https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106470
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
But that's the point of many warnings, isn't it? To help the user understand
what's wrong when the code is bad? And bogus warnings just confuse more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106473
Bug ID: 106473
Summary: -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive regression when
returning heap-allocation through nested pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-29
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106466
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
can't reproduce with a cross from x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106342
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106449
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97d32048c04e9787fccadc4bae1c042754503e34
commit r13-1887-g97d32048c04e9787fccadc4bae1c042754503e34
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106448
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2dcceedb3c121f2498ae58d8414e7b8454b7bf55
commit r13-1888-g2dcceedb3c121f2498ae58d8414e7b8454b7bf55
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-solaris2.11
Ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #4 from Petr Sumbera ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> There is dependencies = { module=all-target-libgo;
> on=all-target-libbacktrace; }
> in Makefile.def so there's sth fishy going on. Do you use GNU make?
Yes. G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106448
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106464
Bug 106464 depends on bug 106448, which changed state.
Bug 106448 Summary: [OpenMP] atomic compare – g++ wrongly accepts parenthesized
condition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106448
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106449
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far. Will backport later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106474
Bug ID: 106474
Summary: DCE depends on how if expressions are nested
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106399
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
This is an equivalent Ada testcase:
function Foo (A: Integer) return Integer is
function A2 return Integer is (A * A);
begin
return A2;
end;
with the same issue. We have been using the to-be-attache
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106399
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 53380
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53380&action=edit
Incomplete fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106422
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4894ba078692a780a461d2f358b5dfaa25719859
commit r13-1889-g4894ba078692a780a461d2f358b5dfaa25719859
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104443
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5f5d1b36edbcd7d923f2e2653e54e52637c715b
commit r13-1890-gb5f5d1b36edbcd7d923f2e2653e54e52637c715b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104443
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78081
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-09-16 00:00:00 |2022-7-29
--- Comment #6 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49ba4fdeb648c149fa7d964ba812084262c3d06f
commit r13-1891-g49ba4fdeb648c149fa7d964ba812084262c3d06f
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.0
Summary|[12/13 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106467
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
For completeness, the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/599041.html
was committed as
https://gcc.gnu.org/r13-1893-g85fe7e7dd1f1461b86d92a3a0c1bfd97a06efcc0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Seeing
Trying 21 -> 24:
21: r150:V4SI=vec_select(vec_concat(r146:V4SI,r141:V4SI),parallel)
REG_DEAD r146:V4SI
REG_DEAD r141:V4SI
24: {r151:SI=vec_select(r150:V4SI,parallel);clobber scrat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> Seeing
>
> Trying 21 -> 24:
>21: r150:V4SI=vec_select(vec_concat(r146:V4SI,r141:V4SI),parallel)
> REG_DEAD r146:V4SI
> REG_DEAD r141:V4SI
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106475
Bug ID: 106475
Summary: Loop vectorizer prevents vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
Giulio Benetti changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giulio.benetti@benettiengin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106073
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101839
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Honza?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
--- Comment #11 from Giulio Benetti ---
And it shows up on gcc 12.1.0 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106475
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The loop seems to be vectorized just fine? The issue is just that we need a
runtime alias check because of the variable stride and the fact that we need a
VF of two to fill up to 16 byte vectors:
.L5:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So dup or related to PR106032.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-07-28 4:12 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can you check trunk / the gcc 12 branch head?
Test fails in the same way with trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106476
Bug ID: 106476
Summary: ICE generating FOLD_EXTRACT_LAST
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106466
--- Comment #6 from tt_1 ---
works with:
gcc-10.3.0
gcc-10.3.1_p20211126
gcc-11.3.0
does not work with:
gcc-10.4.0
the segfault is sort of spurious, its an about 1/5 to 1/7 chance for me. Is
that something you can work with?
and indeed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105617
--- Comment #15 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> (In reply to Michael_S from comment #12)
> > On related note...
