[Bug other/89394] libiberty :stack overflow in nm

2019-02-28 Thread spinpx at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89394 --- Comment #3 from spinpx --- CVE-2019-9071

[Bug other/89395] libiberty: heap buffer overflow in nm

2019-02-28 Thread spinpx at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89395 --- Comment #3 from spinpx --- CVE-2019-9070

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

2019-02-28 Thread xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 --- Comment #27 from Xi Ruoyao --- I confirm it is back in 8.3.0. See https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/QoSa3W.

[Bug target/89482] arm aarch32 inline assembly w constraints generate s registers instead of d

2019-02-28 Thread gccbugzilla at limegreensocks dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89482 --- Comment #9 from David --- (In reply to Ciro Santilli from comment #8) - I haven't posted a patch file since I wasn't sure that I was all that close to being done. But I'm certainly not opposed to the idea. Were you volunteering to move thi

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

2019-02-28 Thread xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang --- Comment #

[Bug preprocessor/89542] Error reported on incorrect line number when using GCC to compile .S files using #include

2019-02-28 Thread puffydaemon at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89542 --- Comment #2 from puffydaemon at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Are you sure this is not an binutils bug at reporting the wrong line numbers > based on the preprocessed output? No, I am not sure. Even I dont und

[Bug preprocessor/89542] Error reported on incorrect line number when using GCC to compile .S files using #include

2019-02-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89542 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Are you sure this is not an binutils bug at reporting the wrong line numbers based on the preprocessed output?

[Bug preprocessor/89542] New: Error reported on incorrect line number when using GCC to compile .S files using #include

2019-02-28 Thread puffydaemon at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89542 Bug ID: 89542 Summary: Error reported on incorrect line number when using GCC to compile .S files using #include Product: gcc Version: 4.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/89531] Possible memory corruption in the gfortran front-end

2019-02-28 Thread asolokha at gmx dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89531 --- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha --- In my case the target is 32-bit BE powerpc. Additionally, the testcase fails w/ -fno-PIC and/or ( -fstack-protector-all or -fno-stack-protector ); it does not fail w/ -fPIC and/or -fstack-protector{,-explic

[Bug tree-optimization/89541] New: [9 Regression] ICE in VN_INFO(tree_node*)

2019-02-28 Thread asolokha at gmx dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89541 Bug ID: 89541 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in VN_INFO(tree_node*) Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity: normal Prio

[Bug target/88100] no warning reported when value for vec_splat_{su}{8,16} would overflow

2019-02-28 Thread helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88100 Li Jia He changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libquadmath/89540] roundq(x) returning value with non-zero fractional part

2019-02-28 Thread andres_takach at mentor dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89540 --- Comment #2 from Andres Takach --- You are right. I did use LD_LIBRARY_PATH, but the issue I had is that I used the "lib" instead of the "lib64" version (I did not build 32-bit compatability) so I was picking up the wrong version since "lib" w

[Bug c/89526] Diagnose errors in asserts

2019-02-28 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89526 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libquadmath/89459] Incorrect rounding for fma in some cases

2019-02-28 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89459 --- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- In fact, having tested it, and used static linking to make sure the new libquadmath was used rather than an older distribution version, this bug was fixed in GCC 8, presumably by the r25034

[Bug libquadmath/89540] roundq(x) returning value with non-zero fractional part

2019-02-28 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89540 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- Are you sure you're using (at runtime) the libquadmath from the GCC version you're using (via -rpath / LD_LIBRARY_PATH, or linking with static rather than shared libquadmath), rather than a

[Bug target/41055] libgcc functions and -mregparm don't work well together

2019-02-28 Thread hpa at zytor dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41055 --- Comment #9 from H. Peter Anvin --- I can confirm this bug is still present as of gcc 8.2.1. I have attached a test case which clearly shows __udivdi3 called with the regparm convention, but libgcc definitely does not expect it: objdump -dr

[Bug c++/88183] [8/9 Regression] Fold expression with operator .* inside an polymorphic lambda

2019-02-28 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88183 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Mar 1 00:08:58 2019 New Revision: 269293 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269293&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/88183 - ICE with .* fold-expression. build_m_component_ref

