Status
==
We have reached zero P1 regressions and branched for the GCC 15
release. This leaves trunk which is to become GCC 16 next year
open for general development, Stage 1, again. Please refrain
from disrupting git master too much so that last-minute fixes
for GCC 15.1 can be staged there
We have branched for the GCC 15 release. All changes on the releases/gcc-15
branch require release manager approval now.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1 - 17
P2 580- 2
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 3:14 PM Julian Waters wrote:
>
> Thanks for the quick reply, I'll ask the people responsible for
> working on the Linux parts try to compile and link the codebase with
> -fno-use-linker-plugin to see what happens. It's a bit disheartening
> to hear that LTO support on Windo
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 12:17 AM Robert Dubner wrote:
>
> The COBOL compiler has this routine:
>
> void
> gg_exit(tree exit_code)
> {
> tree the_call =
> build_call_expr_loc(location_from_lineno(),
> builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT),
>
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:20 PM Julian Waters via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been trying to chase down an issue that's been driving me insane
> for a while now. It has to do with the flatten attribute being
> combined with LTO. I've heard that flatten and LTO are a match made in
> hell (Someo
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:35 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:06 PM Robert Dubner wrote:
> >
> > This program exhibits the behavior when compiled with -O2, -O3 and -OS
> >
> > PROGRAM-ID. PROG.
> > PROCEDUREDIVISION.
> > MOVE 1 TO RETURN-CO
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:06 PM Robert Dubner wrote:
>
> This program exhibits the behavior when compiled with -O2, -O3 and -OS
>
> PROGRAM-ID. PROG.
> PROCEDUREDIVISION.
> MOVE 1 TO RETURN-CODE
> STOP RUN.
Hmm, the call to exit() is still in the progra
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:37 AM Krister Walfridsson
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 2:23 AM Krister Walfridsson via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I have more questions about GIMPLE memory semantics for smtgcc.
> >>
> >> As before, each section starts wi
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 2:23 AM Krister Walfridsson via Gcc
wrote:
>
> I have more questions about GIMPLE memory semantics for smtgcc.
>
> As before, each section starts with a description of the semantics I've
> implemented (or plan to implement), followed by concrete questions if
> relevant. Let
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 12:04 AM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> In Nvidia PTX, "A state space is a storage area with particular
> characteristics. All variables reside in some state space. [...]".
> These include:
>
> .const Shared, read-only memory.
> .global Global memory, shared
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 9:15 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > You can see what -fuse-linker-plugin says, what gcc/auto-host.h contains
> > for HAVE_LTO_PLUGIN. I don't know whether the BFD linker (or mold)
> > supports linker plugins on windows. I do know that libiberty simple-object
> > does not s
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 2:38 PM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> Am 21.03.25 um 08:58 schrieb Richard Biener:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:05 PM Georg-Johann Lay via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> For avr, there is no support for shared objects, yet
> >> when building libgcc, for each module.o there is als
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 12:27 AM Krister Walfridsson
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >> Pointer arithmetic -- POINTER_DIFF_EXPR
> >> ---
> >> Subtracting a pointer q from a pointer p is done using POINTER_DIFF_EXPR.
> >> * It is UB if
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:05 PM Georg-Johann Lay via Gcc
wrote:
>
> For avr, there is no support for shared objects, yet
> when building libgcc, for each module.o there is also module_s.o
> that's build with -DSHARED.
>
> How can this be turned off?
>
> What doesn't word is to configure with --dis
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 2:05 AM Krister Walfridsson via Gcc
wrote:
>
> I'm working on ensuring that the GIMPLE semantics used by smtgcc are
> correct, and I have a lot of questions about the details. I'll be sending
> a series of emails with these questions. This first one is about pointers
> in g
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 4:49 PM Antoni Boucher via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi.
> We're trying to remove the duplication of the attributes code between
> the C and libgccjit frontend.
> The attached patch shows a draft of this attempt that only supports a
> few attributes.
