Hello GCC experts,
Anyone can guide us to fix this issue on GCC v9.3?
Our products used ARM64 target cross-compile GCC v6.5 before.
In recent weeks, we upgrade it to GCC v9.3 by company request.
However, we met some strange problems, such as
1. Linux eMMC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97453
Bug ID: 97453
Summary: Implement CWG issue 2303
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93107
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452
Bug ID: 97452
Summary: [coroutines] incorrect sequencing of await_resume()
when multiple co_await expressions occur in a single
statement
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428
--- Comment #6 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
>
> while the lack of cross-lane shuffles in AVX2 requires a
>
> .L3:
> vmovupd (%rsi,%rax), %xmm5
> vmovupd 32(%rsi,%rax), %xmm6
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428
--- Comment #5 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> I have a fix that, with -mavx512f generates just
>
> .L3:
> vmovupd (%rcx,%rax), %zmm0
> vpermpd (%rsi,%rax), %zmm1, %zmm2
> vpermpd %zmm0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #12 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 49382
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49382=edit
.s file generated with stage3 compiler
File 1 position looks similar to the example in binutils/26740.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95675
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Comment 4 test started with r240845.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97039
--- Comment #2 from Anthony M de Beus ---
Clarification for anyone confused, "correct" results by a fortran compiler with
bounds-checking enabled would include finding/checking incorrect bounds in
(deliberately) incorrect fortran code given in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard ---
I don't understand why the .debug sections are compared in this case.
But if they are then the diff comes from this gas issue:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26740
Even though unused gas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95942
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-10-15 4:35 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Those are debug sections. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Those are debug sections. So contrib/compare-debug should be stripping them.
Or is this non-debug bootstrap where either both stage2 and stage3 are built
with -g or none of them?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
The problem is triggered by missing config/bootstrap-debug.mk. But
cccS9GKD.s is is odd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-10-15 4:18 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-10-15 3:58 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> So, how do they differ? The comparison should be ignoring debug sections...
It looks like the .s file name is in object:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18469
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451
Bug ID: 97451
Summary: [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed
--with-build-config=bootstrap-cet
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97398
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18469
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, how do they differ? The comparison should be ignoring debug sections...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97450
Bug ID: 97450
Summary: [concepts] Bogus errors during constraint
normalization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97402
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 79686, which changed state.
Bug 79686 Summary: Variadic template expansion into concept with leading
parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79686
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79686
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anthony.ajw at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
--- Comment #6 from Steve Fink ---
The crash still happens with gcc 10.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
Chris Uzdavinis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cuzdav at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95844
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97426
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
g:10744da3452dac48cfa54d4480c269aac56421fa, r11-3909
The above partly fixes this but leaves at least one error:
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-ssa.exp=gcc.dg/tree-ssa/modref-4.c"
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95844
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3ee94724686b82556c07b4d33821ae973eb9aba
commit r11-3958-gf3ee94724686b82556c07b4d33821ae973eb9aba
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Not even an alternative SELECT_CC_MODE; just add an argument to it, giving
the original mode? We already have that in combine, so we can trivially
pass it. Will that work for x86 here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95844
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449
Bug ID: 97449
Summary: libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang
after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95942
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85901
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97406
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96974
Stam Markianos-Wright changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95808
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Fixed on trunk so far. I'm undecided whether it needs to be backported.
> Although the comparison with null is formally unspecified, I think all the
> compilers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97414
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-15
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97448
Bug ID: 97448
Summary: Unneccessary stack frame when using stack protector
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't think it is really possible, because there is nothing magic about the
operands of the comparison, it can be done in both CCmode or CCCmode. The
problem is that during simplification combiner takes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Leroy ---
Sorry, the above command is for another problem I'm about to report.
The command in question in this bug report is:
powerpc64-linux-gcc -Wp,-MMD,arch/powerpc/kernel/.setup-common.o.d -nostdinc
-isystem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So is that something than can/should be improved in ix86_cc_mode?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97447
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vvinayag at arm dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Leroy ---
GCC version with the BUG:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gcc-10.1.0-nolibc/powerpc64-linux/bin/powerpc64-linux-gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70248
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 85474 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85474
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 85474, which changed state.