[Bug c++/86969] [8/9 Regression] ICE (in tsubst_copy) for a generic recursive lambda

2019-02-28 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86969 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Mar 1 00:08:21 2019 New Revision: 269292 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269292&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/86969 - ICE with constexpr if and recursive generic lambdas

[Bug target/41055] libgcc functions and -mregparm don't work well together

2019-02-28 Thread hpa at zytor dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41055 --- Comment #8 from H. Peter Anvin --- Created attachment 45862 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45862&action=edit Test code (object output)

[Bug c++/89532] [9 Regression] internal compiler error: in type_has_nontrivial_copy_init, at cp/tree.c:4024

2019-02-28 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89532 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/41055] libgcc functions and -mregparm don't work well together

2019-02-28 Thread hpa at zytor dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41055 --- Comment #7 from H. Peter Anvin --- Created attachment 45861 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45861&action=edit Test case (assembly output)

[Bug target/41055] libgcc functions and -mregparm don't work well together

2019-02-28 Thread hpa at zytor dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41055 --- Comment #6 from H. Peter Anvin --- Created attachment 45860 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45860&action=edit Test case (preprocessed)

[Bug target/41055] libgcc functions and -mregparm don't work well together

2019-02-28 Thread hpa at zytor dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41055 H. Peter Anvin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hpa at zytor dot com --- Comment #5 fro

[Bug libquadmath/89540] New: roundq(x) returning value with non-zero fractional part

2019-02-28 Thread andres_takach at mentor dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89540 Bug ID: 89540 Summary: roundq(x) returning value with non-zero fractional part Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug target/89534] mingw is not declaring MAKE_DECL_ONE_ONLY macro

2019-02-28 Thread 10walls at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89534 --- Comment #1 from jon_y <10walls at gmail dot com> --- Weak symbols aren't quite supported with PE, I'm not sure if making the symbol weak is the right approach. Do you have a test case to show this will lead to the correct behavior with MAKE_D

[Bug c/89539] [9.0 regression] gcc fails to build/bootstrap on MACOSX

2019-02-28 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89539 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
sa-dom.c (edge_info::derive_equivalences) : Test only whether bit #0 of the value is 0 instead of the entire value. Added: branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20190228-1.c - copied unchanged from r269289, trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20190228-1.c

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
sa-dom.c (edge_info::derive_equivalences) : Test only whether bit #0 of the value is 0 instead of the entire value. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20190228-1.c Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c

[Bug c/89539] New: [9.0 regression] gcc fails to build/bootstrap on MACOSX

2019-02-28 Thread juergen.reuter at desy dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89539 Bug ID: 89539 Summary: [9.0 regression] gcc fails to build/bootstrap on MACOSX Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority

[Bug fortran/77604] ICE in get_frame_type, at tree-nested.c:208

2019-02-28 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77604 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 --- Comment #5 from Dominique

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou --- > We do take the range as granted in both cases. If for BIT_NOT_EXPR on say > int the result is -2 or -1, then your TREE_INT_CST_LOW fix would DTRT, sure. > If the result is any other value, then we run int

[Bug c++/87068] No diagnostic on an ill-formed [[fallthrough]]

2019-02-28 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/87068] No diagnostic on an ill-formed [[fallthrough]]

2019-02-28 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Feb 28 22:29:42 2019 New Revision: 269288 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269288&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/87068 - missing diagnostic with fallthrough statement.

[Bug fortran/60576] [7/8/9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

2019-02-28 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576 --- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Is this still an issue? I still get the stack-buffer-overflow reported in comment 26 with 8.2 and trunk (9.0) but not with 7.4.

[Bug fortran/84868] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_descriptor_offset, at fortran/trans-array.c:208

2019-02-28 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84868 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/68544] ICE trying to pass derived type constructor as a function

2019-02-28 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug fortran/60576] [7/8/9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

2019-02-28 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576 --- Comment #28 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Is this still an issue? On x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and with current trunk, I do only get a memory leak with -fsanitize=address (both -m32 and -m64), which disappears if I deallocate the arrays at the

[Bug fortran/87751] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:10255

2019-02-28 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87751 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING Known to fail|

[Bug fortran/77604] ICE in get_frame_type, at tree-nested.c:208

2019-02-28 Thread anlauf at gmx dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77604 Harald Anlauf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gmx dot de --- Comment #4 from

