https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85230
--- Comment #12 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
When/if you have a patch I can test it on kernel.
But seems this is a problem for user-space too. We just need a large alloca +
signal handlers, or dirty manual SP manipulations (like we have in tsan to
imp
uild=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-259340-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.1 20180412 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85328
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 12 11:17:23 2018
New Revision: 259344
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259344&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/85328
* config/i386/sse.md
(avx512dq_vex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85375
Bug ID: 85375
Summary: possible missed optimisation / regression from 6.3
with while (__builtin_ffs(x) && x)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85374
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If we see a return statement outside a function block it should be a clue that
there's some incorrect brace nesting going on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85374
Bug ID: 85374
Summary: Confusing diagnostic for function with missing brace
that looks like a function-try-block
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85230
--- Comment #11 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Unfortunately that doesn't work, because the second argument to
> __asan_allocas_unpoison is incorrect then.
Unfortunately we can't use new_sp as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85230
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unfortunately that doesn't work, because the second argument to
__asan_allocas_unpoison is incorrect then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85363
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In C++11 mode the compiler emits a constructor for P:
;; Function constexpr P::P() (null)
;; enabled by -tree-original
{
>
20 ) >;
}
And the initialization of p{} in main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85373
Bug ID: 85373
Summary: Ice in demangler
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85363
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85230
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So (completely untested):
--- gcc/asan.c.jj 2018-01-09 21:53:38.821577722 +0100
+++ gcc/asan.c 2018-04-12 12:30:43.360840432 +0200
@@ -554,14 +554,14 @@ get_last_alloca_addr ()
return last_alloca_ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85370
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85367
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85372
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #50 from Sven ---
(In reply to Sven from comment #49)
> This doesn't work. The aligned attribute is for providing additional
> alignment hints. The GCC documentation clearly states, that aligned can
> increase the alignment. So g_d is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #49 from Sven ---
(In reply to W.H. Ding from comment #47)
> Hi, everyone
>
> I wonder if this issue has to do with the bug-like problem I encountered
> when accessing an unaligned stand-alone global variable (rather than a
> member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85352
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #81 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #79 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
[...]
>> Since trying to fix the initial issue is out of scope for G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #82 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #80 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #78)
>> Created attachment 43917 [details]
>> Proposed patch for gcc.dg/debug/pr41893-1.c failure
>
> O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #80 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #78)
> Created attachment 43917 [details]
> Proposed patch for gcc.dg/debug/pr41893-1.c failure
OK. Can you add a comment as to why we do that? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #79 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #77 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #78 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 43917
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43917&action=edit
Proposed patch for gcc.dg/debug/pr41893-1.c failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #77 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #62 from Richard Biener ---
> Waiting for Solaris engineer input... (or a machine to be able to debug this
> directly - is there one on the CF?).
We're finally getting t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
>
> --- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > Huh, no. Never seen that.
>
> Well,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Huh, no. Never seen that.
Well, well, well... ;-)
Index: lto-wrapper.c
===
--- lto-wrapper.c (revision 259205)
+++ lto-wrapper.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #48 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, dingcurie at icloud dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
>
> W.H. Ding changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85352
--- Comment #3 from mecej4 ---
I found a server that had an older version of GCC, on which the test code
compiled without error messages from the compiler:
gcc version 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-16) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85342
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 12 08:39:50 2018
New Revision: 259338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/85342
* regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85371
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 43916
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43916&action=edit
patch I am testing
The attached solved the crash I reproduced with a cross.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
W.H. Ding changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dingcurie at icloud dot com
--- Comment #47
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85371
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85372
Bug ID: 85372
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage with setjmp and longjmp function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85371
Bug ID: 85371
Summary: [8 Regression] Compiling code with -g -flto gives an
ICE on darwin after revision r259317
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
>
> --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
> I asked Peter about that yesterday. The acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85361
Will Hawkins changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85370
Bug ID: 85370
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage with the target_clones attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85369
Bug ID: 85369
Summary: no -Wstringop-overflow for a strcpy / stpcpy call with
a nonstring pointer when providing movstr pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85360
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Can't reproduce with a cross from x86_64-linux on r259337. Any special
configury required?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85366
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel ---
For e.g. Power this has been fixed as part of PR81184
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81184
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Krebbel ---
I've verified that the problem is fixed on Power. So I've opened a separate BZ
for this #85368
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85368
Bug ID: 85368
Summary: [8 regression] phi-opt-11 test fails on IBM Z
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85296
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85367
Bug ID: 85367
Summary: [GCOV] A call to the _subborrow_u64 builtin-function
is wrongly marked as executed twice
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85296
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85361
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||breiten at lexmark dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85362
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85354
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-*-* |powerpc64*-*-*, x86_64-*-*
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85362
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85296
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Apr 12 07:17:29 2018
New Revision: 259337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Fix handling of extern var with flexible array member
2018-04-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85364
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
101 - 156 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