Bug 85474 Summary: unspecified string literal comparison accepted in constexpr
context
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85474
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even if it is just a few insns, if it is larger than the function call, the
caller might already trigger threshold of how much it can be enlarged by
inlining.
If this bugreport would come with the requested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97446
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Just like PR 97401.
Please try to remember that diagnostics are not required for errors in
uninstantiated templates, so it's not a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97447
Bug ID: 97447
Summary: During IPA pass: modref: ICE on
gcc.dg/atomic/pr65345-4.c
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
alternatively use inline w/o static to get C99 inline semantics (you have to
provide a single out of line copy yourself then via the appropriate
declaration)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97446
Bug ID: 97446
Summary: gcc accepts an unnamed struct
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 49380
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49380=edit
Archive containing C source, preprocessed source as well as assembly and object
output
I have created the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #10)
> Here's elf32-arc.i creduced.
>
> a;
> b();
> c() {
> void *d;
> if (d == b && e())
is that actually allowed?
if (d == b) is
void * == (void * ())
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jfrech.bugzilla at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5)
So the difference seems to be only the -fPIC option? Can you get the
preprocessed .i file with -save-temps ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> Trying 7 -> 9:
> 7: r97:SI=0x2a
> 9: {flags:CCC=cmp(r97:SI+r98:SI,r97:SI);r99:SI=r97:SI+r98:SI;}
> REG_DEAD r98:SI
> REG_DEAD r97:SI
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I forgot to add: subtract immediate is the same as add immediate for us,
we don't change the sense of the carry bit to a "borrow bit" (and instead,
we have a subtract-from-immediate). But this doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Trying 7 -> 9:
7: r97:SI=0x2a
9: {flags:CCC=cmp(r97:SI+r98:SI,r97:SI);r99:SI=r97:SI+r98:SI;}
REG_DEAD r98:SI
REG_DEAD r97:SI
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> Just to point out the obvious, r13 is never initialized nor referenced by
> anything else throughout the function. What are the compiler options?
One
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437
--- Comment #4 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I don't see anything undesirable on that. The 0 aka %rax is used in 7
> different instructions later on besides the move, so either we just clear
> %ecx (can't use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445
Bug ID: 97445
Summary: Some fonctions marked static inline in Linux kernel
are not inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97436
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71424
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97436
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34af17c0164f3138df094b144c7f74c2d1805444
commit r11-3953-g34af17c0164f3138df094b144c7f74c2d1805444
Author: Tom de Vries
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97444
Bug ID: 97444
Summary: [nvptx] stack atomics
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And fwprop that perhaps wouldn't "simplify" them that much punts on these
because the instructions are multiple sets. It is unclear why, I mean, sure,
it can't be adding REG_EQUAL notes in that case, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Anyway,
#include
void
foo (unsigned int a[4], unsigned int b[4])
{
unsigned char carry = 0;
carry = _addcarry_u32 (carry, 42, b[0], [0]);
carry = _addcarry_u32 (carry, b[1], 43, [1]);
carry =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97438
--- Comment #2 from Avi Kivity ---
Created attachment 49379
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49379=edit
test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
Here's elf32-arc.i creduced.
a;
b();
c() {
void *d;
if (d == b && e())
d = a;
return d;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97438
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97439
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
OK for all branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I have a fix that, with -mavx512f generates just
.L3:
vmovupd (%rcx,%rax), %zmm0
vpermpd (%rsi,%rax), %zmm1, %zmm2
vpermpd %zmm0, %zmm1, %zmm0
vmovupd %zmm2, (%rdi,%rax,2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
SRINATH PARVATHANENI changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56951
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far. I'm undecided whether it needs to be backported.
Although the comparison with null is formally unspecified, I think all the
compilers we support behave as expected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97443
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86252
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tangyixuan at mail dot
dlut.edu.cn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17232
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
See Also|
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo