -std=f2003 test.f 

gives the error

test.f:12:13:

 f_ptr => f1
 1
Error: Fortran 2008: Internal procedure ‘f1’ is invalid in procedure pointer
assignment at (1)

(this code is within gcc/fortran/expr.c: 

  if (attr.proc == PROC_INTERNAL &&
  !gfc_notify_std(GFC_STD_F2008, "Internal procedure %qs "
  "is invalid in procedure pointer assignment "
  "at %L", rvalue->symtree->name, &rvalue->where))
)

2) However,  

gfortran -ffree-form -std=f2008 test.f

compiles successfully but gives a segmentation fault.

./a.out 

Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.

Backtrace for this error:
#0  0x7fe7aae3b31a
#1  0x7fe7aae3a503
#2  0x7fe7aaa5ef1f
#3  0x7fffed8fe6c0
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

[Bug middle-end/78837] missing -Walloca-larger-than on a call in a ternary expression

2018-11-03 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78837

Eric Gallager  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
   ||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager  ---
cc-ing diagnostics maintainers

[Bug tree-optimization/80537] missing -Wformat-overflow on POSIX %C conversion specification

2018-11-03 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80537

Eric Gallager  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||patch
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
   ||patches/2018-08/msg00345.ht
   ||ml

--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager  ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> A patch for this and bug 86853 posted here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg00345.html

adding "patch" keyword

[Bug target/78357] nios2 uses non-standard atomic functions

2018-11-03 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78357

sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #12 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm closing this issue since it looks like it was fixed a couple of years ago. 
The GCC 6 branch is now closed so it's too late to backport.

[Bug target/85669] fail on s-case-cfn-macros: build/gencfn-macros: DEF_INTERNAL_FLT/INT_FN (%smth%) has no associated built-in functions

2018-11-03 Thread dougmencken at gmail dot com 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85669

Douglas Mencken  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #68 from Douglas Mencken  ---
It is fixed

[Bug fortran/78351] comma not terminating READ of formatted input field - ok in 4.1.7, not 4.4.7- maybe related to 25419?

2018-11-03 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351

--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle  ---
Final patch submitted for review.

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-11/msg00017.html

[Bug libstdc++/87872] debug list::splice should not call _M_transfer_from_if on self-splices

2018-11-03 Thread fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872

François Dumont  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2018-11-03
   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |fdumont at gcc dot 
gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from François Dumont  ---
All this reflection looks perfectly fine to me, thanks reporting it.

Don't you want to submit a patch then, you're so close.

Otherwise I'll take care in the coming week.

Thanks

[Bug c++/87814] [9 Regression] ICE in in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15962 with range-v3

2018-11-03 Thread ensadc at mailnesia dot com 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87814

ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com

--- Comment #1 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com ---
Reduced:

template
struct box {
template
constexpr box(E && e)
noexcept(noexcept(Element(e)))
{}
};

template
struct compressed_tuple_ : box ... {
template
constexpr compressed_tuple_(Args &&... args)
noexcept((noexcept(box(args)) && ...))
  : box(args)...
{}
};

struct adaptor_cursor : compressed_tuple_ {
using compressed_tuple_::compressed_tuple_;
};

int main() {
(void)noexcept(adaptor_cursor{(int*)0});
}

[Bug ada/87777] Let gnat tools call each other with an explicit target and version

2018-11-03 Thread nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8

--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Boulenguez  ---
Created attachment 44952
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44952&action=edit
consensual gnatchop part of the previous patch

The gnatchop bits are now separated, and have nothing specific to Debian.

I am not interested in writing a separate patch fixing the End_Of_Prefix error
as long as the function is not fully specified.

For this, I need you to tell me what "a Debian quirk" is.
Does some (non Debian) architecture
- use TARGET-gcc-VERSION with TARGET/=Sdefault.Target_Name?
- use TARGET-gcc-VERSION with VERSION/=Gnatvsn.Library_Version?
- provide no executable named TARGET-gcc-VERSION?
If the answer to all 3 questions is "no", then the current patch already makes
sense for upstream as well as for Debian.

[Bug ada/87778] Remove -q quiet option from some GNAT bootstrap command lines

2018-11-03 Thread nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87778

Nicolas Boulenguez  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #44914|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Boulenguez  ---
Created attachment 44951
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44951&action=edit
Remove -q but do not add -v.

