The testcase has failed since r9-5035, because obj_type_ref_class
tries to look up an ODR type when no ODR type information is
available. (The information was available earlier in the
compilation, but was freed during pass_ipa_free_lang_data.)
We then crash dereferencing the null get_odr_type
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:11:50PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> I would like to add unit-tests for gcc-changelog.
> The test_patches.txt contains couple of patches extracted from gcc
> via git format-patch.
>
> Test output:
> $ pytest contrib/gcc-changelog/
> Test session starts (platform: linux,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95111
--- Comment #12 from Ville Voutilainen ---
It sure seems to me that a coroutine lambda's captures should be copied to the
coroutine state. I don't think the standard says that anywhere.
Compiling this testcase with -march=armv8.2-a+sve
-msve-vector-bits=512:
--
typedef __SVFloat32_t foo;
typedef foo bar __attribute__((arm_sve_vector_bits(512)));
template struct s { T x; };
extern s a;
bar = a.x;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95105
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c814af65ef9f146519cba657890a4fd93c5be38
commit r11-385-g2c814af65ef9f146519cba657890a4fd93c5be38
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95129
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95111
--- Comment #11 from Avi Kivity ---
I started a conversation on the std-proposals list about this.
Meanwhile, how about a -fnonstandard-coroutines-that-actually-work flag that
captures the parameter to a non-static member function coroutine by
luoxhu writes:
> This "subtract/extend/add" existed for a long time and still annoying us
> (PR37451, part of PR61837) when converting from 32bits to 64bits, as the ctr
> register is used as 64bits on powerpc64, Andraw Pinski had a patch but
> caused some issue and reverted by Joseph S.
The 04/30/2020 12:26, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> > > From: Gcc On Behalf Of Andrew Pinski via Gcc
> > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 6:25 AM Florian Weimer via Gcc
> > > wrote:
> > > > Distributions are receiving requests to build things with
> > > > -moutline-atomics:
> > > >
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95129
--- Comment #1 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
i also opened bug 95128 to just configure the outline-atomics away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95128
--- Comment #2 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
i also opened bug 95129 to fix the runtime detection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95129
Bug ID: 95129
Summary: aarch64: make outline-atomics work on non-gnu targets
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95128
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95128
Bug ID: 95128
Summary: aarch64: configure option for outline-atomics
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We could do this easily enough (which could be simplified if RDRAND is
guaranteed to be available when RDSEED is available):
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95127
xzlsmc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48532|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> Oh, you're probably configuring your compiler with --enable-default-pie.
> Please paste the entire gcc -v. I can reproduce the miscompile it if I pass
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to wnereiz from comment #9)
> This issue seems not limit to a certain GCC version. I tried the code with
> gcc7, gcc9 and gcc10 on openSUSE Tumbleweed. All failed.
As Richard said, the code to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
Oh, you're probably configuring your compiler with --enable-default-pie. Please
paste the entire gcc -v. I can reproduce the miscompile it if I pass -fpie
-pie.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95127
Bug ID: 95127
Summary: Self-calling lambda with auto return type gives
misleading error message
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
OK, it works if I add -fPIC to the list of compiler options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95103
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
No, this analogy does not work. setjmp both sets up a buffer and receives
control, so it corresponds to both try and catch together. A matching "C++"
code would look like:
> void f3() {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> I can't reproduce that with the mentioned revision.
> Where does it segfault?
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
main () at iu1wkpbg.c:39
39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> If you still have the compiler binary, you can help out by testing with
> sel-sched debug counters: if you append -fdbg-cnt=sel_sched_insn_cnt:0 to
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95122
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Don't use -mhard-float or -msoft-float. Instead, you should be using
-mfloat-abi=[hard|softfp|soft] as appropriate. Also, rather than encoding this
into various sets of flags you should configure the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95103
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The content of the warning isn't very helpful, but I think it's pointing out a
real issue in the code, not a false positive.
Any valid longjmp which followed that setjmp would have undefined behaviour if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95126
Bug ID: 95126
Summary: Missed opportunity to turn static variables into
immediates
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
Bug ID: 95125
Summary: Unoptimal code for vectorized conversions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94703
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d1ccfd0cc2e1add15929c43e6c7472336d33e65
commit r11-384-g0d1ccfd0cc2e1add15929c43e6c7472336d33e65
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94703
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
The specific dump scanning doesn't work on strict-align targets,
the following simply skips the testcase for those.
2020-05-14 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/94703
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr94703.c: Skip for strict-align targets.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr94703.c | 1 +
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94703
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #10)
> > --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
> [...]
> > Hmm, OK looks like memcpy is not folded, likely because the source is
> > not known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95103
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94703
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to pskocik from comment #11)
> Thanks for the shot at a fix, Richard Biener.
