https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106470
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> Andrew, surely the bogus -Wuninitialized warning is a GCC bug here?
No. It is just exposing the undefined behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106470
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105332
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Cf. also https://github.com/OpenMP/spec/pull/3318 (non public pull request).
New wording for ALIGN clause is that it takes an ARRAY but there are no
additional restrictions.
This applies both to 'declare s
asrsciences
Gcc Server - Passwогd Expiгed
The Passwогd to your mailbox gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org has expired.
System will log you out and generate a new Passwогd exactly at 24 hours from
2022-07-29 12:57:pm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104164
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #2 from Petr Sumbera ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Are you building in the source tree?
No. I'm building it outside of source tree. GCC 11 and older don't seem to have
this problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290
--- Comment #30 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect the libbacktrace issue is an issue with building in the source.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Are you building in the source tree?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106469
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Henry from comment #3)
> So far that single line is the only place in all libstdc++ that triggers
> that undefined.
No it isn't, we "fixed" another one a few days ago, in perfectly correct c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
Bug ID: 106472
Summary: No rule to make target
'../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la', needed by
'libgo.la'.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
--- Comment #6 from Linus Torvalds ---
Ahh, crossed comments.
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> The xor is due to X86_TUNE_AVOID_FALSE_DEP_FOR_BMI setting:
>
> /* X86_TUNE_AVOID_FALSE_DEP_FOR_BMI: Avoid false dependency
>for bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
--- Comment #5 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The xor is needed because of an errata in some Intel cores.
The only errata I'm aware of is that tzcnt can act as tzcnt even when cpuid
doesn't enumerate it (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/598930.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The xor is due to X86_TUNE_AVOID_FALSE_DEP_FOR_BMI setting:
/* X86_TUNE_AVOID_FALSE_DEP_FOR_BMI: Avoid false dependency
for bit-manipulation instructions. */
DEF_TUNE (X86_TUNE_AVOID_FALSE_DEP_FOR_BMI,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
--- Comment #1 from Linus Torvalds ---
Created attachment 53379
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53379&action=edit
Silly test-case as an attachment too
I expected just
rep bsfq %rdi, %rax
ret
from this, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
Bug ID: 106471
Summary: Strange code generation for __builtin_ctzl()
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106469
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Henry from comment #3)
> I agree that technically it is not UB. However I still think it is bad
> practice.
The only bad practice is the option -fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow. Look
at th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106469
--- Comment #3 from Henry ---
I agree that technically it is not UB. However I still think it is bad
practice.
So far that single line is the only place in all libstdc++ that triggers that
undefined.
I cannot believe that a developer conscio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106342
Ilya Leoshkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iii at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106470
--- Comment #5 from Vitaly Chikunov ---
I experimented with `_mm256_extract_epi16` too and loop liek this worked too:
```
# pragma GCC unroll 16
for (size_t i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
printf(" %04x", _mm256_extract_epi16(tmp,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106470
--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Chikunov ---
Andrew, thanks for the quick answer and example! I wish that warning was a bit
more enlightening, and in the first case it is not quietly compiles producing
incorrect code (which is only found by testing).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106470
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The other fix is to use _mm256_extract_epi16.
E.g.
inline unsigned short extract_epi16(__m256i v, int pos) {
switch(pos){
case 0: return _mm256_extract_epi16(v, 0);
case 1: return _mm25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106470
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The easiest way to fix this is to use GNU-C vectors like:
for (size_t i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
typedef __attribute__((vector_size(sizeof(__m256i)) )) uint16_t
myvector_t;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106470
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106470
Bug ID: 106470
Summary: Subscribed access to __m256i casted to (uint16_t *)
produces garbage or a warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105893
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105887
Bug 105887 depends on bug 105893, which changed state.
Bug 105893 Summary: RFE: -fanalyzer could check putenv calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105893
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105893
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:872693eebb6b88f4b6a2767727a9565d05172768
commit r13-1881-g872693eebb6b88f4b6a2767727a9565d05172768
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106469
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106469
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106469
Bug ID: 106469
Summary: Undefined behavior triggered on Mersenne Twister
engine due to unsigned integer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106468
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 53378
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53378&action=edit
DOS cannot find stdlib.h
Another thing is about dos
z:\home\cqwrteur\toolchains\x86_64-w64-mingw32\i586-msdosdjgpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106468
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> Created attachment 53377 [details]
> -v
hmhm. i just found out the issue. I did not link to -lntdll. the problem is
that when GCC runs in wine, some part of its command w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106468
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 53377
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53377&action=edit
-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-July/058023.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106468
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
And how sure are you this is not a wine issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-28
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106468
Bug ID: 106468
Summary: gcc does not run in wine
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101561
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105073
Bug 105073 depends on bug 104371, which changed state.
Bug 104371 Summary: [x86] Failure to use optimize pxor+pcmpeqb+pmovmskb+cmp
0x pattern to ptest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106453
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106399
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106467
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it wouldn't hurt to add it now that we have it ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iii at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #48 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Improved version posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/598993.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106467
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106467
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53375|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106463
--- Comment #4 from Gordon Lack ---
OK. Agreed.
