https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102494
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
After supporting v4hi reduce, gimple seems not optimal to convert v8qi to v8hi.
6 vector(4) short int vect__21.36;
7 vector(4) unsigned short vect__2.31;
8 int16_t stmp_r_17.17;
9 vector(8) short int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102500
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102509
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the difference between -O2 and -O3 that matters here is -ftree-vectorize but
it is not the vectorizer that is making the difference but rather ch_vect.
But I can't figure out what is going wrong.
Also ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is one which aborts and shows the issue:
char arr_15 [8];
__attribute__((noipa))
void test(signed char a, unsigned short b, unsigned long long c,
unsigned short f) {
for (int d = b - 8; d <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC produces incorrect code |[12 Regression] GCC
|
nfigure --enable-multilib
--prefix=/testing/gcc/bin --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210927 (51018dd1395c72b3681ae5f84eceb94320472922) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #13)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > > Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes
> > before and after.
>
> Assembly codes is the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes
> before and after.
Assembly codes is the same, but DSB coverage drop down. before my commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102510
Bug ID: 102510
Summary: Function call has unnecessary aliasing check
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48784
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > A regression since GCC 3.2 (r0-47863-g881b2a9652748ad).
>
> Always reproducible with GCC 5. But with GCC 4.7 t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> A regression since GCC 3.2 (r0-47863-g881b2a9652748ad).
Always reproducible with GCC 5. But with GCC 4.7 to 4.9, it seems that one
needs -O1 to get fldpi gene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59602
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25755
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> There are no tests using clang.
okay. i will report if I still see any issues with clang after the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There are no tests using clang.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #1)
> noexcept is missing for begin() end(). That leads to problem that breaks
> clang.
>
> I manually modify the header file and it works.
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102509
Bug ID: 102509
Summary: [12 regression] new test case
gcc.c-torture/compile/attr-complex-method.c is
unresolved after r12-3901
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97911
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Luke Dalessandro from comment #10)
> I'm seeing this wtih gcc-11.2 on an x86_64-pc-linux-gnu system (RHEL 8.4)
> installed using spack. What is the right way for me to find out if this is
> an a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97911
Luke Dalessandro changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldalessandro at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||3.2
Summary|Long double cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102107
Paul Clarke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101051
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here are the testcases all together:
template
class Foo
{
constexpr operator T() -> T {}
};
struct S {
operator int() const -> double;
};
class A { operator auto*() -> int; };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101051
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #4 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101051
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaron at aaronballman dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101209
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101209
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.5 |10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102428
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102508
Bug ID: 102508
Summary: ICE on coroutine when awaiting inside a statement
expression (in transform_local_var_uses, at
cp/coroutines.cc:2102)
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102466
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102458
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
A tentative patch which fixes the remaining issue is posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-September/056584.html
in the hope to learn more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.2.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98935
--- Comment #1 from Yves Delley ---
The provided fail-case seems to compile fine on godbolt.org 10.2, but started
to ICE with 10.3, as well as 11.1 and 11.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102507
Indu Bhagat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-27
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Why do you think it is a bug?
>
> Because there were other bugs which were fixed where there was an
> inconsiste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102507
Bug ID: 102507
Summary: ICE in btf_finalize when compiling with -gbtf
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102504
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Why do you think it is a bug?
Because there were other bugs which were fixed where there was an
inconsistency, PR 66618, and PR 71983 for an example. There are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68764
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102479
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51018dd1395c72b3681ae5f84eceb94320472922
commit r12-3906-g51018dd1395c72b3681ae5f84eceb94320472922
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102506
Bug ID: 102506
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in splice_late_return_type,
at cp/pt.c:29946
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
--- Comment #3 from Fangrui Song ---
OK, Andrew asked me to file it :)
I just wanted to fix glibc and run away from the GCC inconsistency.
