https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
index bea04992160..856b8bd222e 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
@@ -3050,13 +3050,13 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Another note, a quick look at synth_mult shows that it should support vector
modes just fine but we are passing it the scalar mode. We do know the
vector type that's going to be used so we should better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102583
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Simplify
_4 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <_1, _1, { 4, 5, 6, 7, 4, 5, 6, 7 }>;
_5 = BIT_FIELD_REF <_4, 128, 0>;
to
_5 = BIT_FIELD_REF <_1, 128, 128>;
in match.pd?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
--- Comment #11 from Levy Hsu ---
Hi Avieira
The baseline was one commit before. (ffc7f200adbdf47f14b3594d9b21855c19cf797a)
I'm experiencing some issue on local Vtune so I can't say which function or
front/backend was affected.
objdump shows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104172
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f4ee27d3262fc4fc3e5d3535f195fdcf87d7ec77
commit r12-6853-gf4ee27d3262fc4fc3e5d3535f195fdcf87d7ec77
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101138
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104218
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89564
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang also goes into an recursive template instantiation exceeded maximum depth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80871
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-25
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
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=103433
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This looks like undefined code so even gcc should not ICE, the code will never
do the right thing for what you want to do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103433
--- Comment #2 from jin xia ---
Is there any status update for this issue? Thank you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104218
Bug ID: 104218
Summary: 23_containers/vector/ext_pointer/types tests rely on
GCC overload-resolution bug
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102131
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104172
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I already approved the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
so the cygwin libraries include secure_getenv but the header file defines it
only when __GNU_VISIBLE is true. Someone who knows cygwin headers can better
help here than me really. But I think libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
--- Comment #10 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> nptl/nptl_setxid.c in glibc has
>
> do
> {
> flags = THREAD_GETMEM (self, cancelhandling);
> newval = THREAD_ATOMIC_CMPXCHG_VAL (self,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
--- Comment #5 from James McKelvey ---
Created attachment 52284
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52284=edit
Config log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm:
https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/cygwin-patches/2019-q1/msg6.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>checking for secure_getenv... yes
Can you attach
/home/McKelvey/gcc-12-20220123/x86_64-pc-cygwin/libstdc++-v3/config.log ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
--- Comment #2 from James McKelvey ---
Builds with gcc-11-20220122.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, there is a check for it in configure I don't know why it is being it is
being checked as true.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
nptl/pthread_create.c has
do
pd->nextevent = __nptl_last_event;
while (atomic_compare_and_exchange_bool_acq (&__nptl_last_event,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
nptl/pthread_mutex_unlock.c in glibc has:
do
{
newval = oldval & PTHREAD_MUTEX_PRIO_CEILING_MASK;
}
while (!atomic_compare_exchange_weak_release (>__data.__lock,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
Bug ID: 104217
Summary: gcc-12-20220123 failure to build on Cygwin due to lack
of secure_getenv
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103065
Bug 103065 depends on bug 103069, which changed state.
Bug 103069 Summary: cmpxchg isn't optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104216
Bug ID: 104216
Summary: -w overrides #pragma GCC diagnostic which overrides
-Werror
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104172
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
We discussed this with Jakub today, and we concur.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104172
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
I'm persuaded by your argument that we don't need to care about compatibility
with the 8.1 handling of these types, which weren't yet really usable, so we
can go with the simpler patch. But I'd like to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104203
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regressions] huge |[12 Regressions] huge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae36f839632ddb67a53c26e9c7e73b0f56c4c11b
commit r12-6850-gae36f839632ddb67a53c26e9c7e73b0f56c4c11b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104205
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Printing an expression within the diagnostic message is generally
problematic, but it might be good to change the caret location to point to
the expression rather than the keyword "case"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104187
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Right now, all the C front end does with statement attributes is parses
them and then passes them to c_warn_unused_attributes; it doesn't have any
other handling for such attributes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59104
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103819
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Bertalan ---
Here's an even smaller test case (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/ee9GceMx3):
===
template struct Optional {
~Optional() {
if (m_has_value)
value();
}
T value();
bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
Bug ID: 104215
Summary: bogus -Wuse-after-free=3 due to forwprop moving a
pointer test after realloc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Abusing complex fp, what a dastardly plan! :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Obviously the
6131 if (COMPARISON_CLASS_P (*from_p))
6132 copy_warning (assign, *from_p);
doesn't work because we are not dealing with a comparison here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101831
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.2.0, 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
I did but it didn't work either. So I think we need to properly propagate the
suppression bits. Something like this:
diff --git a/gcc/gimplify.cc b/gcc/gimplify.cc
index bf2f60cce9a..0d266241b8c 100644
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f2201bf48e828a7072616fff9dbd64367dcea30
commit r11-9508-g9f2201bf48e828a7072616fff9dbd64367dcea30
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try:
val = build2 (MODIFY_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (val),
DECL_RESULT (delete_dtor), val);
tree stmt = build_stmt (0, RETURN_EXPR, val);
suppress_warning (stmt,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
I've tried
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.cc b/gcc/cp/decl.cc
index 22d3dd1e2ad..c2a0f0c24e2 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/decl.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl.cc
@@ -17319,6 +17319,7 @@ finish_constructor_body (void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Now that you cite that, seems this error is because we go beyond what the EABI
requires and make even the D0 dtor return this that nothing can really use.
