https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107986
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> >
> > void bar ();
> > void foo (int *a)
> > {
> > int qa = 0;
> > for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> > if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107986
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
>
> void bar ();
> void foo (int *a)
> {
> int qa = 0;
> for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> if (a[i])
> a[qa++] = 0;
> if (qa > 3)
> bar ();
> }
This patch finally handles reverse offload. Due to the prep work,
it essentially only adds content to libgomp/target.c's gomp_target_rev(),
except that it additionally saves the reverse-offload-function table
in gomp_load_image_to_device.
In the comment to "[Patch] libgomp: Add reverse-offload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||85316
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104165
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
I have opened PR107986 for the testcase in comment#2 which isn't yet fixed on
trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-12-06
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107986
Bug ID: 107986
Summary: [12/13 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds diagnostic
with std::sort
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107985
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 00:08, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > Hi,
>> > The following test:
>> >
>> > #include "arm_sve.h"
>> >
>> > svint8_t
>> > test_s8(int8_t *x)
>> > {
>> > return svld1rq_s8 (svptrue_b8 (), [0]);
>> > }
>> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104165
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:790ff87f675f28bce5e7e35918ae09c3ece4ec4d
commit r13-4499-g790ff87f675f28bce5e7e35918ae09c3ece4ec4d
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
The following adds the testcase from the description which was
fixed by r13-2894-gbe4a6551ed37c1.
Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
PR tree-optimization/104165
* g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-pr104165-1.C: New testcase.
---
.../g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-pr104165-1.C|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107985
Bug ID: 107985
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in as_a, at value-range.h:393
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107984
Bug ID: 107984
Summary: ICE: in verify_target_availability, at
sel-sched.cc:1553 with -O2 -fselective-scheduling2
-mabi=ms -mavx512vl
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> According to
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2022-December/077258.html
> my patch caused some ICEs, e.g. the following testcase ICEs.
> The problem is that lower_bound and upper_bound methods on a france assert
> that the range
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-11-29 14:30:22 +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
> >
> > PR tree-optimization/107852
> > * tree-ssa-sccvn.cc (visit_phi): Use equivalences recorded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106576
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6)
>
> > I hope that you are well and that the lack of time is for a good cause?
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> yes, I'm well, and the lack of time is indeed for a good cause
Hi,
This patch enables "have_cbranchcc4" on rs6000 by defining
a "cbranchcc4" expander. "have_cbrnachcc4" is a flag in ifcvt.cc
to indicate if branch by CC bits is invalid or not. With this
flag enabled, some branches can be optimized to conditional
moves.
The patch relies on the former patch
The reproduction is below. Not sure if this is intended or a bug, sorry to
clutter up the mailing list if it's intended!
union __attribute__((may_alias)) works {};
// :3:18: note: attribute for 'union broken2' must follow the
'union' keyword
union broken1 {} [[may_alias]];
// Okay, so let's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107970
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Mine, let me fix it.
Hi,
Jeff Law writes:
> On 11/28/22 20:53, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Right, but the number of registers is target dependent, so I don't see
>>> how using "8" or any number of that matter is correct here.
>> I understand. And even for the same struct type, using how many
>> registers to pass a
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 00:08, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > The following test:
> >
> > #include "arm_sve.h"
> >
> > svint8_t
> > test_s8(int8_t *x)
> > {
> > return svld1rq_s8 (svptrue_b8 (), [0]);
> > }
> >
> > ICE's with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O1
On Sat, 3 Dec 2022, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> What do you think about it? I'm not asking for your opinion about adding it
> to GCC, but rather for replacing the current '.' in the man-pages before I
> release later this month. Do you think I should apply that change?
I think man pages
Hi Segher,
Thanks for your comments!
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> Hi!
>
> Some comments on the testcases:
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 09:45:07PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr65421-1.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
>> +/* PR target/65421 */
>> +/* {
Hi Andrew,
on 2022/12/5 18:10, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 11:33 PM Richard Sandiford via Gcc
> wrote:
>>
>> "Kewen.Lin" writes:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm working to find one solution for PR106736, which requires us to
>>> make some built-in types only valid for some target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107967
--- Comment #6 from caiyinyu ---
Created attachment 54024
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54024=edit
glibc tests build log and fails test result
build log: tmp-tst-math-2022-12-05.log
test results: test-xxx.out
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 at 16:50, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches writes:
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> Hi,
> >> For the following test-case:
> >>
> >> int16x8_t foo(int16_t x, int16_t y)
> >> {
> >> return (int16x8_t) { x, y, x, y, x, y, x, y };
> >> }
> >>
>
Hi Palmer and all,
I have split the patches and triggerred a new thread.
https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg297206.html
Could you please review at your convenience?