I know that
https://www.iso-9899.info/n1570.html#6.6 p10 says
"An implementation may accept other forms o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102504
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102505
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
$ cat z2.cc
struct A
{
A(): i(42) { }
int i;
int f() { return i; }
};
struct D : A { long double pad; };
struct B : virtual D
{
int j = i + f();
int k = A::i + A::f();
};
struct C: B { int pad;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102505
Bug ID: 102505
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in verify_sra_access_forest,
at tree-sra.c:2368
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102504
Bug ID: 102504
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in build_outer_var_ref, at
omp-low.c:746
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102503
Bug ID: 102503
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_bound, at
fortran/trans-types.c:1224
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102454
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/580328.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99909
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101269
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Indu Bhagat from comment #20)
> Commit https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f007a638a86e4b59bef0a0d8efa5bb8c5e5b200a added
> support for targets to opt out of CTF/BTF support.
I think that from the Darwin pers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
--- Comment #20 from Indu Bhagat ---
Commit https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f007a638a86e4b59bef0a0d8efa5bb8c5e5b200a added
support for targets to opt out of CTF/BTF support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why do you think it is a bug?
This is not valid C11 code, and as an extension gcc when optimizations enabled
in some cases will accept in constant expressions even something that it
doesn't have to.
With -pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86689
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Some combination of SFINAE, |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101269
Indu Bhagat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102454
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502
Bug ID: 102502
Summary: C11: _Static_assert disallows const int operand in -O0
while allows it in higher -O
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #24)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #23)
> > so fixed on master, but needed on the open branches - so leaving the PR open
> > for now.
>
> Iain, a query: Is t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102501
Bug ID: 102501
Summary: [12 regression] several test case failures after
r12-3876
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #24 from Matt Thompson ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #23)
> so fixed on master, but needed on the open branches - so leaving the PR open
> for now.
Iain, a query: Is the `--without-build-config` flag still needed for XCo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32562
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 51512 [details]
> gcc12-pr102498.patch
I could test that this fixes the issue on my testcase at Comment 1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102500
Bug ID: 102500
Summary: [12 regression] Missing include for
gfortran.dg/include_15.f90 in r12-3722
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
noexcept is missing for begin() end(). That leads to problem that breaks clang.
I manually modify the header file and it works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
Bug ID: 102499
Summary: Noexcept not matching fgor std::filesystem::path.
Compilation fails for clang
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102460
--- Comment #6 from David Bold ---
> What's meaning of the 'ENTRY ENTRY1()' directive?
It is an example, alternative entry point to the subroutine SUB1.
Here is some older documentation for the ENTRY directive:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102489
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51512
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51512&action=edit
gcc12-pr102498.patch
Untested fix. 4 of the 5 constants misbehave with -frounding-math in
FE_TOWARDZERO and F
Good day.
If you are not bothered, please reply to the last paperwork I sent. If the
message may not have arrived, please do it right now.
https://logotale.com/cupiditate-accusamus/quia.zip
-Original Message-
On Tuesday, 13 October 2020, 02:57, wrote:
Good day.
If you are not b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
A testcase without printf:
#include
#define X 0xc.90fdaa22168c235p-2l
#define Y 0xc.90fdaa22168c234p-2l
int main (void)
{
volatile long double x, y;
fesetround (FE_TOWARDZERO);
x = X;
y = Y;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102430
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes
before and after.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
Bug ID: 102498
Summary: wrong output of printf with long double constant and
non-default rounding mode
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102489
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102466
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102479
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102460
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
>
> I also do not see it on 11-branch, but that may be related to my local build.
Yes, I made a papering over it in the GCC-11 branch
(g:5f00ef3bc724e22628fdfd81855013115d115ebe).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102460
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102459
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
I see, thanks very much for that insightful explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102457
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102454
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102414
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102492
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It started with my r12-3654-ge5597f2ad55219092929dc12ea15e1edba06df18 then.
Shorter testcase:
struct S { S (int); };
void bar (S &);
void
foo ()
{
#pragma omp simd
for (int i = 0; i < 64; i++)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102434
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102440
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102434
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102433
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-27
Summary|[11/12 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102431
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-27
Status|UNCONFIRME
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
