https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96841
Bug ID: 96841
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst,
have nop_expr in to_wide, at tree.h:5904
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96834
z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||z.zhanghaijian at huaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96200
--- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> On Linux/i386 and Linux/x86-64, thread pointer access is done via syscall.
> On Linux/x86-64, __builtin_thread_pointer and __builtin_set_thread_pointer
> may be implem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-29
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89818
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-29
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guilherme at amadio dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85648
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96200
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
But
CR4.FSGSBASE
FSGSBASE-Enable Bit (bit 16 of CR4) — Enables the instructions RDFSBASE,
RDGSBASE, WRFSBASE, and WRGSBASE.
>From user space, we can't tell if FSGSBASE is enabled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96510
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96798
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-29
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96200
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
On Linux/i386 and Linux/x86-64, thread pointer access is done via syscall.
On Linux/x86-64, __builtin_thread_pointer and __builtin_set_thread_pointer
may be implemented with FSGSBASE ISA. Is it possible to impleme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96840
Bug ID: 96840
Summary: Recursive substitution in constrained commutative
operator
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/cedacs
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96200
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96798
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 49152
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49152&action=edit
Preprocessed file for the test_5 in memset-1.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92978
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92978
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82db1a42e9254c9009bbf8ac01366da4d1ab6df5
commit r11-2929-g82db1a42e9254c9009bbf8ac01366da4d1ab6df5
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96821
--- Comment #2 from Daniil Dudkin ---
Basically it described in 4th paragraph in [temp.constr.decl] of the latest C++
standard draft:
http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.constr.decl#4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96839
Bug ID: 96839
Summary: gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95593
--- Comment #2 from Daniil Dudkin ---
(In reply to Michael Bruck from comment #0)
> https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/24novC
>
> This is from N4835 ([expr.const] after 14.7) and does not fail as required:
There is no 14.7 in the latest C++ standard dra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95593
Daniil Dudkin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dudkindaniilm2 at yandex dot ru
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96768
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96756
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-28
Ever confir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96833
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase for -O3:
typedef int V __attribute__((__vector_size__(16)));
__attribute__((__noipa__)) void
foo (unsigned int x, V *y)
{
unsigned int a[4] = { x + 0, x + 2, x + 4, x + 6 };
for (unsigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85830
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |carll at gcc dot gnu.org
Last r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96246
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #5)
> FAIL: g++.target/i386/avx512bw-pr96246-2.C execution test
> FAIL: g++.target/i386/avx512vl-pr96246-2.C execution test
>
>
> the tests can fail at runtime, be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-28
Summary|__m128i fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96838
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96838
Bug ID: 96838
Summary: missing warning on integer overflow in calls to
allocation functions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96810
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ubizjak at gmail dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
--- Comment #5 from gcc at froghat dot ca ---
I was testing modifications to the testcase that caused it to compile correctly
and forgot to save my editor's buffer after undoing those changes.
I have attached the correct file. Sorry for being an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
gcc at froghat dot ca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49142|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
--- Comment #16 from Paweł Bylica ---
I have checked the glibc implementation of floorf().
Source here:
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/s_floorf.c;h=da6c6dfa8ae86129e74d2e4391fac3a3c2ec;hb=HEAD
- It ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96596
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96596
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba6373a39782139789f0eeba7c0e607ec6dfb477
commit r11-2924-gba6373a39782139789f0eeba7c0e607ec6dfb477
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92978
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96832
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I agree with recommending to use getcwd(0, 0).
At the same time, in https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25219#c6 I
suggested that "...perhaps the attribute should allow the pointer to be null
rega
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96837
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is not about if(false), but rather about nested parallelism.
libgomp has a thread cache only for the outermost parallel level, with nested
parallelism the threads are spawned and joined each time a paral
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
--- Comment #15 from Paweł Bylica ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #14)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #13)
> > if (HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (mode))
> > x2 = copysign (x2, x);
>
> Hmm, I misread the comment, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96796
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 49149
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49149&action=edit
Posted patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96837
Bug ID: 96837
Summary: A false if clause in "omp parallel" seriously affects
the performance
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96246
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96768
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
That's what I replied in the original PR94538, but Wilco said the best option
was to turn off switch tables:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538#c14
See also another comment from him:
https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96834
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #13)
> if (HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (mode))
> x2 = copysign (x2, x);
Hmm, I misread the comment, sorry. We already do that, for both floor and ceil.
