https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #38 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #37)
> Is this now "good enough" for GCC 12?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104519
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #37 from Richard Biener ---
Is this now "good enough" for GCC 12?
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: asolokha at gmx dot com
Target Milestone: ---
gcc 12.0.1 20220213 snapshot (g:58aeb75d4097010ad9bb72b964265b18ab284f93) ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103008
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #14)
> Created attachment 52428 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> The attached patch implements:
>
> fmod (a, p) = a - trunc (a/p) * p
> drem (a, p) = a - roundeven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
It's difficult, see the recent discussion on introducing explicit live-in
markers for the purpose of stack slot sharing and exactly these case of
testcases.
The "simplest" suggestion was to promote the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670
Bug 88670 depends on bug 104501, which changed state.
Bug 104501 Summary: vector lowering for VEC_COND_EXPR does not consider smaller
vectors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104501
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55001
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103008
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103008
>
> --- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104519
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Hi,
Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587253.html
Thanks
On 10/1/2022 上午 11:14, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gentle ping this:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587253.html
>
> Thanks
>
> On 21/12/2021 下午 4:19,
Hi,
Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/589006.html
Thanks
On 21/1/2022 下午 5:28, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> Hi,
>This patch adds a combine pattern for "CA minus one". As CA only has two
> values (0 or 1), we could convert following pattern
>
Hi,
Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590057.html
Thanks
On 9/2/2022 上午 10:43, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch removes TImode from mode iterator BOOL_128. Thus, bool
> operations (AND, IOR, XOR, NOT)
> on TImode will be split to the relevant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104514
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
From: LiaoShihua
ZMMUL extension is Multiply only extension for RISC-V.It implements the
multiplication subset of the M extension.
The encodings are identical to those of the corresponding M-extension
instructions.
When You both use M extension add ZMMUL extension, it will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104507
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Nelson ---
Yeah, that was my thought as well (though I'm 99% unfamiliar with the GCC
codebase).
Some more bisecting reveals that this was introduced with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95508
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104523
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
apinski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc$ ~/upstream-gcc/bin/gcc t.ii -std=c++20
-fmodules-ts
PyBind11Module.cpp:5:9: internal compiler error: tree check: expected none of
template_decl, have template_decl in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104523
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104517
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
yes adding -save-temps causes the difference, interesting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104523
--- Comment #2 from Juanjo Alvarez ---
Created attachment 52434
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52434=edit
.ii file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104517
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
No, it still fails w/ 20220213 snapshot
(g:58aeb75d4097010ad9bb72b964265b18ab284f93). You should try adding -save-temps
to the command line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104517
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can't reproduce it on the trunk.
I wonder if it was fixed by the patch which fixed PR 104459.
On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 17:57 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 21:16 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted some clarification on bifurcating the exploded graph at
> > call
> > to
> > open().
> > Should the analyzer warn for code like this "when open fails" (like
> >
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> > gcc/ada/
> > PR ada/98724
> > PR ada/97504
> > * Makefile.rtl (LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS) : Use
> > wraplf version of Aux_Long_Long_Float.
> > ---
> > Hi,
> >
> > OK for trunk and GCC 11?
>
> OK, thanks.
Committed and backported,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #49 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
*** Bug 98724 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98724
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104507
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #48 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Maciej W. Rozycki
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72b0526bd4582338228ab81088b73dbf1ca565ee
commit r11-9565-g72b0526bd4582338228ab81088b73dbf1ca565ee
Author: Maciej W.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98724
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Maciej W. Rozycki
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72b0526bd4582338228ab81088b73dbf1ca565ee
commit r11-9565-g72b0526bd4582338228ab81088b73dbf1ca565ee
Author: Maciej W.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #47 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Maciej W. Rozycki :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4493c5a2030d9191761d159067815b5f0325a9d2
commit r12-7220-g4493c5a2030d9191761d159067815b5f0325a9d2
Author: Maciej W. Rozycki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98724
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Maciej W. Rozycki :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4493c5a2030d9191761d159067815b5f0325a9d2
commit r12-7220-g4493c5a2030d9191761d159067815b5f0325a9d2
Author: Maciej W. Rozycki
On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 21:16 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted some clarification on bifurcating the exploded graph at call
> to
> open().
