[Bug c++/67064] New: Register asm variable broken

[Bug c++/67064] New: Register asm variable broken

[sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

            Bug ID: 67064
           Summary: Register asm variable broken
           Product: gcc
           Version: 6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de
  Target Milestone: ---

The following test case fails on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, powerpc-rtems,
sparc-rtems:

struct s {
  int i;
};

register struct s *reg __asm__( "1" );

int f(void)
{
  int i;

  i = reg->i;
  i = (reg)->i;

  return i;
}

Yields:

prreg.cc:5:20: warning: call-clobbered register used for global register
variable
 register struct s *reg __asm__( "1" );
                    ^
prreg.cc: In function ‘int f()’:
prreg.cc:12:8: error: address of explicit register variable ‘reg’ requested
   i = (reg)->i;
        ^

Please note, that the line 11 "i = reg->i;" works.
>From gcc-bugs-return-493722-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Jul 30 06:44:21 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-493722-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28553 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2015 06:44:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28406 invoked by uid 48); 30 Jul 2015 06:44:17 -0000
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:44:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-67064-4-9eED7YfZKU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-67064-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-67064-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg02612.txt.bz2
Content-length: 224

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idg064

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
C++11 rules about (x) have changed.  If you use -std=gnu++98 you would get the
same behavior as before.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de> ---
Indeed -std=gnu++98 gets rid of this error.  So this is working as intended for
C++11 and later?  This is really nice in combination with defines and macros
that use ( ) around its content.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #2)
> Indeed -std=gnu++98 gets rid of this error.  So this is working as intended
> for C++11 and later?  This is really nice in combination with defines and
> macros that use ( ) around its content.


>From http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/decltype :

Note that if the name of an object is parenthesised, it becomes an lvalue
expression, thus decltype(arg) and decltype((arg)) are often different types.


Now I don't know the exact rules for lvalue expression so I don't know if it is
working the correct way or not.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[hannes_weisbach at gmx dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

hannes_weisbach at gmx dot net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hannes_weisbach at gmx dot net

--- Comment #4 from hannes_weisbach at gmx dot net ---
Hi,

I've read the bug report and dug into the standards. This is my understanding
of the issue(s):

Quoting N3337 and N3797 (C++11 & 14 Standard Drafts) §7.1.1/2 (dcl.stc):
"The register specifier shall be applied only to names of variables declared in
a block (6.3) or to function parameters (8.4)."

So gcc should reject the declaration of 'reg' outright, since it is not
declared inside a block and 'reg' is not a function parameter.

If 'reg' would be properly declared, namely in block scope, the note (though
non-normative) in §7.1.1/3 (dcl.stc) is interesting:
"The hint can be ignored and in most implementations it will be ignored if the
address of the variable is taken." (Which is the case by enclosing it in
braces, see below.)

As for the type of '(expression)' §5.1.1/6 (expr.prim.general) says:
"A parenthesized expression is a primary expression whose type and value are
identical to those of the enclosed expression. The presence of parentheses does
not affect whether the expression is an lvalue. The parenthesized expression
can be used in exactly the same contexts as those where the enclosed expression
can be used, and with the same meaning, except as otherwise indicated."

So clearly, parenthesis should not change the type, but both clang (Apple LLVM
version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53)) and gcc (gcc version 5.1.0 (Homebrew gcc
5.1.0)) do. Given the declaration of 'struct s' from the example, and a
definition of 'struct s * reg;' (to avoid the register thing) the type of 'reg'
is 's*', but the type of '(reg)' is 's*&'. Since now there is a reference to
'reg', its address has been taken.

OTOH, §7.1.6.2/4 says that, if e is an parenthesized expression with type T,
decltype(e) is T&. I would expect the type of 'reg' being different from
'(reg)' only in a decltype-specifier and not otherwise.

