https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105282
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Relevant bit of counters dump for completeness (after merge):
$ gcov-dump -l a.gcda
...
a.gcda:01a9: 528:COUNTERS indirect_call 66 counts
a.gcda: 0: -50 32 1456173180 1 179210
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105282
Bug ID: 105282
Summary: [11/12 Regression] V_INDIR overflow causes ICE on -O0
-flto
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105172
Rui Ueyama changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105281
Bug ID: 105281
Summary: status of constexpr and for c++23
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102156
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105271
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in extract_insn, at |[12 Regression] ICE in
|r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102804
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e580f81d22d61153564959f08d9a6d3bcc7fd386
commit r12-8173-ge580f81d22d61153564959f08d9a6d3bcc7fd386
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105280
Bug ID: 105280
Summary: g++ does not raise sign-comapre in static_assert under
some conditions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102987
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6364a39907bd68624a30df0c8e380c40d2a646c4
commit r12-8172-g6364a39907bd68624a30df0c8e380c40d2a646c4
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
The above patch hopefully fixes the false positive you're seeing, but as noted,
there are some deeper issues that it doesn't fix; keeping this bug open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a358e4b60815b41e27f3508014ceb592f86b9b45
commit r12-8169-ga358e4b60815b41e27f3508014ceb592f86b9b45
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105279
Bug ID: 105279
Summary: Using libgccjit produces a null pointer access in
GCC's tree-optimization code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102987
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104646
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104646
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c5de3444c4798758cdd800eca144480b4a8ef299
commit r12-8167-gc5de3444c4798758cdd800eca144480b4a8ef299
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105273
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this bug.
IIRC in the initial GCC 10 release of the analyzer, it didn't directly explore
within static functions, and instead only explored them via callsites. I
tweaked the policy for th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
There are some fiddly issues where the analyzer fails to figure out that ptr +
i and &ptr[i] refer to the same memory, for certain symbolic values of i.
I'm testing a partial fix for GCC 12, which at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853
John Doe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bau2wux4sh at pkv73 dot
anonbox.ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #25 from Chris Clayton ---
I went ahead and patched gcc-11-0220409 and with the resultant compiler have
had two successful builds of firefox-99. I then reverted to the unpatched gcc
and a build of firefox-99 failed with the same ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105278
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> > > -Wfloat-equal gets you a warning, as does -Wdouble-promotio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87404
--- Comment #10 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
Thanks, just clarifying. I saw this one was in the C++ component unlike the
other one.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 19:57 egallager at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105278
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> > -Wfloat-equal gets you a warning, as does -Wdouble-promotion:
>
> Thanks for that. This looks like another cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101527
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82980
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Summary|[9/10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82980
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:74b2e20222cf4fb24b90561ddb6f0989738bb722
commit r12-8165-g74b2e20222cf4fb24b90561ddb6f0989738bb722
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105278
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> -Wfloat-equal gets you a warning, as does -Wdouble-promotion:
Thanks for that. This looks like another case where an obscure flag
really ought to be in -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87404
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason from comment #8)
> Eric: I filed bug 87983. I think it makes sense to mark it as a duplicate
> only if this one covers both C and C++, right now the "component" for this
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105278
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105089
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Indu Bhagat :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d634c5d7c78c6ec0fa39d96984460475564519c8
commit r12-8164-gd634c5d7c78c6ec0fa39d96984460475564519c8
Author: Indu Bhagat
Date: Thu A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105089
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Indu Bhagat :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0b00e74bf59c73b79471bbe9de19373b8661e20
commit r12-8163-gd0b00e74bf59c73b79471bbe9de19373b8661e20
Author: Indu Bhagat
Date: Thu A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105268
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=105273
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84568
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3fc22eedb033cbff1bf5a70c6a032d3c5ce2d867
commit r12-8161-g3fc22eedb033cbff1bf5a70c6a032d3c5ce2d867
Author: Palmer Dabbelt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
--- Comment #16 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can someone please commit the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105251
--- Comment #11 from Khem Raj ---
yes thanks. I have done so https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-65664
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105251
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
No. The issue is the two constants and cache line size are different. Basically
the whole code should not say cache line aligned but rather use them based on
what they mean.
Report the issue to the mongodb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55077
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
-Wfloat-conversion does the deed: any chance of getting it someplace useful
like -Wall or -Wextra anytime soon ?
I will put it into my local compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105251
--- Comment #9 from Khem Raj ---
how does something like this look ?
