||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed long ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81240
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78081
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77493
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.4 |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77493
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.0 |8.0
Summary|[7 regression]
||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80451
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80464
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
||law at redhat dot com
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80451
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80464
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
||law at redhat dot com
||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7 Regression] wrong|[6 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79929
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 regression] Classic|[6 regression] Classic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So AFAICT this pattern:
(define_insn "*"
[(any_return)]
""
{
operands[0] = gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, RETURN_ADDR_REGNUM);
return mips_output_jump (operands, 0, -1, false);
}
[(set_attr "type"
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80422
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I fixed this about a week ago. I did a build of cris-linux and crisv32-linux
for binutils, gcc and glibc trunks (Apr 17). I did cris-elf and crisv32-elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I was essentially thinking the same WRT a proposed patch.
My concern is whether something might be passing in an unexpected rtx for
operands[0] and whether or not we can get into the other pattern for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I was looking pretty hard for something the compiler could use to avoid the
problematical paths. That's always my first approach since doing so removes
the warning and generates better code.
I just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Given an unknown object size and a byte count of -1 we ought to be warning
IMHO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79929
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
At -O2 the memset is removed very early in the optimization pipeline. Thus
there's no warning at O2, but there is a warning at O1. Reality is some
warnings are going to give false positives when
at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80422
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This is a latent bug in cross jumping AFAICT.
Essentially a forwarder block becomes unreachable during cfg_cleanup. Later
we're cross jumping an indirect (via more forwarders) successor of the now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80423
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
||law at redhat dot com
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80422
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I haven't looked at this the dumps for this failure, but I've just narrowed
down a very similar looking issue.
I've got a case where hard register propagation replaces the use of $2 with $sp
in a load in
||law at redhat dot com
||law at redhat dot com
||law at redhat dot com
||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
--- Comment #30 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80359
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
That's exactly what I tested yesterday. It bootstraps and regression tests
successfully. So no need to wait on the testrun.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80359
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Given how late in stage4 we are, I think rejecting TMR without trying to
rewrite them into a regular MEM_REF is probably the best thing to do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80374
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80374
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80374
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
My very quick analysis from the IRC chat yesterday was that the first testcase
has a path that should have been detected as unexecutable. I'd work from the
full testcase rather than the reduced one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
||law at redhat dot com
||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79405
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.0 |8.0
Summary|[7 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61428
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59500
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 59500, which changed state.
Bug 59500 Summary: Bogus maybe-uninitialized (|| converted to nested-if)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59500
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 56748, which changed state.
Bug 56748 Summary: Bogus uninitialized warning with nested if condition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56748
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56748
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63224
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 63224, which changed state.
Bug 63224 Summary: false positive for -Wmaybe-uninitialized at -Os (not -O2)
with && transformed to &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63224
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #15
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed a year or so (gcc-6 era). No plans to backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 70736, which changed state.
Bug 70736 Summary: false positive uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70736
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63224
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #10
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed long ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 61112, which changed state.
Bug 61112 Summary: Simple example triggers false-positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized
warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61112
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59500
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6
at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Ultimately this is a missed jump thread. In vrp1 after insertion of
ASSERT_EXPRs we have:
;; basic block 2, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 1005, maybe hot
;;prev block 0, next block 11, flags: (NEW, REACHABLE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 52078, which changed state.
Bug 52078 Summary: Bogus may be used uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52078
What|Removed |Added
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
If we look at the VRP dump after ASSERT_EXPR insertion it's obvious what needs
to happen here:
; basic block 2, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 1, maybe hot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
--- Comment #29 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yes, I checked cris-elf. I've got the patch to reenable DOM for that test in
my local tree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
--- Comment #26 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I had hoped this old BZ would be fixed by the changes for 71437. Sadly,
that is not the case.
*But* the WIP for for 78496 does happen to fix this BZ. In fact, we only need
the hunks from 78496 which
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed by Vlad's patch on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.0 |8.0
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80216
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54063
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
That's why I changed the target milestone to gcc-8 :-)
||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
Bug 80160 depends on bug 80148, which changed state.
Bug 80148 Summary: [7 Regression] operand has impossible constraints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80148
What|Removed |Added
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed by Vlad's commit on the trunk.
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed by Bernd's patch on the trunk.
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed by Bernd's patch on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I've got a hack that allows me to evaluate the effect of the last example
from c#5. So let's look at how the number of realized jump threads is affected
by the various tweaks I'm playing with:
||2017-03-22
CC||law at redhat dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Waldemar,
You don't need to produce a simple testcase, but we do need the preprocessed
sources along
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
More comments. As has been noted, this looks like a case where we need
iteration to fully optimize. However, there are things we can do to improve
VRP's jump threading which should have a direct positive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80014
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55985
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 55985, which changed state.
Bug 55985 Summary: Misleading message about which variable 'may be used
uninitialized in this function'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55985
What|Removed
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Per c#1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79753
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7 Regression][CHKP] ICE in |[6 Regression][CHKP] ICE in
||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #33
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59811
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] Huge |[5 Regression] Huge
||law at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed by Bernd's patch on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
901 - 1000 of 3054 matches
Mail list logo
