https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102923
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102923
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/libffi/l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18907
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
New list:
libatomic/Makefile.am: $(MULTIDO) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) DO=all multi-do # $(MAKE)
libffi/Makefile.am:AM_MAKEFLAGS = \
libffi/Makefile.am:FLAGS_TO_PASS = $(AM_MAKEFLAGS)
libgo/Makefile.am:AM_MAKEFLAGS = \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102923
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu works with libffi upstream on
gcc110.fsffrance.org.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
The backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0 __sanitizer::CheckFailed (
file=0xf7b17af4
"/export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/libsanitizer/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp",
line=46,
cond=0xf7b17ac0 "((allocated_for_dlsym)) <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911
Bug ID: 102911
Summary: AddressSanitizer: CHECK failed:
asan_malloc_linux.cpp:46
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102904
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51659
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51659=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Does sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_freebsd.cpp need any header
files from GCC?
If yes, why aren't they needed in compiler-rt?
If no, can you filter out these -I options in Makefile?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102908
Bug ID: 102908
Summary: [12 Regression] go.test/test/fixedbugs/issue16095.go
hangs again
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
>
> Another possibility is to revert your patch so that others can bootstrap.
The problem won't go away as long as we keep syncing with upstream.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102896
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
> > --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
> > Does libffi 3.4.2 work on Solaris? If yes, why doesn't it work in gcc?
>
> It does when gcc is configured
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> @H.J. Can you please document that one needs at least i686 CPU for the
> functionality?
Like this?
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102764
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #1)
> I believe this test case is poorly written, and not correctly testing the
> original issue in PR target/22076 which concerned suboptimal moving of
> arguments via
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840
Bug ID: 102840
Summary: [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c by r12-4475
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102836
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> It turns out that this happens because 32-bit Solaris/x86 only guarantees
> 4-byte stack alignment following the i386 psABI, so defaults to
> -mstackrealign.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #6)
> Created attachment 51624 [details]
> Allow EDGE_EH edges to be processed
>
> range_on_edge needs to continue processing EDGE_EH..
> See if this fixes all the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51618|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51618
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51618=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Vectorizer has
if (DR_PTR_INFO (dr)
&& TREE_CODE (addr_base) == SSA_NAME
&& !SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr_base))
vect_duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info (addr_base, dr_info);
This fixes the crash.
diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
A pointer is known to non-null only if we know where the pointer is
pointing to. Since the null field is initialized to 0, we need to
check both null and anything. This works on the test case:
diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Visiting conditional with predicate: if (in_16(D) != 0B)
With known ranges
in_16(D): const unsigned char * [1B, +INF]
1B for lower bound is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
192t.thread3 has
if (in_16(D) != 0B)
goto ; [70.00%]
else
goto ; [30.00%]
193t.dom3 removed "if (in_16(D) != 0B)".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Source has
__attribute__((__noipa__))
void BUF_reverse (unsigned char *out, const unsigned char *in, size_t size)
{
size_t i;
if (in)
{
out += size - 1;
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Another possibility is to add a configure test to locate the system
and include it instead of .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Gerald Pfeifer from comment #2)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> > That file is FreeBSD specific. Can you use a local patch to force
> > /usr/include/md5.h, like
> >
> > #include_next
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102669
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51559|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102677
Bug ID: 102677
Summary: Extra testsuite failures with glibc 2.34
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102632
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #24)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #23)
> > I renamed the commit title. The new v3 is the v6 + fixes.
>
> Got it. Still no issues.
Can you get some performance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102230
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98442
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101761
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101804
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102632
Bug ID: 102632
Summary: Missing AM_CCASFLAGS in libsanitizer Makefile.am
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #22)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> > Created attachment 51559 [details]
> > The new v3 patch
> >
> > The new v3 patch to check invalid mask.
>
> v3? We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51558|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> Does :1-1 fail? In which case it's definitely the first thread.
:1-1 passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
1. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:19 passes.
2. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:20 fails.
3. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:1-20 fails.
4. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:2-20 passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> play?
-fno-thread-jumps fixes the bug.
> If so, you could try to narrow it down to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > Here is a slightly more reduced testcase (without the reasonable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
1. Need large model crtbegin*.o and crtend*.o.
2. Need large mode libgcc.a, libgcc_eh.a and libgcov.a.
3. Need large mode lib*.a if we want to link with lib*.a
4. Need the large model libc.a if we want to support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-06
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #24)
> I wanted to look at #c20, but at least my i9-7960X for e.g. lock; btsl $65,
> var
> acts the same as lock; btsl $1, var rather than lock; btsl $1, var+8,
> so maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
Bug ID: 102625
Summary: [meta-bug] -mcmodel=large can't link
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> > Created attachment 51556 [details]
> > The v5 patch
> >
> > Changes in v5:
> >
> > 1. Check SSA_NAME before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51556|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51551|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51549|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51543|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51536|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51536=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Can we convert
_1 = __atomic_fetch_or_4 (, 1, 0);
_2 = (int) _1;
_5 = _2 & 1;
to
_1 = __atomic_fetch_or_4 (, 1, 0);
_2 = _1 & 1;
_5 = (int) _2;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
--- Comment #3 from H.J.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
This works:
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr102566]$ cat y.c
#include
_Atomic int v;
unsigned int
foo ()
{
return atomic_fetch_or_explicit (, 1, memory_order_relaxed) & 1;
}
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr102566]$ make y.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102562
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
spawn -ignore SIGHUP
/export/users/hjl/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-32bit-gitlab-native/build-i686-linux/gcc/testsuite/g++8/../../xg++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102571
Bug ID: 102571
Summary: FAIL: libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/atomic-21.c
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes
> > before and after.
>
> Assembly codes is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes
before and after.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102491
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102327
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56833
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50891
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85819
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102197
Bug ID: 102197
Summary: ABI to pass and return 32-bit FP vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102102
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102143
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
I think psABIs should specify how to pass and return 8-bit, 16-bit and 32-bit
vectors. We can treat them as
struct vectorN
{
intN
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102143
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102105
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |9.4.1
Summary|[10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102110
Bug ID: 102110
Summary: microblaze-linux doesn't use elfos.h
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102105
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102108
Bug ID: 102108
Summary: [meta] ABI change due to SSE emulation of MMX
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102072
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102081
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102080
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101935
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101492
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|11.3
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
601 - 700 of 1130 matches
Mail list logo