> Would that kind of approach be a
> Am 15.03.2025 um 18:20 schrieb Robert Dubner :
>
>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jakub Jelinek
>> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2025 12:58
>> To: Robert Dubner ; 'GCC Mailing List'
>> ; 'James K. Lowden' ;
> 'Richard
>> Biener'
>> Subject: Re: COBOL test cases
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar
> Am 01.03.2025 um 15:24 schrieb Martin Uecker :
>
> Am Samstag, dem 01.03.2025 um 16:52 +0300 schrieb Alexander Monakov:
>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2025, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry for being a bit slow. This is still not clear to me.
>>>
>>> In vect/pr65206.c the following loop can
> Am 28.02.2025 um 20:02 schrieb Martin Uecker :
>
> Am Freitag, dem 28.02.2025 um 21:39 +0300 schrieb Alexander Monakov:
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I have one follow-up question: What is the reason
>>> that we have stronger semantics for stores by def
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 8:01 AM Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> one area where the Linux kernel people are unhappy with C's
> memory model is where they now have to use the READ_ONCE,
> WRITE_ONCE macros. These are cases where they do not want
> a compiler to duplicate a load, e.g. to relo
Status
==
The GCC development branch which will become GCC 15 is still in
stage4, open for regression and documentation fixes only. We've
been in this stage for 6 weeks now and are slowly progressing
towards a release.
Besides of tackling the remaining P1 bugs also have an eye on
the testsui
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 7:10 AM Dan via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I'm trying to compile for Texas Instruments (TI) C6000 Digital Signal
> Processor (DSP) using GCC. I'm aware that TI has its own compiler, but I
> want to use GCC.
>
> The documentation indicates that GCC has *some* support for C6x
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:30 PM wrote:
>
>
>
> “the interchanged loop might for example no longer vectorize.”
>
>
>
> The loops are not vectorized. Which is ok, because this device doesn’t have
> the support for it.
>
> I just don’t think a pass could single handedly make code slower that much.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 4:38 PM Visda.Vokhshoori--- via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Embench is used for benchmarking on embedded devices.
> This one project matmult-int has a function Multiply. It’s a matrix
> multiplication for 20 x 20 matrix.
> The device is a ATSAME70Q21B which is Cortex-M7
> The compiler
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 8:19 AM Andre Vehreschild wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I don't like the new keyword. Could we do "stdcomp" (for "standard compliant")
> or something like that? When a keyword allows a question mark, I would even
> add
> that, i.e.. like "stdcomp?". Or when we like to go with int
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 9:55 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025, 18:10 Thomas Koenig via Gcc, wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I sent https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-February/061670.html
>> to gcc-patches also, as normal, but got back an e-mail that it
>> was too large. and that
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:59 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:48:43AM +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:01 AM Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> > >
> > > With (probably) -Wmaybe-uninitialized and/or -Wextra, shou
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:01 AM Dmitry Antipov wrote:
>
> With (probably) -Wmaybe-uninitialized and/or -Wextra, shouldn't the compiler
> emit
> warning about possibly uninitialized 'y' passed to 'ddd()' in the example
> below?
>
> struct T {
>int a;
>int b;
> };
>
> extern int bbb (stru
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 4:35 PM Jennifer Schmitz via Gcc
wrote:
>
> We are working on improving codegen for the following test cases (for all
> integer types T):
>
> T foo (T x, T y)
> {
> T diff = x - y;
> return x > y ? diff : -diff;
> }
>
> T bar (T x, T y)
> {
> T diff1 = x - y;
> T d
Status
==
The GCC development branch which will become GCC 15 is now in
stage4, open for regression and documentation fixes only.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1 32 + 6
P2
> Am 27.12.2024 um 02:50 schrieb Trampas Stern via Gcc :
>
> I am doing embedded development on an arm cortex-m processor using
> arm-none-eabi-gcc. I have run into a bug where GDB is showing that the
> code executing is code from a function that is not used. The code is
> removed as it is n
> Am 30.11.2024 um 08:19 schrieb Mateusz Guzik via Gcc :
>
> Tested with gcc 14.2 and the Linux kernel compiling for amd64. This is
> at Linux next-20241127. This was already the case on gcc 13 (no idea
> about earlier versions), I tested 14 to see if the problem is gone.