>
> Since I have reported this, I think I should mentioned a related
> suboptimality that should probably be getting
On Wed, 13 May 2020, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 5/13/20 2:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > This implements commoning of stores to a common successor in
> > a simple ad-hoc way. I've decided to put it into the code sinking
> > pass since, well, it sinks stores. It's still separate since
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95118
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[10/11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95118
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:568c985113b29574c4e25e1a016475668fc17c28
commit r11-383-g568c985113b29574c4e25e1a016475668fc17c28
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 07:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 19:44, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 18:19, Mike Stump via Gcc wrote:
> > >
> > > I've changed the subject to match the 2015, 2017 and 2018 email threads.
> > >
> > > On May 13, 2020,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95124
Bug ID: 95124
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class
‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in
diag_attr_exclusions, at attribs.c:396
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95122
--- Comment #3 from chengcongxiu at huawei dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> You seem to build from inside the source directory, that is not supported.
> Please create a separate object directory like
>
> mkdir obj
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48998
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
Bug ID: 95123
Summary: [10/11 Regression] Wrong code w/ -O2
-fselective-scheduling2 -funroll-loops --param
early-inlining-insns=5 --param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #18 from Christophe Lyon ---
> I'm working on this, and just realized that this also means saving FPSR. It
> seems there's no support for that yet in arm.md (unlike aarch64.md), am I
> missing something?
>
Sorry, I see it's called
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95108
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in |[9/10 Regression] ICE in
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:00 AM 易会战 wrote:
>
> There are some other cases that I cannot get right answer.
> case1: interproceduure
> func(int*arg)
> {
> return arg[0] + arg[1]
> }
> func2()
> {
> int a[10]
> return func(a);
> }
> here func cannot tell arg is local var.
>
> case 2: global array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95112
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kobets ---
Yes, that it.
I am not sure, that CF must be enabled by default, at your discretion.
Thank you.
Hi!
For normal stmts, preparation statements are inserted before the stmt, so if we
need multiple,
they are in the correct order, but for PHIs we emit them after labels in the
entry successor
bb, and we used to emit them in the reverse order that way.
Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on
Hi!
OpenMP 5.0 also specifies that functions referenced from target regions
(except for target regions with device(ancestor:)) are also implicitly declare
target to.
This patch implements that.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk.
2020-05-14 Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95108
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0fb9ffc1b8f3b86bbdf0e915cec2136141b329b
commit r11-381-gd0fb9ffc1b8f3b86bbdf0e915cec2136141b329b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95107
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
Now with a patch attached.
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 9:18 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2020-05-14 Uroš Bizjak
>
> PR target/95046
> * config/i386/mmx.md (mmx_fix_truncv2sfv2si2): rename from mmx_pf2id.
> Add SSE/AVX alternative. Change operand predicates from
>
gcc/ChangeLog:
2020-05-14 Uroš Bizjak
PR target/95046
* config/i386/mmx.md (mmx_fix_truncv2sfv2si2): rename from mmx_pf2id.
Add SSE/AVX alternative. Change operand predicates from
nonimmediate_operand to register_mmxmem_operand.
Enable instruction pattern for
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:50 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
>
> On 2020-05-13, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> Did I mention I dislike -fsplit-dwarf? ;)
> >
> >Seconded, this will be confusing for almost all users. Since the option only
> >affects debug info generation, it should be prefixed with 'g' in any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95046
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:42ef8a5e662a765dc794a7a5c0227bcd83556e44
commit r11-379-g42ef8a5e662a765dc794a7a5c0227bcd83556e44
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95122
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
$ CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET="${-march=armv7-a -mhard-float}"
bash: ${-march=armv7-a -mhard-float}: bad substitution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-linux-gnueabihf
Ever
This fixes printing a REAL_CST generated from value-numbering
punning some bits to a real which turns out as zero with big
negative exponent. This causes the loop in real_to_decimal_for_mode to
never terminate.
Bootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
2020-05-14 Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95118
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95119
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 19:44, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 18:19, Mike Stump via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > I've changed the subject to match the 2015, 2017 and 2018 email threads.
> >
> > On May 13, 2020, at 3:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Comparing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95103
--- Comment #2 from Stephan Bergmann ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Does it work placing the initial part of the function in a separate { }?
Yes,
> @@ -14,11 +14,13 @@
> return true;
> }
> void f3() {
> +{
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95115
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95108
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Probes emitted by the common code routines still use a store. Define
the "probe_stack" pattern to use a compare instead.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390x
Committed to mainline
gcc/ChangeLog:
2020-05-14 Andreas Krebbel
* config/s390/s390.c (s390_emit_stack_probe): Call
After emitting probes in a loop last_probe_offset needs to be updated.
Not doing this usually assumes a too low distance to the last access
when emitting the remainder leading to stack probes being omitted.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390x
Committed to mainline
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95113
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||93385
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95112
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Try -fcf-protection=none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95110
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.1.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95115
--- Comment #5 from Aurelien Jarno ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #3)
> Newlib incidentally uses (x-x)/(x-x) where x is the input value, so there
> are no constants involved, and the divide does not get optimized away. This
> still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95053
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #19)
> There's some stuff above this in the module but this is the part that shows
> the error and I think it contains all the declarations.
>
> subroutine
201 - 278 of 278 matches
Mail list logo
