https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a602ce3f4c95648c0c48d3f26fc52f69d012505
commit r16-1771-g9a602ce3f4c95648c0c48d3f26fc52f69d012505
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat Jun 28 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for GCC 16 so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
-march=x86-64-v3 fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||71761
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> But I have a patch for the tree part which detects the tail call.
And it also detects the tail recusion too. So at least I could submit it
seperately for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
-march=x86-64-v4 also failed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120872
Bug ID: 120872
Summary: Dovecot test-json-istream test miscompiled with
-ftrivial-auto-var-init={zero,pattern}
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120872
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
The original has:
```
static inline ATTR_PURE const unsigned char *
json_node_get_data(const struct json_node *jnode, size_t *size_r)
{
const char *literal;
switch (jnode->type) {
case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120872
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Does it fail without --with-tail-call-interp?
No, works then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120753
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Schulz ---
oh that last comment should have been made in another bug about an internal
compiler error. Sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120714
--- Comment #3 from Alexey Merzlyakov ---
I've checked the patch from the above suggested link. Unfortunately, it does
not work for the reported in this ticket test-case: GDB is missing to get into
goo() breakpoint.
I also tested it on the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120868
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120868
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120868
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||55004
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61759
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61759&action=edit
Patch which is in testing but needs testcases
This only fixes the tree level part; there is a middle-end part
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #23 from Holger Hoffstätte ---
(In reply to Holger Hoffstätte from comment #22)
> Created attachment 61758 [details]
> Readable reproducer for debugging
>
> Slightly more reduced, no need for the join business.
..and not for the fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117203
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:620a40fa8843dd7f80547bbd63549abc8bbe9521
commit r16-1767-g620a40fa8843dd7f80547bbd63549abc8bbe9521
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120869
Karthik Nishanth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
3 bootstrap-lto'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 16.0.0 20250629 (experimental)
8dcb922452516ebbf362e7c202b48d8ef547edce (Gentoo Hardened 16.0. p, commit
ae7d2c2f05513ca58a1f4cf98220fd8710fd354c)
```
and with
https://inbox.source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120860
--- Comment #4 from Bruno Haible ---
> Attribute on the fields marking them as optional seems like a better option
I tend to agree: In most cases, we can distinguish "required" from "optional"
fields. With the attribute on the field, the warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120865
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Options were:
-O1 -fopenmp -foffload=nvptx-none -fno-stack-protector -Wall
Note that without -O i get the following:
(i.e. without optimization, the program terminates ordinarily...)
Ordinary matri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120865
Bug ID: 120865
Summary: gimple-expr.cc:484
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120865
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Created attachment 61752
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61752&action=edit
cmakelists.txt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120865
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Created attachment 61751
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61751&action=edit
mein_omp.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120753
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Created attachment 61753
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61753&action=edit
mdspan_omp.h
mdspan_omp.h with the change in the #pragma omp target teams loop to the
#pragma omp target tea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120865
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Schulz ---
Note that also the values in the last computation are wrong.
I can, however, make them correct by writing
#pragma omp target parallel for device(devicenum)
or
#pragma omp target teams distribute para
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120865
Benjamin Schulz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61750|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kndevl at outlook dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97640
Bug 97640 depends on bug 119493, which changed state.
Bug 119493 Summary: [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] missing tail call to self with
struct in some cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119493
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
Bug ID: 120870
Summary: CPython without GIL ("free-threaded") miscompiled with
preserve_none and PGO
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103720
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120868
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Trying to reduce it ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note clang rejects musttail here:
```
tail call requires that the return value, all parameters, and any temporaries
created by the expression are trivially destructible
```
:)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
I am looking at another miscompilation first (unrelated to shrink-wrapping or
tail calls or ...) so not poking further at least right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
--- Comment #1 from rockeet ---
If delete `~Slice;`, g++ & clang recognize the tail call, but icc fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
Bug ID: 120871
Summary: missing tail call optimization on RVO
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120869
Bug ID: 120869
Summary: gcc does not eliminate short-circuiting tail calls
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120527
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In repl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> > ```
> > $ git clone https://github.com/python/cpython
> > $ git rev-parse HEAD
> > 698bab5a4031c8f54e04e1dd42bcbe3e4564eba5
> > $
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120866
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120871
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
A simple tail recusion case:
```
struct Slice {
const char* data;
unsigned long size;
~Slice();
};
Slice get_s_impl();
Slice get_s(bool t)
{
if (!t)
return get_s(!t);
return {};
}
```
Wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120870
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Ah, sorry for missing it. With my usual setup, only --disable-gil failed (with
more options), so I started with a bad assumption.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120866
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Huh, it's really a trunk regression? I can't yet think of which change would've
done this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120866
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 Regression] pdp11-aout |[16 Regression] pdp11-aout,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120866
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 29.06.2025 um 02:08 schrieb sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
>
> --- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
> FWIW, it fails with -fno-stric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #17 from Holger Hoffstätte ---
Created attachment 61755
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61755&action=edit
Readable reproducer for debugging
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #16)
> Does -fno-lifetime-d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #18 from Holger Hoffstätte ---
Furthermore, using an explicit std::move to the first test like this:
auto joined = expected.join(u'.');
auto tok = qTokenize(std::move(joined), QLatin1Char('.'),
Qt::CaseSensitive, Qt::SkipEmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #19 from Holger Hoffstätte ---
(In reply to Holger Hoffstätte from comment #18)
> Consequently the problematic second test (testNotOK) can be "fixed" by:
>
> auto tok = qTokenize(std::move(expected.join(u'.')), QLatin1Char('.'),
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120868
Bug ID: 120868
Summary: "unexpected AST of kind switch_expr" in constexpr
template function
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120866
Bug ID: 120866
Summary: [16 Regression] pdp11-aout crosscompiler fails to
build
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120866
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||118904
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Sch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120866
--- Comment #3 from Filip Kastl ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> Huh, it's really a trunk regression? I can't yet think of which change
> would've done this.
It seems to be. I've just tested this with trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120868
--- Comment #1 from Steve Downey ---
Created attachment 61756
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61756&action=edit
-freport-bug preprocessed output -- gzipped for size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120527
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh nice, there's an official, documented API for it now:
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/os/os_sync_wait_on_address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120858
--- Comment #5 from Simon H. ---
Created attachment 61757
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61757&action=edit
Source code confirming equivalent behaviour for four different variants.
As well as the generic clmul optimisation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119905
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Needs to be also handled with ALLOCATE clause, cf. PR113436, see also PR95506
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113436
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch by Kwok: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/687685.html
Follow up for allocatables,see PR119905.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77684
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
*** Bug 86404 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86404
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120608
--- Comment #21 from Carlos Galvez ---
> Why are you using the attribute at -O0?
We typically run our sanitizer builds at -O0 to ensure no UB is optimized away
before the sanitizer gets a chance to detect it. Is there a more suitable
optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77684
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||120867
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66229
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120867
Bug ID: 120867
Summary: [metabug] AutoFDO issues
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120867
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120614
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-29
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120229
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||120867
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120527
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://github.com/llvm/llv |https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120527
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #20 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Holger Hoffstätte from comment #17)
> I also get the impression that small.cxx now demonstrates a different
> problem than before, but that might just be fallout from what I'm about to
> show; t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #21 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Holger Hoffstätte from comment #18)
> results in *both* tests using HaystackPinning and working as expected -
> though in the second case that might be accidental state reuse, which is
> also conce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
Holger Hoffstätte changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61755|0 |1
is obsolete|
82 matches
Mail list logo