>
> In the particula
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 1:32 PM Kamil Belter wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:58 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:56 AM Kamil Belter via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I would like to set branch prediction based on .gcda files (I know I
> > > cou
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:56 AM Kamil Belter via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to set branch prediction based on .gcda files (I know I
> could have it automatically with -fprofile-use, but with my specific
> use case I can't do it).
>
> I've tried to use gcov-dump but I can't find any sp
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:29 AM Georg-Johann Lay via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Consider the following RTL peephole from avr.md:
>
> (define_peephole2 ; avr.md:5387
>[(match_scratch:QI 3 "d")
> (parallel [(set (match_operand:ALL4 0 "register_operand" "")
> (ashift:AL
Status
==
The GCC development branch which will become GCC 15 is now in
stage3, open for general bugfixing.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1 26- 5
P2 636+ 15
P3
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:21 PM Toon Moene wrote:
>
> On 11/13/24 15:12, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:05 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello world,
> >>
> >> J3, the US Fortran standards committee, has passed
> >> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-179.txt
> >> whi
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:05 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> Hello world,
>
> J3, the US Fortran standards committee, has passed
> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-179.txt
> which states (with a bit of an overabundance of
> clarity) that, in Fortran, it is possible special-case
> complex multipli
On Sat, 2 Nov 2024, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: 29 October 2024 16:46
> > To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Cc: Richard Biener ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas
> > Schwinge ; Jakub Jelinek
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling SVE with offload
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 3:55 AM Anton Blanchard via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think gcc is relying on undefined behaviour with the vcompress instruction.
> Unfortunately my test case isn't reproducing on mainline, but gcc looks to
> use the fields between the last mask selected field and vl while s
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 1:52 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc
wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: 21 October 2024 12:45
> > To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas Schwinge ; Jakub
> > Jelinek
> > Subject: RE: [RFC] Enabling SVE with offloadi
> Am 26.10.2024 um 17:30 schrieb Iain Sandoe :
>
> Hi,
>
> The background here is that I made a trial implementation of P1494r4 -
> std::observable() - and want to produce testcases.
>
> —— so …..
>
> I am looking for either examples where GCC produces time-travel optimisation
> (or alter
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 9:48 PM David Brown via Gcc wrote:
>
> On 24/10/2024 16:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 at 15:00, Mateusz Guzik via Gcc wrote:
> >
> >> I understand the stock behavior of pilling variables on may happen to
> >> improve cache usage.
> >>
> >> Howe
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: 17 October 2024 19:18
> > To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas Schwinge
> > Subject: RE: [RFC] Enabling SVE with offloading to nvptx
> >
> > External email
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: 16 October 2024 13:05
> > To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thomas Schwinge
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling SVE with offloading to nvptx
> >
> > External email: Use
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:14 PM Joseph Myers via Gcc wrote:
>
> One issue that showed up as test failures with a default of -std=gnu23 is
> that -std=gnu23 -Wtraditional produces a "traditional C rejects ISO C
> style function definitions" warning for function definitions with empty
> parentheses,
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> Testing libgomp with SVE enabled (-mcpu=generic+sve2), results in ~60
> UNRESOLVED errors with following error message:
>
> lto1: fatal error: degree of 'poly_int' exceeds 'NUM_POLY_INT_COEFFS'
> compilation terminated.
> nvptx mkoffload: f
Status
==
The GCC development branch which will become GCC 15 is still
in stage1 but will transition to bugfixing stage3 mode beginning
Monday November 18th.
I have done a sweep over regressions not UNCONFIRMED or WAITING
or SUSPENDED and adjusted priorities away from P3 (no priority).
