https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78565
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks for checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46828
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43617|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84816
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Lesnikov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Dmitry Lesnikov from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > signed overflow is undefined behavior at runtime.
> >
> > f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84816
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Lesnikov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Dmitry Lesnikov from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > signed overflow is undefined behavior at runtime.
> >
> > f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43432
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84816
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Dmitry Lesnikov from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > signed overflow is undefined behavior at runtime.
>
> for(int i=0; i<10; i++)
>
> this loop is correct.
But t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84816
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Lesnikov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> signed overflow is undefined behavior at runtime.
for(int i=0; i<10; i++)
this loop is correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84816
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84816
Dmitry Lesnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84816
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_84 |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #5 from Rich Felker ---
Reading the relevant part of the standard in more detail, it seems like it's a
GCC bug that GCC is applying the exception for plain int to typedefs. ¶5:
"Each of the comma-separated multisets designates the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84816
Bug ID: 84816
Summary: [7.2.0/8.0.1 x86_64] Incorrect code generation if
signed overflow
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84815
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #4 from Rich Felker ---
Further examination shows that this GCC feature (-funsigned-bitfields) is
actually buggy/non-conforming. It changes the default signedness of all integer
types in bitfields, not just plain int. This behavior se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84815
Bug ID: 84815
Summary: gcc fwrite failed write to stdout in binary mode
(Win7)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84814
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84814
Bug ID: 84814
Summary: Type of arithmetic expression
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84753
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #4)
> ...
>
> The best performance will be achieved by writing this loop entirely using
> inline asm code, with all data loaded/stored using lxvd2x and stxvd2x (no
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84813
Bug ID: 84813
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with
lambdas and constexpr variables
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84786
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz ---
Created attachment 43618
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43618&action=edit
unreduced testcase
Compile with `g++ -std=c++17 -O2 -march=knl -o knl-fail knl-fail.cpp`.
The function `Tests:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84812
Bug ID: 84812
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE with local function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priorit
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.1 20180310 (experimental) [trunk revision 258413] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-7.2.0 -O3 -c small.c
$
$ gcctk -O3 -c small.c
during RTL pass: dse1
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:12:1: internal compiler error: in smallest_mode_for_size, at
stor-layout.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84810
Bug ID: 84810
Summary: [concepts][c++20] constraints of lambdas with explicit
template parameters are not checked
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
kaushikp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kaushikp at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32770
Bug 32770 depends on bug 84734, which changed state.
Bug 84734 Summary: [8 Regression] Compiling codes with insane array dimensions
gives an ICE after r257971
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84734
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84734
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84734
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Mar 10 19:00:49 2018
New Revision: 258419
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258419&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/84734
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352
--- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Mar 10 18:45:55 2018
New Revision: 258418
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258418&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r256266 from mainline
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84734
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Mar 10 18:44:25 2018
New Revision: 258417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/84734
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84734
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Mar 10 18:34:12 2018
New Revision: 258416
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258416&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/84734
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84809
--- Comment #1 from Avi Kivity ---
I think no_caller_saved_registers is very close to what I want, except for
"Since GCC doesn't preserve MPX, SSE, MMX nor x87 states, the GCC option
'-mgeneral-regs-only' should be used to compile functions with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84809
Bug ID: 84809
Summary: RFE: saveall attribute
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84780
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
And the actual problem happens earlier: the earlier 63, 70 -> 71 combination
links
the much later insn 100 to 70, for cc, but there are plenty other setters and
users of cc earlier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84780
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Insn 55 is a parallel, and that is split into two insns i1 and i2, both
numbered as 55. The i1 will never become part of the insn stream. It is
this insn that is deleted.
Later on insn 55 is combined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84808
Bug ID: 84808
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE with constexpr and array
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83712
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Sat Mar 10 16:32:21 2018
New Revision: 258415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-10 Vladimir Makarov
Reverting patch:
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43611|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84807
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84807
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Mar 10 15:57:10 2018
New Revision: 258414
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258414&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Fix a typo: Enforcment -> Enforcement
PR target/8480
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79190
Georg Koppen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gk at torproject dot org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78565
Georg Koppen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84807
Bug ID: 84807
Summary: i386: typo "Support Control-flow Enforcment
Technology"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84717
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54687
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83712
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #8)
> Hey, Vlad, I'm afraid bisection tells me r258390 caused a regression I'm
> seeing on i686-linux-gnu. hsa-regalloc now fails to compile in stage2:
See
https://gcc.g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83712
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84806
Bug ID: 84806
Summary: [8 Regression] r258390 caused in internal compiler
error
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84790
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Schiffer ---
The problem seems to be that the gp init sequence
li $2,%hi(_gp_disp)
addiu $3,$pc,%lo(_gp_disp)
sll $2,16
addu$2,$3
is generated very late and does not ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84729
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84647
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84805
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84610
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84642
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84805
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 43614
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43614&action=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84805
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 43616
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43616&action=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84805
Bug ID: 84805
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in get_odr_type, at
ipa-devirt.c:2096 since r258133
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84805
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 43615
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43615&action=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84615
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] Executable |[8 Regression] Executable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84790
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Schiffer ---
Issue still present in gcc version 8.0.1 20180310 (experimental) (GCC). Again,
output it identical to that of GCC 5 and 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84799
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84804
Bug ID: 84804
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE with lambda in default argument
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83822
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Similar thing in a different file:
trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c:646]: (style) Redundant condition:
TARGET_HARD_FLOAT. '!A || (A && B)' is equivalent to '!A || B'
Source code is
if (!TARGET_HARD_F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84803
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84729
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84803
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code:
a;
*b;
c(d) {
if (a)
*b = d;
}
e() { f(e, c); }
f(int d, int *g) { h(d, g, ""); }
h(int d, int g(), char *j, char *k) {
int i;
h(0, g, j + 1, 1);
while (--i)
g(*j);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84803
Bug ID: 84803
Summary: ice from ifcvt_memrefs_wont_trap with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84802
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43612
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43612&action=edit
pr84802.C
Updated testcase so that clang++ accepts it (just changed sizeof(int) to 1).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84802
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84802
Bug ID: 84802
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in gimplify_decl_expr since r251433
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84801
Bug ID: 84801
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault instead of "error: parameter
packs not expanded with '...'"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
71 matches
Mail list logo