[Bug c++/89537] missing location for error

2019-02-28 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89537 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5) > 89537.C:9:18: error: invalid use of non-static member function ‘void B< > , , > , >::keys() [with _Tp = > int; = int; = A; > = A]’ > 9 | : keys(p1

[Bug fortran/68544] ICE trying to pass derived type constructor as a function

2019-02-28 Thread anlauf at gmx dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544 --- Comment #9 from Harald Anlauf --- (In reply to kargl from comment #8) > Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c > === > --- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 266281) > +++ gcc/fortran/res

[Bug c++/89538] New: [7.3.0] GCC miscompiling LLVM because of wrong vectorization

2019-02-28 Thread twoh at fb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89538 Bug ID: 89538 Summary: [7.3.0] GCC miscompiling LLVM because of wrong vectorization Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/89538] [7.3.0] GCC miscompiling LLVM because of wrong vectorization

2019-02-28 Thread twoh at fb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89538 --- Comment #1 from Taewook Oh --- And I confirmed that this bug doesn't reproduce with GCC5.

[Bug c/89433] Repeated use of the OpenACC 'routine' directive

2019-02-28 Thread tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89433 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Thu Feb 28 20:31:36 2019 New Revision: 269287 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269287&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR72741, PR89433] Repeated use of the Fortran OpenACC 'routine' dir

[Bug fortran/72741] Fortran OpenACC routine directive doesn't properly handle clauses specifying the level of parallelism

2019-02-28 Thread tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Thu Feb 28 20:31:23 2019 New Revision: 269286 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269286&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR72741] For all Fortran OpenACC 'routine' directive variants chec

[Bug fortran/72741] Fortran OpenACC routine directive doesn't properly handle clauses specifying the level of parallelism

2019-02-28 Thread tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Thu Feb 28 20:31:36 2019 New Revision: 269287 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269287&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR72741, PR89433] Repeated use of the Fortran OpenACC 'routine' di

[Bug c/89433] Repeated use of the OpenACC 'routine' directive

2019-02-28 Thread tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89433 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Thu Feb 28 20:31:01 2019 New Revision: 269285 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269285&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR72741, PR89433] Accept intrinsic symbols in Fortran OpenACC 'rout

[Bug fortran/72741] Fortran OpenACC routine directive doesn't properly handle clauses specifying the level of parallelism

2019-02-28 Thread tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Thu Feb 28 20:31:01 2019 New Revision: 269285 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269285&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR72741, PR89433] Accept intrinsic symbols in Fortran OpenACC 'rout

[Bug fortran/71544] gfortran compiler optimization bug when dealing with c-style pointers

2019-02-28 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544 --- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig --- This looks like it does the trick (test case passes): Index: trans-types.c === --- trans-types.c (Revision 269260) +++ trans-types.c

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- We do take the range as granted in both cases. If for BIT_NOT_EXPR on say int the result is -2 or -1, then your TREE_INT_CST_LOW fix would DTRT, sure. If the result is any other value, then we run into the

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou --- > How is BIT_NOT_EXPR expanded for the prec > 1 BOOLEAN_TYPEs btw? If it is > normal QImode or SImode etc. one's complement, then I'd say it is a bug if > match.pd generates such BIT_NOT_EXPRs. No idea abo

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou --- > So, for BIT_AND_EXPR we only handle the case where the result of > BIT_AND_EXPR is known to be non-zero. That means both operands have to be > non-zero (and have at least one common bit). Now, if say the

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- How is BIT_NOT_EXPR expanded for the prec > 1 BOOLEAN_TYPEs btw? If it is normal QImode or SImode etc. one's complement, then I'd say it is a bug if match.pd generates such BIT_NOT_EXPRs.