I woul
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 1:47 PM Sid Maxwell via Gcc wrote:
>
> I haven't found anything in my digging, so I'd like to ask if anyone knows
> of any mechanism in GCC for conducting peephole optimization on generated
> code. I can imagine doing this as a pass over the generated code from
> within the
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:54 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:13 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Am 01.10.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Matthias Kretz via Gcc :
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:54 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:13 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Am 01.10.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Matthias Kretz via Gcc :
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:13 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Am 01.10.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Matthias Kretz via Gcc :
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > the unit tests are my long-standing pain point of
> > > excessive compiler memory
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 01.10.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Matthias Kretz via Gcc :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > the unit tests are my long-standing pain point of
> > excessive compiler memory usage and compile times. I've always worked around
> > the memory usage probl
> Am 01.10.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Matthias Kretz via Gcc :
>
> Hi,
>
> the unit tests are my long-standing pain point of
> excessive compiler memory usage and compile times. I've always worked around
> the memory usage problem by splitting the test matrix into multiple
> translations (with di
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 6:50 PM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> (This is orthogonal to yesterday's
> "GCC 15: nvptx '-mptx=3.1' multilib variants are deprecated".)
>
> We'd like to raise nvptx code generation from PTX ISA 6.0, sm_30 "Kepler"
> to default PTX ISA 7.3, sm_52 "Maxwell", therefore
> Am 16.09.2024 um 14:45 schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
>
> On Mon, 16 Sept 2024 at 13:13, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 1:37 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Git supports signing commits with a GPG key, and more recently (since
>>> Git 2.34) also started
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 1:37 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> Git supports signing commits with a GPG key, and more recently (since
> Git 2.34) also started supporting signing with an SSH key. The latter
> is IMHO much easier to set up, because anybody who can push to the GCC
> repo already h
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 1:17 PM Ghorban M. Tavakoly via Gcc
wrote:
>
> >> Is there any change to have some LTO progress indicator information in
> upstream GCC output? Do I need to report a bug?
> Is there any chance ... (sorry for typo)
You can add -Q to the command line which makes GCC output s
> Am 07.09.2024 um 17:56 schrieb Jeff Law :
>
>
>
> On 9/7/24 1:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Am 06.09.2024 um 17:38 schrieb Andrew Carlotti :
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm working on optimising assignments to the AArch64 Floating-point Mode
>>> Register (FPMR), as part of our FP8 enablemen
> Am 07.09.2024 um 07:27 schrieb Jeremy Rifkin :
>
>
>>
>> This is why I said what is the a same file if you can't rely on inodes
>> working?
>
> I don't have a good answer for such a case. Of course, no matter how one
> approaches #pragma once there will be cases that aren't handled.
>
> Am 06.09.2024 um 17:38 schrieb Andrew Carlotti :
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on optimising assignments to the AArch64 Floating-point Mode
> Register (FPMR), as part of our FP8 enablement work. Claudio has already
> implemented FPMR as a hard register, with the intention that FP8 intrinsic
> fu
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 6:12 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
>
> On 8/25/24 03:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 6:19 PM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> >> Trying to use the value-range interface and functions I am running
> >> into that ICE when using invert().
> >>
> >> From what the
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 1:49 PM Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
>
> Hi GCC
>
> I wanted to report one or more bugs, unfortunately they are not consistently
> reproducable, which is odd. It happens when compiling the chromium part of
> qtwebengine after the update to gcc 14 and during development for
On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 6:19 PM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> Trying to use the value-range interface and functions I am running
> into that ICE when using invert().
>
> From what the sources suggest, invert() computes the complement of
> the current set (the union of finitely many intervals).