> Should the analyzer warn for code like this "when open fails" (like
> strchr
> does when 'strchr' returns NULL)
>
> int fd = open("NOFILE",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104523
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-13
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104523
Bug ID: 104523
Summary: G++ crash when compiling a simple module that includes
pybind11/stl.h
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104514
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
Snapshot gcc-12-20220213 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20220213/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104519
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104519
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 104521 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104521
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104519
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104521
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code at -O2 and -O3 |[12 Regression] wrong code
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022, 21:21 Hans-Peter Nilsson, wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > diff --git
> a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/unsynchronized_pool_resource/allocate.cc
> b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/unsynchronized_pool_resource/allocate.cc
> > index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104522
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: in |ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104522
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-13
Ever confirmed|0
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> diff --git
> a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/unsynchronized_pool_resource/allocate.cc
> b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/unsynchronized_pool_resource/allocate.cc
> index c81344a20e4..25e5ce63b58 100644
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103008
--- Comment #15 from Dave.Love at manchester dot ac.uk ---
"ubizjak at gmail dot com" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103008
>
> --- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> Created attachment 52428
> -->
I merged trunk revision 58aeb75d4097010ad9bb72b964265b18ab284f93 to
the gccgo branch.
Ian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #24 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #22)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #20)
> > On testing, this is not sufficient - one ends up with ICEs when we reject a
> > valid (UNSPEC-wrapped) address
bootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220213 (experimental) (GCC)
It turns out to be painful to require linking against -lrt on
GNU/Linux, as that makes it harder to link Go code into C programs.
Instead just call the timer syscalls directly. That is what the
upstream library does anyhow. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to
This patch fixes the Go frontend to not set a bit in the
garbage-collection ptrmask bit for a pointer to notinheap type. This
is a follow-up to
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590150.html.
The test case for this is https://go.dev/cl/385454. Bootstrapped and
ran Go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 52432
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52432=edit
Testcase #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104153
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104521
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
>From Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/Y37Wo9e8c
/configure --disable-bootstrap
--prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk --enable-languages=c,c++
--disable-werror --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220213 (experimental) [master r12-7216-g7e204bd2f18] (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104520
Bug ID: 104520
Summary: Unexpected behavior with STORAGE_SIZE intrinsic with a
dummy argument that is unlimited polymorphic
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104519
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
>From Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/s7Eco5EGb
> Use the Long Long Float wrapper in terms of Long Float for Alpha/Linux
> targets as well, fixing gnatlib compilation errors:
>
> a-nallfl.ads:48:13: warning: intrinsic binding type mismatch on result
> [enabledby default]
> a-nallfl.ads:48:13: warning: intrinsic binding type mismatch on
compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220213 (experimental) [master r12-7216-g7e204bd2f18] (GCC)
[683] %
[683] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[684] %
[684] % gcctk -Os small.c
[685] % ./a.out
Aborted
[686] %
[686] % cat small.c
char a, b;
int main() {
for (b = -7; b; b += 3
Use the Long Long Float wrapper in terms of Long Float for Alpha/Linux
targets as well, fixing gnatlib compilation errors:
a-nallfl.ads:48:13: warning: intrinsic binding type mismatch on result
[enabledby default]
a-nallfl.ads:48:13: warning: intrinsic binding type mismatch on parameter 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104228
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57da34939703a6e6d3267a0d25d1fb9369d3ac0e
commit r12-7217-g57da34939703a6e6d3267a0d25d1fb9369d3ac0e
Author: Mikael Morin
Date:
Hi,
I wanted some clarification on bifurcating the exploded graph at call to
open().
Should the analyzer warn for code like this "when open fails" (like strchr
does when 'strchr' returns NULL)
int fd = open("NOFILE", O_RDONLY);
write(fd, "a", 1);
because of the bad file descriptor.
unless it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 103468, which changed state.
Bug 103468 Summary: [modules] ICE Segmentation fault during GIMPLE pass walloca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103468
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103468
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100583
--- Comment #5 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
This was fixed somewhere along the way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 103468, which changed state.
Bug 103468 Summary: [modules] ICE Segmentation fault during GIMPLE pass walloca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103468
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103468
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 103118, which changed state.
Bug 103118 Summary: [modules] ICE tree check in get_merge_kind at cp/module.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103118
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227
Bug 99227 depends on bug 103118, which changed state.
Bug 103118 Summary: [modules] ICE tree check in get_merge_kind at cp/module.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103118
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103118
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104514
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is forbidden by C++, but I've started writing a proposal for a language
feature to support this use case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79754
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #36 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e204bd2f189850cb940677c99d8d93eb7dd40cd
commit r12-7216-g7e204bd2f189850cb940677c99d8d93eb7dd40cd
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79754
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e89144e8a3984608da2d31f18776df51d9e0f352
commit r11-9564-ge89144e8a3984608da2d31f18776df51d9e0f352
Author: Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103856
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104518
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104518
Bug ID: 104518
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed: missing 'PHI' def with
-fsanitize=address -fnon-call-exceptions
-fsignaling-nans -fharden-compares
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104507
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Nelson ---
Had a few moments to do some testing/bisecting, and found the commit that fixed
this in mainline.
commit 9927ecbb42d5be48fa933adc26f8601fab5007ca
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Thu Oct 28 10:05:14 2021
81 matches
Mail list logo