> > One of the historical good features of gcc relatively to other popular
> > compilers was absen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106007
Tim Lange changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tlange at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106475
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Müllner ---
Yes, you are right!
I haven't noticed that the longer sequence requires only half of the loop
iterations when compared to the shorter sequence.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105980
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 106475, which changed state.
Bug 106475 Summary: Loop vectorizer prevents vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106475
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106475
Christoph Müllner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-07-29 8:50 a.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
>
> --- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2022-07-28 4:12 a.m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106315
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Here is the testcase:
---
void
bar(int *indices, int max_iter, int *actual_indices,
int *iters_per_dim, int N_dims)
{
int iter = 0;
int sum_indices = 0;
int flag, k;
while (iter < max_iter) {
for (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99410
--- Comment #9 from Giulio Benetti ---
This bug shows up with gcc 11.3.0 and 12.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106477
Bug ID: 106477
Summary: With -fno-exception operator new(nothrow) aborts
instead of returning null
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106477
--- Comment #1 from Matthijs Kooijman ---
Created attachment 53382
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53382&action=edit
Testcase - main code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106477
--- Comment #2 from Matthijs Kooijman ---
Created attachment 53383
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53383&action=edit
Testcase - startup code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106477
--- Comment #3 from Matthijs Kooijman ---
Created attachment 53384
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53384&action=edit
Testcase - linker script for ATSAMD21G18 (Arduino zero)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
Matthijs Kooijman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijs at stdin dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106474
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> For the failing case we see
>
>:
> if (c_5(D) == s_6(D))
> goto ; [INV]
> else
> goto ; [INV]
>
>:
> if (c_5(D) != 0)
> goto ; [INV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106477
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-29
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106478
Bug ID: 106478
Summary: GCC rejects valid code involving partial
specialization of variable template
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106479
Bug ID: 106479
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/pr104308.c (test for warnings,
line 9)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106469
--- Comment #6 from Henry ---
> This sanitizer is stupid.
That is an unjust comment on great work from the LLVM team. An unsigned
overflow in user code is almost always a bug due to some oversight, there is no
denying that. Look at Arianne 5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106480
Bug ID: 106480
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-48.c pr102706 (test for
warnings, line 33)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105959
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build|powerpc64-linux-gnu,|powerpc64-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106469
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
"An unsigned overflow" does not exist.
That is the point here.
And that is why this sanitizer is bogus and should never be used.
And yes overflow wrapping is sometimes a bug in the code but if the code
depe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105980
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
We don't have available scratch registers in 32-bit mode for
x86_output_mi_thunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105980
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, shall we temporarily disable -mforce-indirect-call during the mi thunk
output?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105980
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> So, shall we temporarily disable -mforce-indirect-call during the mi thunk
> output?
Something like this
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried the patch on trunk and it fixed the failure. I am trying a full make
check there and with gcc 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106147
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106429
--- Comment #5 from Martin Vahi ---
Created attachment 53385
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53385&action=edit
Console Output of the Bash Version Related GCC Build Failure
...
gmake[1]: Entering directory
'/opt/andm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106429
--- Comment #6 from Martin Vahi ---
Created attachment 53386
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53386&action=edit
List of changes that allow temporary use of an alternative Bash binary.
Too old Bash version:
GNU bash, ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106429
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Vahi from comment #5)
> Created attachment 53385 [details]
This is a failure while "make clean".
And your patch does not even touch anything related to libgcc and "make clean".
So this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106429
--- Comment #8 from Martin Vahi ---
Thank You for the answers/replies.
As of 2022_07_30 I am not familiar with the GCC source code, nor do I know the
GCC build system, but as someone, who can do configure-make-make_install, I
have the following
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch causes a bunch of new failures:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/allocatable-dummy.f90 -Os execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/allocate-errors.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106429
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
It should be noted almost nobody does "make clean" really. Most just remove the
build directory instead.
Is there a reason why you build scripts are doing "make clean"?
zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20220729 (experimental) (GCC)
76 matches
Mail list logo