>
>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 1:46 PM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> Am 21.08.24 um 11:31 schrieb Richard Biener:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:19 AM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, in an RTL optimization pass I would like to
> >> perform a transformation like from old code:
> >>
> >> [bb 1]
>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:19 AM Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> Hi, in an RTL optimization pass I would like to
> perform a transformation like from old code:
>
>[bb 1]
>if (condA);; insn1
> goto label_1;
>
>[bb 2]
>if (cond_B) ;; insn2
> goto label_2;
>
> to new cod
On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 3:56 AM Amit Hiremath wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I want to add custom single precision floating point sine, cosine, exp
> instructions to risc-v gnu tool chain, and I have designed hardware for
> this. I was going through tutorials on how to add custom instructions at:
> https://
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:30 AM Sam James via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> This came out of some discussion with Arsen and prompted by some other
> comments on IRC.
>
> At the moment, during release time, maintainer-scripts/branch_changer.py
> is run by release managers and causes a large amount of bugma
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 8:12 PM Ilija Tovilo via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> I'm new here. I read the mailing list policy, but please correct me if
> I'm doing anything wrong.
>
> In our C codebase, we're using a fair amount of static inline
> __attribute__((always_inline)). This is arguably no
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 1:35 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 6:51 PM
> > To: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] Summary of libgomp failures for offloading to nvptx
> > from
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 11:46 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
>
> Since the RC I've fixed a few 14/15 C++ regressions with extremely safe
> patches, and wonder what you think about pushing them to the branch at this
> point:
>
> 115583, 115986, 115561
>
> Sorry these came so late.
Those are all f
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 3:36 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am working on enabling offloading to nvptx from AAarch64 host. As mentioned
> on wiki (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Offloading#Running_.27make_check.27),
> I ran make check-target-libgomp on AAarch64 host (and no GPU) with
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 9:59 AM Thor Preimesberger
wrote:
>
> Sure - we actually already emit json in optinfo-emit-json.cc, and there are
> implementations of json and pretty-printing/dumping it out also. I got a
> hacky version of our current raw dump working with json objects, but using
> th
The GNU Compiler Collection version 11.5 has been released.
GCC 11.5 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 11 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 11.4 with more than 157 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This is also the last release from the GCC 11 branch,
> Am 18.07.2024 um 16:20 schrieb Joern Wolfgang Rennecke
> :
>
> The tsvc tests take just too long on simulators, particularly if there is
> little or no vectorization of the test because of compiler limitations,
> target limitations, or the chosen options. Having
> 151 tests time out at a
> Am 15.07.2024 um 20:07 schrieb William Seurer via Gcc :
>
> On 7/12/24 7:47 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>> The first release candidate for GCC 11.5 is available from
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.5.0-RC-20240712/
>>
>> and shor
The first release candidate for GCC 11.5 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.5.0-RC-20240712/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
r11-11573-g30ffca55041518.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux.
Please test
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 4:42 AM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:14 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 10:58 AM Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew Pinski writes:
> > > > I need some help with the vector cost model for aarch64.
> > > > I am
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 10:58 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Andrew Pinski writes:
> > I need some help with the vector cost model for aarch64.
> > I am adding V2HI and V4QI mode support by emulating it using the
> > native V4HI/V8QI instructions (similarly to mmx as SSE is done). The
> > proble
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:26 PM Sid Maxwell via Gcc wrote:
>
> I have another gcc 4.3 question. I'm trying to find where in the code base
> the instrumentation for basic block coverage is done. I've tracked down
> where/how mcount() calls are generated, but I haven't even been able to
> determine
> Am 27.06.2024 um 19:43 schrieb Iain Sandoe :
>
>
>> On 27 Jun 2024, at 14:51, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>> If I declare a function __attribute__((noipa, optimize (“-O0”))), I was
>> kinda expecting that it would not be optimized at all ..
>>
>> however it does not seem to prevent functions
> Am 27.06.2024 um 20:55 schrieb Jason Merrill :
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:38 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
Am 27.06.2024 um 19:04 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc :
>>>
>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2434r1.html
>>> proposes to require that repeated unspec
> Am 27.06.2024 um 19:04 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc :
>
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2434r1.html
> proposes to require that repeated unspecified comparisons be
> self-consistent, which does not match current behavior in either GCC
> or Clang. The argument is
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 4:59 AM Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/25/24 8:44 PM, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
> > I am in the middle of improving the isolation path pass for shifts
> > with out of range operands.