Maybe someone can explain why the decltype-rule for (the type of) parenthesized
expression is applicable without the decltype-specifier there. I hope the
language-lawyering brought at least some clarity.
>From gcc-bugs-return-493754-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Jul 30 14:39:10 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-493754-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 126721 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2015 14:39:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 126658 invoked by uid 48); 30 Jul 2015 14:39:07 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/66917] [4.9/5/6 regression] ARM: NEON: memcpy compiles to vst1 with incorrect alignment due to SRA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:39:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: major
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status assigned_to
Message-ID: <bug-66917-4-wSASkOw1PO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66917-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66917-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg02644.txt.bz2
Content-length: 456

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idf917

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Mine.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |daniel.gutson@tallertechnol
                   |                            |ogies.com

--- Comment #5 from Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com> ---
FWIW, g++ 4.8.4 and clang 3.5 do not complain in the following code:

struct s {
  int i;
};

//register struct s *reg __asm__( "1" );
s* reg;

int f(void)
{
  int i;

  i = reg->i;
  i = (reg)->i;

  return i;
}

As from the same paragraphs of the standard, I don't think that a adding
parenthesis should alter the "valueness type" outside a decltype, meaning that
this could be an error lately introduced. I'll ask for a Committee member help
here.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #6 from Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com> ---
Please discard my previous comment, I read too fast.
I'll do some debugging and get back with some analysis.
It seems that cxx_mark_addressable() is wrongly called.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[jens.maurer at gmx dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #8 from Jens Maurer <jens.maurer at gmx dot net> ---
In general, "x" and "(x)" have the same meaning as per 5.1.1p6.

There are a few (spelled-out) exceptions, though.

One exception is inside a decltype-specifier, where decltype(e) is different
from decltype((e)) as per 7.1.6.2p4.

(Another exception is the fact that  (f)(y)  suppresses argument-dependent
lookup for "f" as per 3.4.2p1.  And then, if "f" is a function-like macro, it
doesn't get expanded for (f)(y).)


Considering the issue in this ticket, and ignoring the fact that "reg" should
be a block-scope variable, "reg" is the name of a variable and therefore an
lvalue.  However, being an lvalue doesn't mean its address is "taken". 
"reg->i" is equivalent to "(reg)->i"; in both cases, the lvalue-to-rvalue
conversion is applied to "reg" to determine its pointer value (see 5.3.1p1).

In short, using "decltype" to inspect the type of an expression might be
misleading if you don't consider the special case in 7.1.6.2p4.

May I venture a guess that the gcc implementation somehow lets the decltype
special case bleed into general expression analysis?

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #9 from Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com> ---
Thanks Ville and Jens for looking into this.
I'll be able to fix this during next week, so if nobody is available to solve
this sooner, then please assign it to me.

Regarding the global register variables, it's a GNU C extension (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Explicit-Reg-Vars.html), but I think it
should be rejected when compiling in strict mode (e.g. -ansi or -std=c++14). I
think this should be filed as a separate issue.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #9)
> Regarding the global register variables, it's a GNU C extension (see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Explicit-Reg-Vars.html), but I think it
> should be rejected when compiling in strict mode (e.g. -ansi or -std=c++14).
> I think this should be filed as a separate issue.

Those flags only disable extensions that interfere with well-formed code.  To
reject extensions, you want the -Werror=pedantic flag.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #11 from Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com> ---
or simply -pedantic/-pedantic-errors :)

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #12 from Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com> ---
I tried them all, and none of those flags reject a global variable declared as
register. I still think a separate issue should be filed.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #13 from Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com> ---
It is correct that currently none of the pedantic-flags diagnose the use of
this extension; perhaps that should be fixed while fixing this bug...

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #13)
> It is correct that currently none of the pedantic-flags diagnose the use of
> this extension; perhaps that should be fixed while fixing this bug...

