https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94021
--- Comment #10 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
It would be great if the problem is fixed in later versions.
I observe the error with gcc-12 on my computer yet.
*BUT* compiling with -O instead of -O2 succeeds !?
gcc-12 version.
gcc-12 (Debian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109480
Bug ID: 109480
Summary: g++-12 and g++-11 failed to compile the attached
source file while g++-10 and clang can.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #9 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Thank you for the confirmation for the fix in GCC-12.
Now I have to figure out how GCC-12 seems to miscompile something in
Thunderbird mail client to report a run-time assertion error.
(Compiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #7 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
If I change gcc-11 into gcc-12 in the attached script, I get the different
warning.
My version of gcc-12 is:
ishikawa@ip030:/NREF-COMM-CENTRAL/mozilla$ gcc-12 --version
gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #6 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 54610
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54610=edit
The script to produce the warning in the original report with gcc-11.
The source file needs to be in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
--- Comment #4 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Right, when I replaced gcc-11 with gcc-12 in my script, I got the following
warnings. One of them was there before, the other is new.
/tmp/sqlite3-preprocessed-2.c: In function ‘posixUnlock’:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
ishikawa,chiaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109041
Bug ID: 109041
Summary: Bogus compile time check by __builtin_memset? error:
‘__builtin_memset’ writing 4 bytes into a region of
size 0 overflows the destination
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
--- Comment #18 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
I reported the issue to the following github for a very fast hashing function
library.
https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/issues/800
>From the discussion there, I figured -Og does not define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
--- Comment #14 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> (In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #11)
> > What is exactly the compiler-defined macro when "-Og" is used on the command
> > line?
>
> There is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
--- Comment #11 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 54484
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54484=edit
Script to compile the previous source file.
The previous source file ought to be named
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
ishikawa,chiaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98281
--- Comment #5 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> The warning works as designed but the range information it depends on is
> less than perfect. As discussed in pr94021 that's a known limitation of the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98281
--- Comment #4 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> The warning works as designed but the range information it depends on is
> less than perfect. As discussed in pr94021 that's a known limitation of the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98281
--- Comment #2 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
Created attachment 49764
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49764=edit
The patch that I had for 94021
Funny I thought this was gone for a while with gcc-9 and an earlier 10 (?)
I say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98281
--- Comment #1 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
The command to compile the source file uploaded.
(Place it in /tmp)
cd tmp
export TERM=dumb
/usr/bin/gcc-10 -std=gnu99 -o /tmp/Unified_c_libical_src_libical1.o -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98281
Bug ID: 98281
Summary: - -Wformat-truncation false positive due to excessive
integer range
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98000
--- Comment #5 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Thank you for the report, it's very likely a different issue.
> I'm reducing that right now..
You are very welcome and
thank you for the reduction to simpler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98000
--- Comment #2 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
I forgot. The g++-10 version is as follows.
ishikawa@ip030:/NREF-COMM-CENTRAL/mozilla$ gcc --version
gcc (Debian 10.2.0-16) 10.2.0
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98000
--- Comment #1 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
I noticed a similar Bug 97551.
But I seem to be using different options and I think I may be using a different
construct that triggers the ICE, and thus filed this entry.
I believe more reproducible cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98000
Bug ID: 98000
Summary: g++-10 internal compiler error: verify_cgraph_node
failed
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (devel/omp/gcc-10)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
21 matches
Mail list logo