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12) > > Adding integer_onep wouldn't be > > correct IMHO, if you have some non-boolean non-prec==1 integral type, even > > if you know rhs has range [0, 1], if BIT_NO

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou --- > On the testcase, value is -2 and before your change it would derive > correctly that if BIT_NOT_EXPR is -2, then rhs must be ~-2, i.e. 1, but > after the patch it says rhs must be 0. The oversight is actu

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou --- > On the testcase, value is -2 and before your change it would derive > correctly that if BIT_NOT_EXPR is -2, then rhs must be ~-2, i.e. 1, but > after the patch it says rhs must be 0. Right, an annoying ov

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- The [0, 1] range in that case (if not boolean or prec==1) is not the property of the type, but just that optimizations figured out the SSA_NAME will not have other values. In tree-ssa-dom.c it goes in the o

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9) > > Then I don't understand the problem in the BIT_NOT_EXPR case: we have int > > type and [0, 1] range for rhs; if we know that BIT_NOT_EXPR is zero, we can > > d

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- > Then I don't understand the problem in the BIT_NOT_EXPR case: we have int > type and [0, 1] range for rhs; if we know that BIT_NOT_EXPR is zero, we can > deduce that it must be 1 too. So the problem is in

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- > Isn't that different though? I mean, even if we have int type and have [0, > 1] range and have a check that the value isn't 0, then it must be 1. Then I don't understand the problem in the BIT_NOT_EXPR ca

[Bug c++/71446] Incorrect overload resolution when using designated initializers

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #45856|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- > Isn't that different though? I mean, even if we have int type and have [0, > 1] range and have a check that the value isn't 0, then it must be 1. Then I don't understand the problem in the BIT_NOT_EXPR ca

[Bug fortran/67542] ICE in gfc_emit_parameter_debug_info, at fortran/trans-decl.c:4947 and :4945

2019-02-28 Thread gs...@t-online.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542 --- Comment #11 from G. Steinmetz --- Well, the ICEs are gone for all posted test cases above. Assuming that different shapes are not supported as an extension (aka feature), as such they are not standard-conforming. F2018 7.5.10 item 2 says "

[Bug c++/88049] [7/8 Regression] ICE in lto_symtab_prevailing_virtual_decl at gcc/lto/lto-symtab.c:1075 since r23

2019-02-28 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5) > There is very likely the same issue in the BIT_AND_EXPR case then. Isn't that different though? I mean, even if we have int type and have [0, 1] range and have

[Bug c++/88049] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in lto_symtab_prevailing_virtual_decl at gcc/lto/lto-symtab.c:1075 since r231671

2019-02-28 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049 --- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Feb 28 17:29:48 2019 New Revision: 269283 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269283&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/88049 - ICE with undefined destructor and anon namespace.

[Bug c++/89537] missing location for error

2019-02-28 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89537 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c++/89537] missing location for error

2019-02-28 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89537 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- With this patch diff --git a/gcc/cp/call.c b/gcc/cp/call.c index fb67d905acd..d9073d7c23d 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/call.c +++ b/gcc/cp/call.c @@ -4246,7 +4246,7 @@ resolve_args (vec *args, tsubst_flags_t complain

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- > I wonder if we shouldn't do: > --- gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c.jj 2019-02-26 14:13:08.296824100 +0100 > +++ gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c2019-02-28 15:46:52.285495060 +0100 > @@ -346,6 +346,9 @@ edge_info::derive_e

[Bug c++/88049] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in lto_symtab_prevailing_virtual_decl at gcc/lto/lto-symtab.c:1075 since r231671

2019-02-28 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049 --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- I am happy with the patch in #5, so you can consider it pre-approved. It is probably your call whether to declare the code invalid at first place.

[Bug c++/89537] missing location for error

2019-02-28 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89537 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- loc is UNKNOWN_LOCATION: (gdb) up #1 0x00b98003 in invalid_nonstatic_memfn_p (loc=0, expr=, complain=3) at /home/mpolacek/src/gcc/gcc/cp/typeck.c:1896 1896 error_at (loc, "inva

[Bug c++/89537] missing location for error

2019-02-28 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89537 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- template class A {}; template class B; class C { using mapped_type = int; public: template C(B, A> *p1, unsigned) : keys(p1->keys), values(p1->values) {} A keys; A values; }; class D { pub

[Bug c++/71446] Incorrect overload resolution when using designated initializers

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 45856 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45856&action=edit WIP For that test the following helps, but guess I'm still not handling anonymous aggregates right there.

