https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91193
Bug ID: 91193
Summary: [8 regression] ICE on invalid: tree check: expected
class ‘type’, have ‘declaration’ (function_decl) in
grokdeclarator, at c/c-decl.c:5956
Product: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91192
Bug ID: 91192
Summary: [9 regression] non-deterministic ICE on invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80519
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91191
Bug ID: 91191
Summary: vrp and boolean arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81824
--- Comment #18 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Jul 18 00:38:45 2019
New Revision: 273563
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273563&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
-Wmissing-attributes: check that we avoid duplicates and false positiv
compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.0 20190717 (experimental) [trunk revision 273554] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk -O2 small.
gcctk: error: small.: No such file or directory
gcctk: fatal error: no input files
compilation terminated.
$ gcctk -O2 small.c
$ gcc-9.1.0 -O3 small.c
$
$ gcctk -O3 small.c
hash table
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90455
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jul 17 18:10:14 2019
New Revision: 273553
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273553&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90455
* g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-list6.C: New test.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91104
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91104
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91187
--- Comment #7 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Albert Astals Cid from comment #5)
> (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #3)
> > If the header files cannot be modified, the -isystem command-line option
> > also causes included files to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84579
--- Comment #5 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
Your patch applies cleanly to both gcc 8 and 9. I was able to bootstrap two
toochains gcc 8 and 9 with it, however it caused regression in the binutils
testsuite:
FAIL: ld-plugin/lto-3r
FAIL: ld-plugi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91183
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91187
--- Comment #6 from Albert Astals Cid ---
Created attachment 46609
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46609&action=edit
the said main-glib.cpp file
well the line has to be
g++ -c -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant main-glib.cpp -i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91187
--- Comment #5 from Albert Astals Cid ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #3)
> If the header files cannot be modified, the -isystem command-line option
> also causes included files to be treated as system headers where warnings
> are s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
CL_DRIVER should be covering all languages too, after all, if it is not, then
the gcc.c CL_DRIVER option processing would complain on options for specific
languages.
So I'd expect both CL_LANG_ALL in lto-wra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91189
Bug ID: 91189
Summary: 20% binary size regression in avr-gcc 9.1.0 from 8.3.0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #28 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Not sure. I presumed the LANG_ALL was about handing all language-specific
options, rather than say, just fortran as would be done if gcc were invoked as
g95.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #26 from Richard Earnshaw ---
On the basis that COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS are the options to add if reinvoking gcc,
then that environment variable is really a set of driver options. As such, I
suspect the right fix for this is to add CL_DR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #25 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Created attachment 46608
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46608&action=edit
possible patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #24 from Richard Earnshaw ---
It would appear that the handling of -MMD is the same on both Arm and X86 - in
both cases it swallows the subsequent -MF option when digested by lto-wrapper.
I'm not sure yet why the two compilers then d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #22 from Andreas Schwab ---
-MMD doesn't take an argument as a driver option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #21 from Richard Earnshaw ---
FWIW in the environment:
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS = '-B' '.' '-v' '-flto' '-MMD' '-MF' ''
'-mcpu=cortex-a72' '-mfloat-abi=hard' '-mtls-dialect=gnu' '-marm'
'-march=armv8-a+crc+simd'
So is this correct, o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #20 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Running under gdb I see:
(gdb)
decode_cmdline_option (argv=0x15170c, lang_mask=4095, decoded=0x1506e8)
at /home/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/gcc-9.1.0/gcc/opts-common.c:523
...
gdb) p *option
$5 = {opt_text =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Note that on Haswell the conditional moves are two uops while on Broadwell and
up
they are only one uop (overall loop 16 uops vs. 18 uops). IACA doesn't show
any particular issue (the iterations shoud neat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||85559
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> So pretty much undo all ifcvt into conditional moves (aka pretend the target
> doesn't have cmov) or something else?
> The problem is that cmov isn't uncondition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This is PR 56309, again and again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So pretty much undo all ifcvt into conditional moves (aka pretend the target
doesn't have cmov) or something else?
The problem is that cmov isn't unconditionally bad or unconditionally good and
moving in eith
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91188
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The testcase involving HImode pattern:
--cut here--
struct S1
{
unsigned short val;
unsigned short pad1;
};
struct S1
__attribute__((noinline))
test_andw (struct S1 a, unsigned short b)
{
a.val &= b;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91188
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The patched gcc compiles to:
test_andb:
movl%edi, %eax # 2 [c=4 l=2] *movsi_internal/0
andb%sil, %al # 9 [c=4 l=3] *andqi_1_slp
ret # 23[c=0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91188
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91188
Bug ID: 91188
Summary: strict_low_part operations do not work
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 17 11:21:49 2019
New Revision: 273550
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273550&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91178
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91172
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 17 10:26:25 2019
New Revision: 273549
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273549&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91178
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[9/10 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So the first interesting difference appears in the options lto-wrapper.c
(run_gcc) emits it seems to me (based on -xlto being the very first option).
So I'd do a debugging session of lto-wrapper in both cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46607
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46607&action=edit
Debugging patch
Using the patch, I see the following difference:
https://www.diffchecker.com/J7lpu1Kv
But to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91180
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91180
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 17 09:35:04 2019
New Revision: 273548
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273548&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91180
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91180
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91187
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> maybe try putting #pragma GCC system_header in your headers? idk
Please no, that's for marking a header as part of "the implementation" not a
diagnostic-suppre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91187
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58993
dennis at felsin9 dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dennis at felsin9 dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No idea, that has to be debugged.
But I'd suggest in the two spots that cl_driver_no_arg is tested to add
debugging printout of what the next argv is and whether CL_DRIVER is in
lang_mask or not, and run it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #16 from Andreas Schwab ---
Then why does it only happen on arm? All the LTO option handling should be
target independent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84579
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Romain Geissler from comment #3)
> Hi,
>
> @Martin (and @Richard), I have seen you submitted this patch
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg01059.html which I guess would
> fix this b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
My bet is that this has something to do with the -MMD option, which is one of
the 4? NoDriverArg options, where supposedly the user when using that option
doesn't supply the argument but the specs add it. P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #31 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91186
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #10)
Thank you Richard for help.
> I'm not particularly familiar with how LTO is supposed to work. I can
> reproduce the crash on ARM as Martin described (but not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91157
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 17 07:15:30 2019
New Revision: 273545
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273545&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91157
* tree-vect-generic.c (expand_v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91157
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jul 17 07:13:17 2019
New Revision: 273543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273543&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91157
* tree-vect-generic.c (expand_v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91181
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 17 07:07:21 2019
New Revision: 273542
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273542&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-07-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91181
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91181
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
61 matches
Mail list logo