[Bug target/87079] nios2 optimization for size - case of regression relatively to 5.3.0

2018-11-03 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87079

sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk.

[Bug target/87079] nios2 optimization for size - case of regression relatively to 5.3.0

2018-11-03 Thread sandra at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87079

--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Sat Nov  3 18:12:44 2018
New Revision: 265770

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265770&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-03  Sandra Loosemore  

PR target/87079

gcc/
* config/nios2/nios2.c (nios2_rtx_costs): Recognize sidi3
pattern.

gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/nios2/pr87079-1.c: New.
* gcc.target/nios2/pr87079-2.c: New.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/nios2/pr87079-1.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/nios2/pr87079-2.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/nios2/nios2.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug fortran/86626] ICE in get_array_charlen at gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:6870

2018-11-03 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86626

Thomas Koenig  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig  ---
The problem manifests itself in trans-array.c:

   │6953  /* Set se = NULL in the calls to the interface mapping, to
suppress any   
   │
   │6954 backend stuff.  */
   
│
  >│6955  for (; arg != NULL; arg = arg->next, formal = formal ?
formal->next : NULL)   
   │
   │6956{  
   
│
   │6957  if (!arg->expr)  
   
│
   │6958continue;  
   
│
   │6959  if (formal->sym) 
   
│
   │6960  gfc_add_interface_mapping (&mapping, formal->sym, NULL,
arg->expr);
  │
   │6961}


(gdb) call gfc_debug_expr(expr)
f[[(((/ 'xyz' /)))]]
(gdb) p formal
$21 = (gfc_formal_arglist *) 0x0

So, although we have an actual arglist, the formal arg list
has gotten lost somewhere, presumably because it is generic.

[Bug middle-end/87836] ICE in cc1 for gcc-6.5.0 with SPARC hardware

2018-11-03 Thread gary_mills at fastmail dot fm 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836

--- Comment #2 from Gary Mills  ---
I just built and installed gdb.  I've never used it, though.  I'll need
complete
instructions on how to determine if it's an alignment error.

That is a very good suggestion, something I never even considered.

[Bug fortran/87597] [7/8/9 Regression] wrong result with matmul inlining

2018-11-03 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87597

Thomas Koenig  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig  ---
I took the liberty of backporting because the release of 8.3
will be rather soon (if it occurs on time), and I wanted this
patch in.  Tobias, I hope you don't mind.

Therefore fixed on all open branches, closing.

[Bug fortran/87597] [7/8/9 Regression] wrong result with matmul inlining

2018-11-03 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87597

--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig  ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Nov  3 14:49:33 2018
New Revision: 265769

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265769&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-03  Tobias Burnus  
Thomas Koenig  

Backport from trunk
PR fortran/87597
* expr.c (gfc_simplify_expr): Avoid simplifying
the 'array' argument to lbound/ubound/lcobound/
ucobound.

2018-11-03  Tobias Burnus  
Thomas Koenig  

Backport from trunk
PR fortran/87597
* gfortran.dg/inline_matmul_24.f90: New.


Added:
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inline_matmul_24.f90
Modified:
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/fortran/expr.c
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug rtl-optimization/87678] Redundant vmovss with -fPIC

2018-11-03 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678

--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak  ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> Should LRA do this?  Shouldn't it be done earlier?  Or later, in a peephole
> for example?

I think that combine should do this propagation, if the simplified insn with
immediate is not recognized.

[Bug rtl-optimization/87678] Redundant vmovss with -fPIC

2018-11-03 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678

--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool  ---
Should LRA do this?  Shouldn't it be done earlier?  Or later, in a peephole
for example?

[Bug d/87827] libgphobos.spec in the wrong place with --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs

2018-11-03 Thread ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87827

Iain Buclaw  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw  ---
Fix committed

[Bug fortran/87597] [7/8/9 Regression] wrong result with matmul inlining

2018-11-03 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87597

--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig  ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Nov  3 12:16:34 2018
New Revision: 265768

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265768&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-03  Tobias Burnus  
Thomas Koenig  

Backport from trunk
PR fortran/87597
* expr.c (gfc_simplify_expr): Avoid simplifying
the 'array' argument to lbound/ubound/lcobound/
ucobound.

