https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95284
Bug ID: 95284
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95283
Bug ID: 95283
Summary: ICE: in hoist_memory_references, at
tree-ssa-loop-im.c:2607
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you show the code inside systemd (and the patch to fix it)? Because
const void *p = (uint8_t*)0x406310;
size_t s = -1;
r = (uint8_t*)p + s;
That is well defined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see why this is undefined???
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95282
Bug ID: 95282
Summary: atomic::load in C++20 calls
__atomic_load with a pointer-to-const as the output
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
--- Comment #8 from Kaipeng Zhou ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #7)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> > On Thu, 21 May 2020, zhoukaipeng3 at huawei dot com wrote:
> >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
--- Comment #20 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #19)
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #18)
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > * gcc.target/i386/pr92658-avx512f.c: New test.
> > *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95281
Bug ID: 95281
Summary: ICE: in compute_live_loop_exits, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:247
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95273
--- Comment #1 from Bill Seurer ---
Here's a full list:
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/990128-1.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions (internal compiler
> error)
> FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95280
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95280
Bug ID: 95280
Summary: poor warning for attribute used on a function argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
Bug ID: 95279
Summary: UBSan doesn't seem to detect pointer overflow in
certain cases
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95278
Bug ID: 95278
Summary: attribute nonstring effect on arguments in function
declaration that's not a definition
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95277
Bug ID: 95277
Summary: error on alignment for a function argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95276
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95106
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95276
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95276
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Amusing stringpop-overflow |[11 Regression] Amusing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95276
Bug ID: 95276
Summary: Amusing stringpop-overflow message building
libgfortran on power9
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95275
--- Comment #1 from Frantisek Sumsal ---
Created attachment 48582
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48582=edit
perf call graph
Attaching a perf call graph screenshot (as the text one got shattered by
formatting).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95275
Bug ID: 95275
Summary: Possible performance regression in libasan with
detect_stack_use_after_return=1
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95274
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95274
Bug ID: 95274
Summary: 0896cc4276b6 broke boostrap
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95273
Bug ID: 95273
Summary: [11 regression] many ICEs after r11-564
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95119
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
set<_slp_tree*, false, default_hash_traits<_slp_tree*> >&,
hash_set<_slp_
tree*, false, default_hash_traits<_slp_tree*> >&, vec*)
../../trunk.git/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c:2844
The problem first seems to occur sometime between dates 20200521 and
20200522. git hashes f094665d465..e740f3d7314
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95255
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a030003858d853f564ed354f1cb579c03db17ef
commit r11-575-g1a030003858d853f564ed354f1cb579c03db17ef
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Fri
get_vec_defs(vec_info*, tree_node*, tree_node*, _stmt_vec_info*,
v
ec*, vec*,
_slp_tree*)
../../trunk.git/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c:1636
0xf48bfc vectorizable_bswap(vec_info*, _stmt_vec_info*, gimple_stmt_iterator*,
_
stmt_vec_info**, _slp_tree*, tree_node*, vec*)
The bug first appears sometime between
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70053
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95119
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Closed on all affected branches, after the now-customary battles with git.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95119
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f1d34396c264ae15ba7492bd2b800c5764d92134
commit r9-8615-gf1d34396c264ae15ba7492bd2b800c5764d92134
Author: Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> On Thu, 21 May 2020, zhoukaipeng3 at huawei dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Kaipeng Zhou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95119
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8275e0a6686b465d4d1717784e3e864305d37d02
commit r10-8170-g8275e0a6686b465d4d1717784e3e864305d37d02
Author: Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e740f3d73144abbca1ad98a04825c6bd63314a0b
commit r11-571-ge740f3d73144abbca1ad98a04825c6bd63314a0b
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95270
Bug ID: 95270
Summary: OpenACC 'enter data attach(data_p)' fails for 'int
*data_p'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95258
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for GCC 11 so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94282
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #8 from Freddie Witherden ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
>
> Instead of [[gnu::flatten]] you could use the
> __attribute__((always_inline)) attribute on the foo function definition
> if you didn't simplify the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 22 May 2020, freddie at witherden dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
>
> --- Comment #6 from Freddie Witherden ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94945