     '-Wpedantic' does not cause warning messages for use of the
     alternate keywords whose names begin and end with '__'.  Pedantic
     warnings are also disabled in the expression that follows
     '__extension__'.  However, only system header files should use
     these escape routes; application programs should avoid them.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #15 from Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #14)
> (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #13)
> > It is correct that currently none of the pedantic-flags diagnose the use of
> > this extension; perhaps that should be fixed while fixing this bug...
> 
>      '-Wpedantic' does not cause warning messages for use of the
>      alternate keywords whose names begin and end with '__'.  Pedantic
>      warnings are also disabled in the expression that follows
>      '__extension__'.  However, only system header files should use
>      these escape routes; application programs should avoid them.

Do you refer to the __asm__? If not, do you think this is a bug too or not?

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[jens.maurer at gmx dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #16 from Jens Maurer <jens.maurer at gmx dot net> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #14)
>      '-Wpedantic' does not cause warning messages for use of the
>      alternate keywords whose names begin and end with '__'.  Pedantic
>      warnings are also disabled in the expression that follows
>      '__extension__'.  However, only system header files should use
>      these escape routes; application programs should avoid them.

Agreed, but this:

struct s {
  int i;
};
register struct s *reg asm( "si" );

(note: no double underscores) should issue a diagnostic for violating 7.1.1p2
when invoking

> g++ -std=c++14 -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic -c reg-asm.cc 

right?  It doesn't.  Total silence.


Leaving off the "asm" part gives

reg-asm.cc:6:20: error: register name not specified for 'reg'
 register struct s *reg;

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #14)
> >      '-Wpedantic' does not cause warning messages for use of the
> >      alternate keywords whose names begin and end with '__'.
> 
> Do you refer to the __asm__?

Yes.  I don't think we should warn about __asm__ either by default or with
-pedantic, though perhaps there should be an even-more-pedantic mode that
complains about __keywords__ outside system headers.

For the original bug, I think force_paren_expr needs to ignore
DECL_HARD_REGISTER variables.

(In reply to Jens Maurer from comment #16)
> Agreed, but this:
> 
> struct s {
>   int i;
> };
> register struct s *reg asm( "si" );
> 
> (note: no double underscores) should issue a diagnostic for violating
> 7.1.1p2 when invoking
> 
> > g++ -std=c++14 -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic -c reg-asm.cc 
> 
> right?  It doesn't.  Total silence.

Yes, that should give a pedwarn.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #18 from Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com> ---
I created https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67105

to treat that bug separately.

67064 (this bug) interferes with RTEMS in real life thus has a much higher
priority, so I will address this bug first.
Please assign this to me. Thanks.

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[manu at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #18)
> Please assign this to me. Thanks.

You need to login with your @gcc.gnu.org account to be able to assign bugs (and
do other Bugzilla operations).
>From gcc-bugs-return-493991-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Aug 03 19:03:47 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-493991-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 92038 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2015 19:03:47 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 91834 invoked by uid 48); 3 Aug 2015 19:03:43 -0000
From: "daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:03:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-67064-4-1Qmy89JGUQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-67064-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-67064-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00133.txt.bz2
Content-length: 686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #20 from Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com> ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> (In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #18)
> > Please assign this to me. Thanks.
> 
> You need to login with your @gcc.gnu.org account to be able to assign bugs
> (and do other Bugzilla operations).

I don't have a @gcc.gnu.org account. Should I simply send the attachment?
Otherwise please assign this to me for me if it is still possible. FWIW, I've
been listed in the MAINTAINER list in the past while working for CodeSourcery
but my name no longer is in that list.
>From gcc-bugs-return-493992-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Aug 03 19:08:32 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-493992-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 99668 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2015 19:08:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 99212 invoked by uid 48); 3 Aug 2015 19:08:25 -0000
From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/66079] [6 Regression] memory leak with source allocation in internal subprogram
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:08:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-66079-4-wgcU6Ewn3c@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66079-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66079-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2
Content-length: 936

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idf079

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #8)
> Created attachment 36113 [details]
> Patch for th 5 branch
>
> Before closing this PR, I checked and found that the 5 branch now leaks
> memory.
>
> The attached fixes the memory leak but does not fix the ICEs for which the
> tests have been commented out. There is already too much divergence in
> trans_allocate between 5 and 6 to do any more.
>
> What do you think about applying this patch, which bootstraps and regtests?
>

I think that it would be fine to apply the patch (as you already have
done the backport of a patch and tested it).