2018-11-03  Tobias Burnus  
Thomas Koenig  

Backport from trunk
PR fortran/87597
* gfortran.dg/inline_matmul_24.f90: New.



Added:
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inline_matmul_24.f90
Modified:
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/fortran/expr.c
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug fortran/87796] ICE in gfc_conv_string_parameter, at fortran/trans-expr.c:8926

2018-11-03 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87796

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2018-11-03
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
The first test in comment 0 compiles with 4.9.3, but not with 5.5.0 up to trunk
(9.0).

[Bug ada/87777] Let gnat tools call each other with an explicit target and version

2018-11-03 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8

Eric Botcazou  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed||2018-11-03
 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou  ---
> Many problems have been caused by the fact that tools like gnatmake call
> other tools like gcc without an explicit target or version.
> The Osint.Program_Name function has been created in order to compute the
> name of the right gcc subcommand.
> The attached patch improves it for Debian, but as described in the header
> most changes may be applied upstream.

Yes, I think that it would be worth considering , especially the gnatchop bits,
once purged from the Debian quirks, so please consider splitting the patch and
providing a ChangeLog in the process.

[Bug rtl-optimization/87678] Redundant vmovss with -fPIC

2018-11-03 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678

--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak  ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> Ah.  So you want this optimisation (which is currently done by LRA) to be
> done
> by combine as well; it's not that the resulting assembler code for this
> testcase
> is worse than what you'd like to see.  And what you want combine to do is
> just
> do a substitution (and no simplification, none with known values at least).
> 
> I agree with that.  I also want the latter to be done after every split pass,
> for the insns touched by that split anyway :-)

Please also note that LRA is not able to propagate PIC memory address, as
reported in the description, so the resulting asm is not optimal.

[Bug ada/87778] Remove -q quiet option from some GNAT bootstrap command lines

2018-11-03 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87778

Eric Botcazou  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2018-11-03
 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
   Severity|normal  |enhancement

--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou  ---
> The log can be a page longer if it helps debugging.
> The attached patch replaces -q with -v for Debian.

I don't think that we want to do that.

> Please at least consider removing -q.

This is more acceptable IMO.

[Bug fortran/87764] gfortran crashes with illegal code

2018-11-03 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87764

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2018-11-03
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
Confirmed from 4.8 up to trunk (9.0). An instrumented compiler gives

f951: Warning: No location in statement
../../work/gcc/fortran/trans.c:1768:39: runtime error: member access within
null pointer of type 'struct gfc_linebuf'
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault: 11

[Bug fortran/87838] Segmentation fault with function pointer to contained function

2018-11-03 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87838

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed||2018-11-03
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
WORKSFORME on x86_64-apple-darwin18.2. I don't get any segmentation fault with
the various revisions I have tested (from 5.5 up to trunk).

[Bug ada/87715] problems with asan and -O3 build of ada

2018-11-03 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87715

Eric Botcazou  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed||2018-11-03
 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou  ---
So what is the compilation line triggering this?

[Bug fortran/47030] !GCC$ Attributes do not work for COMMON variables in procedures and BLOCK DATA

2018-11-03 Thread marco_atzeri at yahoo dot it 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47030

--- Comment #9 from marco atzeri  ---
It seems the patch works, just not as I was expecting.

The code allows to export the variables in the common block

--
$ cat mydll-3.f90
! mydll.f90 --
! Simple library (to be compiled and linked as DLL/SO)
!
subroutine print

   real :: x
   common /mydata/ x
!GCC$ attributes dllexport :: x

   write(*,*) 'X = ', x

end subroutine print
---

With gcc-7.3.0 the test case fails as usual

 X =0.
 In program: X =1.

with the patch it works.

 X =1.
 In program: X =1.

[Bug libstdc++/87872] debug list::splice should not call _M_transfer_from_if on self-splices

2018-11-03 Thread jbytheway at gmail dot com 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872

--- Comment #1 from John Bytheway  ---
On further reflection, it would make more sense to put this check inside
_M_transfer_from_if, rather than in every splice function.

[Bug fortran/47030] !GCC$ Attributes do not work for COMMON variables in procedures and BLOCK DATA

2018-11-03 Thread marco_atzeri at yahoo dot it 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47030

--- Comment #8 from marco atzeri  ---
Created attachment 44950
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44950&action=edit
test case for patch