But we do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96836
Bug ID: 96836
Summary: [MVE] Consider using define_subst for predicatable
operations
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96768
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Note that the switch table is in the .rodata section, so that's not a problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94672
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb3c3d63315ceb4dc262e5efb83b42c73c43387d
commit r11-2923-gcb3c3d63315ceb4dc262e5efb83b42c73c43387d
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse ---
x-x does depend on the rounding mode (the transformation in match.pd gets it
wrong, by the way).
If the sign of 0 is the only issue, maybe we can test flag_rounding_math &&
flag_signed_zeros or the correspondi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96830
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
G++ still accepts this version, though EDG and Clang reject it:
template concept C = requires { typename T::value_type; };
template
class Foo {
public:
void func();
};
template
void Foo::func()
{}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96830
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96798
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Would it be possible to have a reduced test?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96830
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template concept C = requires { typename T::value_type; };
template
requires C
class Foo {
public:
void func();
};
template
void Foo::func()
{}
EDG compiles it without error too. Clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96357
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Przemyslaw Wirkus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b648814c02eb418aaf27897c480452172ee96303
commit r11-2922-gb648814c02eb418aaf27897c480452172ee96303
Author: Przemyslaw Wirkus
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96820
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Chengnian Sun from comment #1)
> Not sure if this is a dup to
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96730
No, this time it's build_user_friendly_ref_for_offset turning a nonsensical
exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466
>
> --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> > As said you have to fake "regular" non-boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96798
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks. Unfortunately that didn't trigger the issue for me, sorry.
I'm wondering how best to debug this.
Could you attach the preprocessed source from the testcase(s) please?
Also, if you hack in a call t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96418
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Andre Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96834
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|ICE： Segmentation f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96834
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> > Created attachment 49144 [details]
> > Proposed patch
> >
> > Patch in testing.
>
> OTOH we _do_ try to compensat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 49146
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49146&action=edit
Testcase, suitable for gcc testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96832
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96835
Bug ID: 96835
Summary: Constructor in offload template class
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96832
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96834
Bug ID: 96834
Summary: ICE： Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96831
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I guess what is clearly missing is IVOPTs rewriting the ADDRESS uses with
the IV based on TARGET_MEM_REFs, thus &MEM[(int *)&a + _3 * 8]. Not sure
how hard that would be (do we even query targets for 'lea'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96831
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96833
Bug ID: 96833
Summary: Functors within target offload code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96832
Bug ID: 96832
Summary: Wrong assumption for -Werror=nonnull check
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96831
Bug ID: 96831
Summary: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[345].c FAIL on i?86 and arm
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96495
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Paweł Bylica from comment #8)
> Did you consider fixing the __builtin_floor() implementation?
No, because you can use -msse4 to generate ROUNDxx instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
--- Comment #8 from Paweł Bylica ---
Did you consider fixing the __builtin_floor() implementation?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96830
Bug ID: 96830
Summary: GCC does not complain template-head containing
requires clause
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> As said you have to fake "regular" non-bool comparison operands,
> best based on the COND_EXPRs operand types (using integer types
> of the same size)
All right, do you mean something like what we do in
tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> Looking at the ICE, we actually ICE at the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96579
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96624
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96624
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d463ce7f983f03f0d65da03cfa430e29a0840c2
commit r11-2919-g9d463ce7f983f03f0d65da03cfa430e29a0840c2
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Fri Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96744
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:436ee9fec2751826bc48069d4dd320207fd9dfa4
commit r10-8684-g436ee9fec2751826bc48069d4dd320207fd9dfa4
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96744
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58d6eea0e0754351b399a4b85562f81326a184ad
commit r11-2917-g58d6eea0e0754351b399a4b85562f81326a184ad
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Looking at the ICE, we actually ICE at the place where a fake comparison is
constructed:
if (TREE_CODE_CLASS (tcode) != tcc_comparison)
{
gcc_assert (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (op0)));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96820
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Where first bad value is 1840700270.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|uros at gcc dot gnu.org|
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96793
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96820
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96825
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
93 matches
Mail list logo