Madhur Chauhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.0|10.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95268
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #20)
> The attached testcase also fails with just -fsanitize=undefined. I have
> tested with gcc version
>
> gcc (GCC) 10.1.1 20200507 (Red Hat 10.1.1-1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95258
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:808b611bfb4b05703ea174e50874c711dca44c98
commit r11-570-g808b611bfb4b05703ea174e50874c711dca44c98
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri May 22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #6 from Freddie Witherden ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So with the [[gnu::flatten]] attributes removed -O1 needs 80 seconds to
> compile and about 3GB of memory, -O2 needs around 2 minutes (same memory),
> -O3
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95268
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c592aad23c22b9f37020cd0a7475d8f3938
commit r11-568-g7c592aad23c22b9f37020cd0a7475d8f3938
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95255
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Compare to e.g.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1825 which says
"[Moved to DR at the November, 2016 meeting.]" That means it's a retroactive
fix for previous standards. That
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Rustam Abdullaev from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > https://wg21.link/cwg727
> >
> > N.B. this is a C++17 feature that does not seem to have been approved as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a24d9b5bbb6a298ff4e55d731d5e436b0da9e38a
commit r10-8169-ga24d9b5bbb6a298ff4e55d731d5e436b0da9e38a
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab7eca92926fdc1da880120c116a1832fce56a29
commit r11-565-gab7eca92926fdc1da880120c116a1832fce56a29
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So confirmed we eventually blow up at -O1:
++: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program cc1plus
compilation terminated.
Command exited with non-zero status 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
--- Comment #5 from Rustam Abdullaev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> https://wg21.link/cwg727
>
> N.B. this is a C++17 feature that does not seem to have been approved as a
> DR, but Clang supports it in all language modes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95248
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95248
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6ed2e2bca54d1d290f553549d28b0c60a0f240f
commit r11-563-gb6ed2e2bca54d1d290f553549d28b0c60a0f240f
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We're then inlining some more costing another ~5GB ontop of the early
optimization memory use of ~5GB (might be other IPA transforms than inlining
as well). The big function is meanwhile 2 million basic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95264
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed. We do have (a) huuuge function here, containing 539237 basic blocks
after early inlining which is
void polyquad::BaseDomain::expand(const VectorXT&,
polyquad::BaseDomain::MatrixPtsT&) const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
See also https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-April/thread.html#402 (for
details/current status, ask those involved).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93826
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95269
Bug ID: 95269
Summary: Lambda is allowed to capture any constexpr variable
without specifying any captures
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93826
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
OpenMP 5 has:
"If the *ordered* clause is present, all loops associated with the construct
must be perfectly nested; that is there must be no intervening code between any
two loops." (2.9.2 Worksharing-Loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93826
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> do j = 1, 8
> do k = 1, 8
> end do
> x = 5 ! <<< not translated but also not an error message
> end do
Complications: BLOCK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> It turns out that a bunch of patterns have to be renamed (and testcases
> added).
>
> Easyhack, waiting for someone to show some love to conversion patterns in
>
Hi, there!
I am new for using GCC mail list, please forgive me if something is wrong.
I have some issues about how GCC deal with the different optimizations in a
UB program.
For example,
small.cc
*#include unsigned long long a;void b(unsigned long long *c, int
h) { *c = h; }int d =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95268
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95266
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95267
--- Comment #7 from otcmaf ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to otcmaf from comment #4)
> > Do you mean that those pattern above are also wrong pattern ?
>
> YES those are broken.
Ok, thanks very much.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Max from comment #2)
> Is there anyone more familiar with GCC internals and/or the AVR backend who
> I would be able to consult or possibly work with on this?
I think Jeff Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95261
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95255
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95251
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-22
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95268
Bug ID: 95268
Summary: ICE: invalid ‘PHI’ argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95267
zhongyunde at tom dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhongyunde at tom dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95210
zhongyunde at tom dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95248
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95242
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95241
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 21 May 2020, zhoukaipeng3 at huawei dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
>
> --- Comment #4 from Kaipeng Zhou ---
> Sorry for not expressing clearly.
>
>
87 matches
Mail list logo