> > There are 3 options we could do really:
> > 1) isolate the path to __builtin_u
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:36 AM Arsen Arsenović via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sam James via Gcc writes:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > This comes up in #gcc on IRC every so often, so finally
> > writing an RFC.
> >
> > What?
> > ---
> >
> > I propose that MAINTAINERS be modified to be of the form,
> > adding an
On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 12:02 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024, 20:41 Liviu Ionescu, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On 22 Jun 2024, at 22:02, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > >
> > >> GCC 12.4 was released two days ago, but I could not yet find the
> > release archive at https://ftp.gnu
Status
==
The gcc-11 branch nears its retirement with the last release from it,
GCC 11.5, on the horizon.
Please look through bugzilla and see which of your regression fixes
for GCC 12 are also applicable for the GCC 11 branch and do the
necessary backporting. Please error on the safe side s
Status
==
GCC 12.4 has been released and the branch is again open for regression
and documentation fixes.
Quality Data
Priority#Change from last report
------
P1 0
P2588- 31
P3 76- 1
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Montag, dem 17.06.2024 um 08:01 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener via Gcc:
> > On Sun, 16 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am trying to understand what check_qualified_type
> > >
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 09:14, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> >
> >
> > The first release candidate for GCC 12.4 is available from
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12.4.0-RC-20240613/
> >
&g
On Sun, 16 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
> I am trying to understand what check_qualified_type
> does exactly. The direct comparison of TYPE_NAMES seems incorrect
> for C and its use is c_update_type_canonical then causes
> PR114930 and PR115502. In the later function I think
> it is not r
The first release candidate for GCC 12.4 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12.4.0-RC-20240613/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
r12-10557-g6693b1f3929771.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux.
Please te
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 11:57 AM Hanke Zhang wrote:
>
> Richard Biener 于2024年5月24日周五 14:39写道：
> >
> > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 5:53 AM Hanke Zhang via Gcc wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I got a question about optimizing function pointers for direct
> > > function calls in C.
> > >
> > > Consider th
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 8:57 AM Hanke Zhang via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to study "Match and Simplify" recently, and I had this sample code:
>
> int main() {
> int n = 1000;
> int *a = malloc (sizeof(int) * n);
> int *b = malloc (sizeof(int) * n);
> int *c = malloc (sizeof(int) *
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 4:08 PM David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 6:22 AM FX Coudert via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I usually just install with install-no-fixedincludes, but really this
> > > should probably be a configure option and default to on.
> >
> > It would be g
> Am 05.06.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Michael Matz :
>
> Hey,
>
>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> The ideal here would be to have some way to tell gcc that a given
>> function has the semantics of a different function. For example, a
>> programmer might have several implementations
> Am 04.06.2024 um 16:56 schrieb Michael Matz :
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2024, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
>>>>> You have a pointer how to define a target optab? I looked into optabs
>>>>> code but found no appropriate hook. For
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:52 AM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Is there some sort of guarantee that the unused part of a partial vector has
> all bits set to zero?
>
> The question came up while implementing an insn for mode V2SF on s390
> where only half of the hard reg
> Am 01.06.2024 um 17:41 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay :
>
>
>
> Am 31.05.24 um 22:12 schrieb Richard Biener:
Am 31.05.2024 um 20:56 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 31.05.24 um 19:32 schrieb Richard Biener:
>> Am 31.05.2024 um 17:25 schrieb Paul Koning via Gcc :
>
> Am 31.05.2024 um 20:56 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay :
>
>
>
> Am 31.05.24 um 19:32 schrieb Richard Biener:
Am 31.05.2024 um 17:25 schrieb Paul Koning via Gcc :
>>>
>>>
>>>
On May 31, 2024, at 11:06 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Am 31.05.24 um 17:00 schrieb P
1 - 100 of 747 matches
Mail list logo
