[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-17 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-17 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #18 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7276a18aba41eed65c0cf535ae029e0ceeca6c77 commit r12-7686-g7276a18aba41eed65c0cf535ae029e0ceeca6c77 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-16 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- Unfortunately the #c15 patch regressed: +FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr80032.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) +FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr80032.C -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) +FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr80032.C -st

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-16 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 52633 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52633&action=edit gcc12-pr103984.patch

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 52632 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52632&action=edit gcc12-pr103984.patch Full untested patch.

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- Wonder about: --- gcc/gimplify.cc.jj 2022-03-04 15:14:53.197812540 +0100 +++ gcc/gimplify.cc 2022-03-15 17:44:45.110734179 +0100 @@ -6997,8 +6997,6 @@ gimplify_target_expr (tree *expr_p, gimp if (i

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- What the gimplifier sees is: unit-size align:64 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canonical-type 0x7fffe8f0bd20 fields addressable used public external autoin

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- In particular, in ehcleanup1 it is the sink_clobbers optimization added for PR51117. I think it would be strongly preferrable to fix this in the FE, because if we'd need to change sink_clobbers, I'd be afra

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- And it is ehcleanup that sinks the clobber. Before ehcleanup1 we have: ;; basic block 16, loop depth 0, maybe hot ;;prev block 15, next block 17, flags: (NEW, REACHABLE, VISITED) ;;pred: 15

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- What the C++ FE emits looks just weird to me. In the gimple dump: [pr103984.C:35:1] D.31524.name = string_piece::str ([pr103984.C:35:1] &arg); [return slot optimization] [pr

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

2022-03-01 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad66b03b3c84786e73e73f09be19977b8f3c4ea3 commit r12-7434-gad66b03b3c84786e73e73f09be19977b8f3c4ea3 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329

2022-03-01 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --- Note I have a different test-case from benchmark package that show the same: $ cat benchmark.ii namespace std { inline namespace __cxx11 {} struct __new_allocator { void deallocate(char *, long) { operator

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329

2022-01-26 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Component|c++