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #21 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #20)
> I don't have a @gcc.gnu.org account. Should I simply send the attachment?

Sure.

> Otherwise please assign this to me for me if it is still possible.

Done.

> FWIW, I've been listed in the MAINTAINER list in the past while working for
> CodeSourcery but my name no longer is in that list.

Hmm, how were you in that list without a gcc.gnu.org account?

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #22 from Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #21)
> (In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #20)
> > I don't have a @gcc.gnu.org account. Should I simply send the attachment?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > Otherwise please assign this to me for me if it is still possible.
> 
> Done.

Thanks.

> 
> > FWIW, I've been listed in the MAINTAINER list in the past while working for
> > CodeSourcery but my name no longer is in that list.
> 
> Hmm, how were you in that list without a gcc.gnu.org account?

I don't know/remember (maybe I did have such account? Where can I check that?)
It was 2008/2009 where I mostly fixed backend erratas. In any case, how can
apply for one? (Sorry for the spam to the other CC'ed people, I will continue
this by private mailing).

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #23 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #22)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #21)
> > (In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #20)
> > > FWIW, I've been listed in the MAINTAINER list in the past while working for
> > > CodeSourcery but my name no longer is in that list.
> > 
> > Hmm, how were you in that list without a gcc.gnu.org account?
> 
> I don't know/remember (maybe I did have such account? Where can I check
> that?) It was 2008/2009 where I mostly fixed backend erratas.

I don't see you in /etc/passwd, so you don't seem to have one currently.

> In any case, how can apply for one?

https://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[andres.tiraboschi at tallertechnologies dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #27 from Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi <andres.tiraboschi at tallertechnologies dot com> ---
I forgot to say that the patch is for gcc 5.2
>From gcc-bugs-return-497340-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Sep 16 14:26:42 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-497340-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 89576 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2015 14:26:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 89521 invoked by uid 55); 16 Sep 2015 14:26:37 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/67271] [5/6 Regression] ICE with -O1,2,3 on darwin14.5 x86_64
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:26:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-67271-4-hZSkKJrmEv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-67271-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-67271-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg01318.txt.bz2
Content-length: 593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idg271

--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 16 14:26:04 2015
New Revision: 227825

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev"7825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-16  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>

        PR middle-end/67271
        * fold-const.c (native_encode_expr): Bail out on bogus offsets.

        * gcc.dg/pr67271.c: New testcase.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr67271.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fold-const.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[manu at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi from comment #26)
> Hi, I've read the bug report and I've made a patch in order to fix it.
> I've ran all the gcc tests and I have only one fail, but that fail is also
> present in the original gcc. Anyway I've attached the test that fails.

Great! However, patches need to go to gcc-patches@

See:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted#Basics:_Contributing_to_GCC_in_10_easy_steps
>From gcc-bugs-return-497350-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Sep 16 16:08:44 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-497350-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8511 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2015 16:08:44 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8474 invoked by uid 48); 16 Sep 2015 16:08:40 -0000
From: "mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/64249] Missing warning for if (A) else if (A)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:08:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64249-4-eyqAcVGZmk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64249-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64249-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg01328.txt.bz2
Content-length: 178

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd249

--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg01200.html

[Bug c++/67064] Register asm variable broken

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064

--- Comment #29 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 20 06:49:13 2015
New Revision: 229021

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
        PR c++/67064

        * semantics.c (force_paren_expr): Don't mess with hard register vars.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/parens3.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/semantics.c