https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81573
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 28 07:08:38 2017
New Revision: 250650
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81573
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81578
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 28 07:11:51 2017
New Revision: 250651
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81578
* tree-parloops.c (build_new_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81578
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81556
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81555
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|7.1.0 |7.0
--- Comment #33 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81595
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50168
Liu Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #11 from L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81596
Bug ID: 81596
Summary: backwards threader misses simple copy within the same
BB
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81596
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Well, it looks like we're purposely not handling the aforementioned case in the
rest of the threader. So perhaps this is more of a feature request.
Jeff, is this worth looking into, or should we close this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81597
Bug ID: 81597
Summary: returns link to temporary value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81590
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So partly a testsuite issue but the libgomp cases may be wrong-code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
There's
static void inline
priority_queue_downgrade_task (enum priority_queue_type type,
struct priority_queue *head,
struct gomp_task *task)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81595
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81597
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Sorry, what change are you asking for?
Compiling with current gcc, we get plenty of warnings, and at runtime:
int &&
zsh: segmentation fault ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
Bug ID: 81598
Summary: -fsanitize=enum does not detect range violation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Sistek ---
With the _LIBGOMP_CHECKING_ enabled, I am getting
libgomp: priority_tree_next_task: t1 != t2
Best wishes,
Jakub Sistek
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> There's
>
> static void inline
> prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This isn't a load, it is a cast, we sanitize just loads from memory.
>From the almost non-existent testsuite coverage in LLVM it is hard to find out
what exactly they decided to implement (-fsanitize=enum ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81460
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Jul 28 10:36:36 2017
New Revision: 250655
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250655&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do not handle VLA in sanitization (PR sanitizer/81460).
2017-07-28 Marti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81460
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80998
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 28 10:37:51 2017
New Revision: 250656
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250656&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80998
* sanopt.c (pass_sanopt::execute): Hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81598
--- Comment #2 from Tim Ruehsen ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> This isn't a load, it is a cast, we sanitize just loads from memory.
Hmmm, seems ok if the compiler doesn't warn.
But the sanitizer IMO should trigger.
What if th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81414
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Jul 28 11:13:45 2017
New Revision: 250657
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250657&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline r250496
2017-07-25 Bin C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81599
Bug ID: 81599
Summary: Error in documentation of std::stack
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81414
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Jul 28 11:25:08 2017
New Revision: 250658
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250658&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline r250496
2017-07-25 Bin C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81502
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 28 11:27:45 2017
New Revision: 250659
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250659&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81502
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81502
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81340
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Jul 28 11:56:47 2017
New Revision: 250660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250660&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Set DECL_VALUE_EXPR after a debug stmt is generated (PR sanitizer/81340).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81340
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50790
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81600
Bug ID: 81600
Summary: tree-vect-loop.c:6075:22: runtime error: index -1 out
of bounds for type 'tree_node *[3]'
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81600
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think the following is the correct fix.
Index: gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vect-loop.c(revision 250659)
+++ gcc/tree-vect-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81477
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted the fix to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01909.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
Bug ID: 81601
Summary: incorrect Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67679
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is another test case with similar behavior:
subroutine s(h, Gmin, r)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: Gmin(3), h(3)
integer, intent(inout) :: r
integer :: x_min(3), x_max(3),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81602
Bug ID: 81602
Summary: Unnecessary zero-extension after 16 bit popcnt
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81597
--- Comment #2 from Lisp2D ---
Make an error (don't compile) when returns rvalue from these functions.
To forbid or banning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80202
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81597
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
-Werror=return-local-addr
(we cannot reject those programs by default, if the caller ignores what the
function returns, the program may be valid)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81476
--- Comment #19 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
One last question: will the fix be backported to GCC7('s libstdc++)?
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38925
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The -Warray-bounds warning has false positives, so you can run into them and in
that case using -Werror isn't really a good idea.
The problem is that the same bitfield, tp->chrono_start, is accessed 2
differe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason this doesn't trigger without -fsanitize= is that without the extra
UBSAN_* internal function calls we manage to find out earlier that this is a
dead code and optimize it away completely (during cdd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37195
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52813
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71951
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jnz at mail dot com
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81597
--- Comment #4 from Lisp2D ---
-Werror=return-local-addr
it is all i want
thnx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #4 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Thanks for the analysis. I have now submitted a local workaround for the
kernel, adding a temporary variable to avoid accessing the bitfield twice, see
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9869037/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55744
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63893
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin14 |x86_64-apple-darwin
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50077
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81603
Bug ID: 81603
Summary: Various compiler UB on very large constant offsets
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55681
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65640
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81604
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81604
Bug ID: 81604
Summary: Ubsan type reporting can be bogus in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: san
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81590
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 41857
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41857&action=edit
A patch to properly check AVX512 features
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64825
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81604
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41858
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41858&action=edit
gcc8-pr81604.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81605
Bug ID: 81605
Summary: -Wignored-attributes emitted when decltype(function)
used in template for function with __nonnull__
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81590
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> On Skylake server running Fedora 25/x86-64, r250630 gave:
>
This is on a 80-core machine with "make check -j80".
> FAIL: libgomp.c/for-3.c execution test
> FAIL: libgomp.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81605
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, documentation
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64609
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59616
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54006
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81606
Bug ID: 81606
Summary: A small program works as expected with -O0 but fails
with -O1 on all tested gcc versions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81606
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607
Bug ID: 81607
Summary: Conditional operator: "type mismatch in shift
expression" error
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81606
--- Comment #2 from jerome.pioux at atos dot net ---
Agreed, sorry, we should have been using single quotes. Thank you.
-Original Message-
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 1:39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68121
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68336
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67629
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67629
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yyc1992 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54006
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017, egallager at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Testcase compiles, runs, and exits with 0 for me on i386-apple-darwin9.8.0.
I'm not sure how that target is relevant?
(I forgot to set a targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81608
Bug ID: 81608
Summary: incompatible declarations of the same extern function
at different scopes accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81608
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think there might be a duplicate of this bug already. It was noticed when
Zack (or was it joseph) implemented the correct behavior for the c front-end.
This was during the 3.4 time frame.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81609
Bug ID: 81609
Summary: incompatible extern C declarations of the same extern
function at local scope accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81610
Bug ID: 81610
Summary: bogus fix-it hint for a call to an undeclared
function: for
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81610
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81609
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
related to PR 32042,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Santos ---
For those interested in a work-around, you can define an __attribute__((used))
function and then within that function use inline assembly to declare your real
function. This can get messy depending upon how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Status|UNCONFIRME
88 matches
Mail list logo