So one way to fix that would be to also make sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100775
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
> I'm not sure why a dtor would have a return type other than void or why it
> would need to return the this pointer
Because that is what is required by the ARM C++ EABI:
>From the PDF on:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104212
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=104213
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||104075
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
-flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects is not needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93832
--- Comment #9 from G. Steinmetz ---
If modified a little, even a release version will suffice :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
character :: a
integer :: b(t(1))
end type
type(t) :: x = t('a', 2)
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93832
--- Comment #8 from G. Steinmetz ---
With the latest gcc snapshot and configured with --enable-checking=yes
the testcase from comment#0 still produces an ICE :
$ gfortran-12-20220123-chk -c z1.f90
z1.f90:7:28:
7 |type(t) :: z =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104203
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
The underlying problem is that when the pointer_query class fails to determine
the pointer provenance for an SSA variable it doesn't update the cache, matter
how laborious the computation was. The next time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104214
Bug ID: 104214
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/pr81196.c fails after
r12-6844
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104212
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30811
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|__FUNCTION__ allowed in |__FUNCTION__ allowed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77557
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104205
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104211
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bogus use-after-free in |[12 Regression] bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104204
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Dup of bug 64063 really. sorry about that.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 64063 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
--- Comment #1 from David Tardon ---
Created attachment 52282
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52282=edit
reproducer.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
Bug ID: 104213
Summary: bogus use-after-free in virtual dtor with
-ffat-lto-objects on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104209
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is the testcase:
int a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l;
void
f1 (void)
{
__asm__ volatile (""
: [a] "+r" (a), [b] "+r" (b), [c] "+r" (c), [d] "+r" (d),
[e]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104209
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|testsuite-fail |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104207
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104212
Bug ID: 104212
Summary: ICE in transformational_result, at
fortran/simplify.cc:466
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104211
Bug ID: 104211
Summary: ICE in find_array_section, at fortran/expr.cc:1720
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104210
Bug ID: 104210
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_zero_size_array, at
fortran/arith.cc:1685
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104209
Bug ID: 104209
Summary: ICE in lra_split_hard_reg_for, at lra-assigns.cc:1837
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52277|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104203
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> > bool
> Since the pass issues a bunch other warnings (e.g., -Wstringop-overflow,
> -Wuse-after-free, etc.) the gate doesn't seem right. But since #pragma GCC
> diagnostic can re-enable
> > bool
> Since the pass issues a bunch other warnings (e.g., -Wstringop-overflow,
> -Wuse-after-free, etc.) the gate doesn't seem right. But since #pragma GCC
> diagnostic can re-enable warnings disabled by -w (or turn them into errors)
> any
> gate that considers the global option setting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104204
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Are you sure that this is a duplicate? Bug 39270 is about explicit
instantiation that is erroneously reported by GCC as specialization. And this
bug is about rejection of real explicit specialization in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104172
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52279
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52279=edit
gcc12-pr104172.patch
Variant patch that just removes the GCC 8.1 compatibility mangling aliases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104189
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> > The function init_sparc64_elf_hwcap(void) [1] unconditionally enables it
> > with:
> >
> > cap |= (AV_SPARC_MUL32 | AV_SPARC_DIV32 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104206
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
Bug ID: 104208
Summary: -mlong-double-64 should override a previous
-mabi=ibmlongdouble
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30811
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104125
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 52278
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52278=edit
patch which undoes the original change
I'm not suggesting we de-apply the original patch, but it cant be directly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104189
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The function init_sparc64_elf_hwcap(void) [1] unconditionally enables it
> with:
>
> cap |= (AV_SPARC_MUL32 | AV_SPARC_DIV32 | AV_SPARC_V8PLUS);
>
> So, I think it should be safe and enable V8+ on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39270
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 104204 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104204
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39270
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
1 - 100 of 253 matches
Mail list logo