Thanks & BR,
Fei
On 2022-12-01 11:07 Fei Gao wrote:
>
>On 2022-12-01 06:50 Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107983
--- Comment #1 from James Hilliard ---
Working LLVM btf dump:
$ /home/buildroot/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/tools/sbin/bpftool
--debug btf dump file
/home/buildroot/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/task_kfunc_success.bpf.linked3.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107983
Bug ID: 107983
Summary: btf: bad call relo against
'test_task_acquire_release_current' in section
'tp_btf/task_newtask'
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> > Jonathan, has anyone suggested adding generic init_list constructors to the
> > container classes?
>
> Not that I'm aware of. There might be concerns
On 12/5/22 17:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:54:09PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Id actually prefer to avoid passing the tree code around... we're trying to
avoid that sort of thing even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107860
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106325
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Fix for the overzealous reducing is to simply add "__attribute__((nonnull(1,
2)))" to the reproducer here:
__attribute__((nonnull(1, 2)))
void
arranger_object_unsplit (ArrangerObject *r1, ArrangerObject
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106325
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106325
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 54023
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54023=edit
Reduced reproducer
Attached is a reduced version of the reproducer, which demonstrates the false
+ve on trunk with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107982
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107975
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:54:09PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > Id actually prefer to avoid passing the tree code around... we're trying to
> > avoid that sort of thing even though Aldy temporarily introduced them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107982
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Target
Hi!
According to
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2022-December/077258.html
my patch caused some ICEs, e.g. the following testcase ICEs.
The problem is that lower_bound and upper_bound methods on a france assert
that the range isn't VR_NAN or VR_UNDEFINED.
All the op1_range/op2_range
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Id actually prefer to avoid passing the tree code around... we're trying to
> avoid that sort of thing even though Aldy temporarily introduced them to
> range-ops. Hes suppose to remove that next stage 1 :-P Ideally anything
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, do we want a new attribute on allocator to tell the compiler that it is a
class whose methods don't care about the address of the object and it has
trivial ctor and dtor and it is enough to construct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107982
Bug ID: 107982
Summary: ICE in in lower_bound, at value-range.h:350
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #12)
> Another significant part of the problem is that vector doesn't have
> a generic initializer_list constructor. Adding
>
> template
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106773
--- Comment #16 from James Hilliard ---
(In reply to David Faust from comment #15)
> Created attachment 54021 [details]
> [v2] DATASEC entries for extern funcs
>
> v2 fixes an off-by-one bug introduced in the patch which was causing
> libbpf:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107979
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
On Tue, 2022-11-29 14:30:22 +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
>
> PR tree-optimization/107852
> * tree-ssa-sccvn.cc (visit_phi): Use equivalences recorded
> as predicated values to elide more redundant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107968
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following attempt fixes the erroneous output:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-io.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-io.cc
index 9f86815388c..c4525f67ef3 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-io.cc
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107979
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107979
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
These systems are pretty old. So, just ignore it?
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 10:17 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> Hi Uros,
>
> > On 5 Dec 2022, at 21:07, Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:54 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Uros,
> >>
> >>> On 5 Dec 2022, at 10:37, Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
> >>> wrote:
>
Hi Uros,
> On 5 Dec 2022, at 21:07, Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:54 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>> Hi Uros,
>>
>>> On 5 Dec 2022, at 10:37, Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:30 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107980
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I think we should warn but how to warn is going to have to special case the
> macro I think.
But saying that I do think it is valid C2X code if you take the
I just rebased this patch.
All good apart from the to_chars/from_chars symbols issue.
François
On 11/10/22 19:28, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Now that pretty printer is fixed (once patch validated) I'd like
to propose this patch again.
Note that I'am adding a check on pretty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107980
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|va_start
On 12/5/22 06:09, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 at 09:51, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches
wrote:
These functions currently repeatedly dereference tp during the subtree
walk, dereferences which the compiler can't CSE because it can't
guarantee that the subtree walking doesn't
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:54 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> Hi Uros,
>
> > On 5 Dec 2022, at 10:37, Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:30 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >>
>
> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >>* gcc.target/x86_64/abi/bf16/args.h: Make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106773
David Faust changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54017|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107980
--- Comment #2 from Aaron Ballman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Hmm from https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3054.pdf :
> ```
> 7.16.1.4 The va_start macro
> void va_start(va_list ap, ...);
>
>
> Any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107981
--- Comment #2 from Egor Pugin ---
Ignore previous comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107981
--- Comment #1 from Egor Pugin ---
Also see following test cases.
===
ok for gcc
struct a {
operator auto();
};
struct b : a {
using a::operator auto;
};
===
not ok for gcc, ok for msvc
struct a {
operator auto();
};
struct b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Even if we don't emit a loop (which I still think is the way to go for
> larger initializers because anything else means just too large code), can't
> there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107980
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm from https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3054.pdf :
```
7.16.1.4 The va_start macro
void va_start(va_list ap, ...);
Any additional arguments are not used by
the macro and will not be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107981
Bug ID: 107981
Summary: 'operator auto' has not been declared in base
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Another significant part of the problem is that vector doesn't have a
generic initializer_list constructor. Adding
template
_GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR
vector(initializer_list<__elt> __l,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107980
Bug ID: 107980
Summary: va_start incorrectly accepts an arbitrary number of
arguments in C2x
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107979
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=d1d9eaf478b7d3a11a599c120498b79fe5629a61
was the change in glibc.