It's in the C99 standard that signed integer overflow is undefined behaviour.
Thanks for the reply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106007
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Currently the taint analysis only has handling for numeric arguments being
bounds-checked.
How can string arguments transition to a "sanitized" state? Or are string
arguments always tainted once they've ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106007
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Similarly, putenv should check for tainted string args.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106466
tt_1 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
--- Comment #4 from tt_1 ---
fair enough, h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106466
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to tt_1 from comment #2)
> -O2 and -O3 are affected
>
> -O1 has a slightly different error, would you like me to adress this in
> another bug?
Just put the error message here and we will decide.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106466
tt_1 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
--- Comment #2 from tt_1 ---
-O2 and -O3 ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106465
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.1.0, 12.1.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106467
Bug ID: 106467
Summary: [OpenMP] Wrong code with collapse – tree sharing
issue.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101825
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Is this PR 100334? Please check 11.2
Ping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106466
--- Comment #1 from tt_1 ---
here is my gcc -v
LANG=C gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/10.4.0/lto-wrapper
Target: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
/var/tmp/po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106466
Bug ID: 106466
Summary: ICE in In function 'bool jxl_skcms_Parse(const void*,
size_t, skcms_ICCProfile*)': at skcms/skcms.cc:1004:6
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106453
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Any idea if the following is reasonable? It compiles and achieves the desired
result.
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index bdde577dd..d82656678 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101978
lewis pringle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lewis at sophists dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106297
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.1.0, 13.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106465
Bug ID: 106465
Summary: ICE for VLA in struct in parameter of nested function
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106422
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 53373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53373&action=edit
Untested patch
The important part is the change to tree-ssa-threadupdate.cc. The rest is just
making sure t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106422
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106297
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105893
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66290
--- Comment #5 from Lewis Hyatt ---
Patch submitted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/598989.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106448
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The C FE issue moved to PR106464.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106464
Bug ID: 106464
Summary: [OpenMP] atomic compare – gcc wrongly accepts
parenthesized expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106448
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106457
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106457
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff26f0ba68fe6e870f315d0601b596f889b89680
commit r13-1875-gff26f0ba68fe6e870f315d0601b596f889b89680
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100197
--- Comment #2 from Rajpal Singh ---
I also get similar error when one of the argument string is constant and I
believe it's related. I tried it with g++ 11.2
'int strncmp(const char*, const char*, size_t)' of strings of length 1 and 6
and boun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106463
--- Comment #2 from Gordon Lack ---
Compilation options:
gcc -O3 test.c -o test
(or -O1)
For gcc 4.4.7 it also needs -std=c99.
And I'll also note that the gcc10.2.1 was on an armv7l system, while the 7.4.0
was on an arm64 one.
It's also the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106463
--- Comment #1 from Gordon Lack ---
Sorry. The first line of test.c was missing in that cut&paste.
There's a missing:
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106463
Bug ID: 106463
Summary: Incorrect value for loop terminating test. for loop
runs when it should not.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104443
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
LWG3672 has been adopted, so no change is needed and this issue can be closed.
Although it might be more clear to use auto instead of decltype(auto).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106099
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f64eb636677d714781b4543f111b1c9239328db6
commit r13-1874-gf64eb636677d714781b4543f111b1c9239328db6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106449
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53362|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106449
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53369
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53369&action=edit
gcc13-pr106449-1.patch
Preparation patch to remove unnecessary fold_converts to sizetype.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100694
--- Comment #6 from HaoChen Gui ---
I made a patch to convert ashift to move when the second operand is const0_rtx.
With the patch, the expand dump is just like aarch64's. But the problem is
still there.
I tested the patch with SPECint. All the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100996
--- Comment #2 from HaoChen Gui ---
(In reply to acsawdey from comment #0)
> The fusion-p10-addadd.c test case does not get vector add-add fusion when
> compiling with -m32:
>
> /home/sawdey/work/gcc/trunk/build/gcc/xgcc
> -B/home/sawdey/work/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100996
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] glibc's |[12/13 Regression] glibc's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106457
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106462
--- Comment #1 from Yang Yujie ---
The relevant insn template is:
(define_insn "floatsisf2"
[(set (match_operand:SF 0 "register_operand" "=f")
(float:SF (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "f")))]
"TARGET_HARD_FLOAT"
"cvt.s.w\t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106422
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
port-bug dump
Hi,
compiling the following code with gcc 13.0.0 20220728
(mips64el-linux-gnuabi64):
extern void bar (float x, short y);
void foo (int argc)
{
short c = argc * 2;
float a = (float)(short)c, b = 9.5;
bar (b/a, c);
}
failed with:
mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-gcc fail.c -O1 -mabi=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102301
--- Comment #11 from Jiang An ---
I think the P2165R4 has clarifed that std::make_from_tuple etc. need to be
applicable to std::ranges::subrange. And a large part of LWG3690 becomes NAD in
C++23 - tuple-like utilities no longer touch std::varian
96 matches
Mail list logo