#include
#include
#include
#include
#ifdef __cpp_lib_hardware_interference_size
using std::hardware_constructive_interference_size;
using std::hardware_destructiv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105251
--- Comment #8 from Khem Raj ---
So in this case if I change
static_assert(sizeof(decltype(_together)) <=
hardware_constructive_interference_size,
"cache line spill");
to
static_assert(sizeof(decltype(_together)) <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #24 from Chris Clayton ---
I see the patch is for gcc-12. As I said in comment, I don't get the ICE with
the latest gcc-12 snapshot, but is it worth me applying the patch to gcc-11
(with which I do get the ICE) and testing a build wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105278
Bug ID: 105278
Summary: no warning for precise literals compared with floats
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105277
Bug ID: 105277
Summary: Pointer to member UB in constant expression is not
checked.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52811
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52811&action=edit
gcc12-pr105256.patch
Untested patch to do that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, wonder if for a CONSTRUCTOR containing elements which are CONSTRUCTORs with
CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY set we shouldn't move the
CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY flag to the outer CONSTRUCTOR (if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105276
Bug ID: 105276
Summary: [12 Regression] executed once loop not optimized
anymore
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, we have:
case TARGET_EXPR:
if (TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL (stmt)
&& TREE_CODE (TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL (stmt)) == CONSTRUCTOR
&& CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY (TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #20 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> Don't both of those tests have UB (sure, we shouldn't ICE), using
> uninitialized non-static data member?
NSDMIs are parsed at the end of the class, but I thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104308
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The TARGET_EXPR is elided in gimplify_modify_expr_rhs:
case TARGET_EXPR:
{
/* If we are initializing something from a TARGET_EXPR, strip the
TARGET_EXPR and init
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That doesn't look right, get_random_seed (true) can return 0 even if it uses a
random seed which just happens to be 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The rationale for introduction of CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY was given in
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2018-03/threads.html#00681
thread, not all PLACEHOLDER_EXPRs nested in an expres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105252
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105275
Bug ID: 105275
Summary: 525.x264_r and 538.imagick_r regressed on x86_64 at
-O2 with PGO after r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d718
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105252
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b209a349268d245f7a318861112df47bea15b89d
commit r12-8159-gb209a349268d245f7a318861112df47bea15b89d
Author: David Malcolm
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #21 from Jason A. Donenfeld ---
FYI, Linux is working around this shortcoming with the trick in this commit:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c40160f2998c897231f8454bf797558d30a20375
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #17 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 52810
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52810&action=edit
Compiler commands
Finally got them by running running "ps ax" in a while true loop, grepping the
output for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105247
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] IA64:|[11 Regression] IA64: ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105247
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba2f60499dd4a3bc1bb4e99fa12dda3bc1548519
commit r12-8158-gba2f60499dd4a3bc1bb4e99fa12dda3bc1548519
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105274
Bug ID: 105274
Summary: [libgomp][nvptx] Provide means to set the stack size
on the device side (+ improve doc)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105273
--- Comment #2 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
...To finish the report (Bugzilla's eager submitting threw me for a loop) the
issue is that while the analyzer is right in the *general* case about a
"switch" with a missing "default" being somethi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84964
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104885
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #14 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52798|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105273
--- Comment #1 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
Created attachment 52808
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52808&action=edit
test case without an enum
A slightly amended test case, showing that the enum isn't per-se the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105273
Bug ID: 105273
Summary: -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value warns on
"missing" default for switch when callers can be
statically determined
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105162
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105269
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
>
> --- Comment #26 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105269
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d2f8208e9add01fe10ee56307cc79631b9995f74
commit r12-8154-gd2f8208e9add01fe10ee56307cc79631b9995f74
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
--- Comment #26 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #24)
> > Wrt keeping REG_EQUAL notes... If you want to keep them you need to make
> > sure
> > they still a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Don't both of those tests have UB (sure, we shouldn't ICE), using uninitialized
non-static data member?
Perhaps:
int
bar (int &)
{
return 1;
}
struct S {
struct T {
struct U {
int i = bar (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105034
--- Comment #5 from Roger Sayle ---
The latest CSiBE results on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu: With -Os the total size is
3696263, and with -Os -mno-stv the total size is 3966887, i.e. 624 bytes
larger. The worst regression from -mno-stv is
teem-1.6.0-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105269
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105238
--- Comment #4 from Esger Abbink ---
We use Ubuntu 20.04 currently for our jenkins images.
With gcc built from master with patch using -fprofile-prefix-map works as
expected:
with a main.cpp in /home/esger/src/application/coverage_test/dir1/so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105034
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Example that we don't transform but could:
typedef int v4si __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
#define min(a,b) ((a)<(b)?(a):(b))
v4si foo (v4si a, v4si b)
{
a[0] = min (a[0], b[0]);
return a;
}
here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105034
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #24)
> Wrt keeping REG_EQUAL notes... If you want to keep them you need to make
> sure
> they still are valid. GCC keeps those on i3, it is much too hard in g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105272
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-14
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
--- Comment #4 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
Created attachment 52806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52806&action=edit
testcase-full.c (gcc -E of testcase.c)
The gcc -E version of testcase.c, probably useless since it o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avarab at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
--- Comment #2 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
I think I can do one better. Here's a stand-alone reproducible test case
without any headers except standard headers, I've expanded the gcc -E version
of that too, but presumably you won't need it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87404
--- Comment #8 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
Eric: I filed bug 87983. I think it makes sense to mark it as a duplicate only
if this one covers both C and C++, right now the "component" for this one is
C++.
As bug 87983 notes in passing C does
85 matches
Mail list logo
