https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101727
--- Comment #3 from zhan3299 at purdue dot edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Note, the documentation talks about it:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-11.2.0/gcc/Basic-Asm.html#Basic-Asm
> Under certain circumstances, GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101727
Bug ID: 101727
Summary: invalid symbol redefinition when -O2 enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99211
Bug ID: 99211
Summary: gcc fails on program which overrides __builtin_clzll
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99207
Bug ID: 99207
Summary: #pragma pack(1) and __int128 lead to bad optimization
under O2 and higher optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99168
--- Comment #4 from zhan3299 at purdue dot edu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Very interesting issue, the failure is caused by IPA ICF that merges 2
> variables with different alignments. I've got a patch candidate.
Hi, just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99198
Bug ID: 99198
Summary: when combinating nested function and
__builtin_call_with_static_chain, optimization
triggers an internal compiler error (verify_gimple)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99156
--- Comment #2 from zhan3299 at purdue dot edu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Yes, I can confirm the issue. Thanks for the report.
Many thanks for your prompt reply. Additionally, I have to give credit to
Richard Smith for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99168
--- Comment #1 from zhan3299 at purdue dot edu ---
If we resolved the conflicts on "aligned", it would behave normally. I feel
like the ASAN is confused by the "aligned" somehow.
Should it have thrown some warnings?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99168
Bug ID: 99168
Summary: inconsistent behavior on -O0 and -O2 with ASAN on
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99156
Bug ID: 99156
Summary: __builtin_expect affects the interpretation of its
first operand
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99015
--- Comment #1 from zhan3299 at purdue dot edu ---
It seems clang at any optimization level can compile this. GCC at -O0 can also
compile it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99015
Bug ID: 99015
Summary: ICE: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is
achieved (90)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98991
--- Comment #4 from zhan3299 at purdue dot edu ---
Seems '-fpermissive' is useless. I can reproduce the ICE simply via 'gcc
poc.cc'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98991
--- Comment #3 from zhan3299 at purdue dot edu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Is it a valid or invalid code, please?
Hi, sorry for the confusion. I used a simple delta debugging to reduce the
test-case, and it seems very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98993
Bug ID: 98993
Summary: Potential memory problem in GCC compiled with ASAN on
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98991
Bug ID: 98991
Summary: ICE: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is
achieved (90)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98972
--- Comment #3 from Zhuo Zhang ---
I reduced the test-case, and the simplest test-case should be:
--- crash1.cc starts ---
constexpr p([](register const signed struct s;
--- crash1.cc ends ---
The bug is also reproduced on the commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98972
--- Comment #2 from Zhuo Zhang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Thank you for the report. Actually, it's an invalid code and we do have a
> lot of error recovery ICEs.
> Or do you have an original test-case that is a valid C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98972
Bug ID: 98972
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault signal
terminated program cc1plus
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
19 matches
Mail list logo