[Bug lto/88585] [9 Regression] ICE in fld_incomplete_type_of, at tree.c:5295

2019-02-28 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88585 --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka --- Author: hubicka Date: Thu Feb 28 16:45:44 2019 New Revision: 269282 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269282&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR lto/88585 * tree.c (find_atomic_core_type): Move ahead

[Bug lto/88585] [9 Regression] ICE in fld_incomplete_type_of, at tree.c:5295

2019-02-28 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88585 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/89532] [9 Regression] internal compiler error: in type_has_nontrivial_copy_init, at cp/tree.c:4024

2019-02-28 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89532 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- struct tuple; template struct S { };

[Bug c++/71446] Incorrect overload resolution when using designated initializers

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- #c2 with it still fails though.

[Bug ipa/88235] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed (error: edge points to wrong declaration)

2019-02-28 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88235 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- I think you can add cgraph predicate former_thunk_p which tests that return !thunk_p && (thunk_info.fixed_offset || virtual_offset_p || indirect_offset) Every thunk should set one of those (it may be good to

[Bug c++/71446] Incorrect overload resolution when using designated initializers

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- So like (untested): --- gcc/call.c.jj 2019-02-28 08:14:58.251562934 +0100 +++ gcc/call.c 2019-02-28 17:04:49.697357298 +0100 @@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ build_list_conv (tree type, tree ctor, i conversion

[Bug c++/71446] Incorrect overload resolution when using designated initializers

2019-02-28 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446 --- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > So, shall we never try ck_list conversion for CONSTRUCTORs with any > designators (while for -std=c++2a we'll complain if there is a mix of > designated initiali

[Bug c++/89537] missing location for error

2019-02-28 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89537 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/86979] [9 Regression] ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2348 with -m32 on darwin

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Any progress on this?

[Bug fortran/89496] [9 Regression] gcc/fortran/trans-types.c:3015:9: runtime error: member access within null pointer of type 'struct gfc_formal_arglist'

2019-02-28 Thread damian at sourceryinstitute dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89496 Damian Rouson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||damian at sourceryinstitute dot or

[Bug c++/89537] missing location for error

2019-02-28 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89537 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 45855 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45855&action=edit gzipped unreduced testcase

[Bug c++/89537] New: missing location for error

2019-02-28 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89537 Bug ID: 89537 Summary: missing location for error Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c++/89533] G++ incorrectly generates noexcept assignment operator

2019-02-28 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89533 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- I wonder if we shouldn't do: --- gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c.jj 2019-02-26 14:13:08.296824100 +0100 +++ gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c 2019-02-28 15:46:52.285495060 +0100 @@ -346,6 +346,9 @@ edge_info::derive_equivalences

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Summary|[9 Regression] wro

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] [9 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89536 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/89455] [9 Regression] FAIL: g++.target/i386/mv16.C on Westmere

2019-02-28 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89455 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/89455] [9 Regression] FAIL: g++.target/i386/mv16.C on Westmere

2019-02-28 Thread hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89455 --- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Thu Feb 28 14:24:52 2019 New Revision: 269281 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269281&root=gcc&view=rev Log: i386: Identify Westmere from PCLMUL Since AES has been removed fro

[Bug preprocessor/60875] `_Pragma("message \"foo\")"` doesn't work in expression contexts.

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60875 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Those pragmas are all extensions, so the standard doesn't cover them.

[Bug tree-optimization/89536] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

2019-02-28 Thread su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.1/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 9.0.1 20190228 (experimental) [trunk revision 269278] (GCC

[Bug target/89456] target attribute doesn't work well with -mXXX

2019-02-28 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89456 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 45853 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45853&action=edit A patch

[Bug preprocessor/60875] `_Pragma("message \"foo\")"` doesn't work in expression contexts.

2019-02-28 Thread nok.raven at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60875 Nikita Kniazev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/89532] [9 Regression] internal compiler error: in type_has_nontrivial_copy_init, at cp/tree.c:4024

2019-02-28 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89532 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/89535] [9 Regression] ICE when building 416.gamess in prepare_load_store_mask

2019-02-28 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89535 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assigne

[Bug c/89520] [7/8 Regression] ICE tree check: accessed operand 4 of call_expr with 3 operands in convert_to_integer_1, at convert.c:668

2019-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89520 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- *** Bug 89521 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

  1   2   >