On 12/5/22 10:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 02:29:36PM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
So like this for multiplication op1/2_range if it passes bootstrap/regtest?
For division I'll need to go to a drawing board...
Sure, looks good to me.
Ulrich just filed PR107972, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107922
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107979
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oh, also these:
FAIL: experimental/names.cc (test for excess errors)
FAIL: experimental/names.cc (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107979
Bug ID: 107979
Summary: [13 regression] r13-4391-g0ded30b361d2b1 causes excess
errors in 17_intro/names.cc on big endian
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Hi!
Some comments on the testcases:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 09:45:07PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr65421-1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> +/* PR target/65421 */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
> +/* {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107978
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107968
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-12-05
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107976
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
ncases = tree_to_shwi (range) + 1;
labelvec = XALLOCAVEC (rtx, ncases);
memset (labelvec, 0, ncases * sizeof (rtx));
I think this is a won't fix.
Doctor, it hurts when I bend my arm this way.
Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107978
Bug ID: 107978
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have
'exceptional' (error_mark) in dump_ada_declaration, at
c-family/c-ada-spec.cc:2802 with -fdump-ada-spec
Wilco Dijkstra writes:
> A recent change only initializes the regs.how[] during Dwarf unwinding
> which resulted in an uninitialized offset used in return address signing
> and random failures during unwinding. The fix is to use REG_SAVED_OFFSET
> as the state where the return address signing
read model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20221205 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106773
--- Comment #14 from James Hilliard ---
(In reply to David Faust from comment #13)
> Created attachment 54017 [details]
> DATASEC entries for extern funcs
>
> Applies on top of 54002: updated patch
> Adds emission of DATASEC entries for extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107976
Bug ID: 107976
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV (stack overflow) in
emit_case_dispatch_table (stmt.cc:783) with large
--param=jump-table-max-growth-ratio-for-speed
Product: gcc
On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
SELECT_SECTION hook in order to match clang/llvm behaviour w.r.t the
placement of `const volatile' objects.
However, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107046
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> Hi,
> The following test:
>
> #include "arm_sve.h"
>
> svint8_t
> test_s8(int8_t *x)
> {
> return svld1rq_s8 (svptrue_b8 (), [0]);
> }
>
> ICE's with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O1 -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-forwprop:
> during GIMPLE pass: fre
> pr107920.c: In function
On 12/2/22 07:30, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
The following fixes a wrong-code bug caused by loop invariant motion
hoisting an expression using an uninitialized value outside of its
controlling condition causing IVOPTs to use that to rewrite a defined
value. PR107839 is a similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> A lot of the problem here is that building a std::string involves building a
> std::allocator temporary to pass to the string constructor, and then
> we need
On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
Changed target code to select .rodata section for 'const volatile'
defined variables.
This change is in the context of the bugzilla #170181.
gcc/ChangeLog:
v850.c(v850_select_section): Changed function.
I'm not sure this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107871
--- Comment #5 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Maybe you could legally do:
>
> using difference_type = iterator_t>;
>
> but maybe just don't do that. If things break when you do dumb things, don't
> do those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107973
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Thanks,
I see a very similar warning with
m68k-linux-gnu-gcc but without sanitizer:
crypto/modes/cfb128.c: In function 'CRYPTO_cfb128_encrypt':
crypto/modes/cfb128.c:117:33: error: writing 1 byte into a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107975
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The testcase was guessed from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2022-December/077258.html
report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Jason
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106773
--- Comment #13 from David Faust ---
Created attachment 54017
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54017=edit
DATASEC entries for extern funcs
Applies on top of 54002: updated patch
Adds emission of DATASEC entries for extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107975
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107975
Bug ID: 107975
Summary: [13 Regression] frange ICE since r13-4492
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
On 28/10/2022 17:40, Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi all,
please find attached the third iteration of this patch addresing review
comments.
Thanks
Andrea
@@ -23374,12 +23374,6 @@ output_probe_stack_range (rtx reg1, rtx reg2)
return "";
}
-static bool
-aarch_bti_enabled
On 2022-12-05 11:38, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/5/22 07:28, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
In commit e5cfb9cac1d7aba9a8ea73bfe7922cfaff9d61f3 I introduced tests
for strdup and strndup with leaks. Fix those leaks.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/builtin-dynamic-object-size-0.c (test_strdup,
On 12/2/22 00:26, Eric Gallager via Gcc-patches wrote:
I tried turning -Wnarrowing back on earlier this year, but
unfortunately it didn't work due to triggering a bunch of new errors.
This patch silences at least some of them, but there will still be
more left even after applying it. (When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107974
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 235 matches
Mail list logo
