https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102800
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102799
康桓瑋 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102800
Bug ID: 102800
Summary: Incorrect UB warning with
aggressive-loop-optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Vectorizer has
if (DR_PTR_INFO (dr)
&& TREE_CODE (addr_base) == SSA_NAME
&& !SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr_base))
vect_duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info (addr_base, dr_info);
This fixes the crash.
diff --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #53 from Óscar Fuentes ---
(In reply to Christoph Reiter from comment #52)
> Turns out this might be fallout from the last grep update, see
> https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/issues/9771#issuecomment-945007372
> Needs investig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102799
--- Comment #1 from qingzhe huang ---
Forget to mention that obviously this only happens with "-std=c++20" because of
lambda in unevaluated context support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102799
Bug ID: 102799
Summary: decltype with lambda without body error cause ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #52 from Christoph Reiter ---
Turns out this might be fallout from the last grep update, see
https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/issues/9771#issuecomment-945007372
Needs investigating..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102639
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
A pointer is known to non-null only if we know where the pointer is
pointing to. Since the null field is initialized to 0, we need to
check both null and anything. This works on the test case:
diff --git a/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Visiting conditional with predicate: if (in_16(D) != 0B)
With known ranges
in_16(D): const unsigned char * [1B, +INF]
1B for lower bound is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
192t.thread3 has
if (in_16(D) != 0B)
goto ; [70.00%]
else
goto ; [30.00%]
193t.dom3 removed "if (in_16(D) != 0B)".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Source has
__attribute__((__noipa__))
void BUF_reverse (unsigned char *out, const unsigned char *in, size_t size)
{
size_t i;
if (in)
{
out += size - 1;
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
*out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102798
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
One more test-case can be seen here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797#c2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> We have the type
> type size
> unit-size
> and movmisalign pattern is enabled for this.
>
> but the vectorization cost doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Range currently seems to be (a10794eafb151b92, 730f52e05a1fb5c8).
Trying 1ba7adabf29eb671. Only 7 revisions left to go.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> I am trying a git bisect. I frequently get this wrong ;-<
>
> commit a10794eafb151b92 is being built.
Seems fine, trying 730f52e05a1fb5c8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
I am trying a git bisect. I frequently get this wrong ;-<
commit a10794eafb151b92 is being built.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r12-4256 PASS
r12- FAIL
$ cat x.ii
struct b {
b(int);
};
void d() {
int c = 1;
do
try {
b a = 1;
while (1) {
c++;
a = 1;
}
} catch (...) {
}
w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102720
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:99b287b8ef51a0be52f7400879a619dc5f993f31
commit r12-4457-g99b287b8ef51a0be52f7400879a619dc5f993f31
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Sat
/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-4456-20211016001627-g93d183a5fff-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211016 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #51 from Christoph Reiter ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #50)
> > Yes, from 2.36.1 to 2.37, but I've already tried reverting that and it
> > didn't help. I'm going to try older versions (of everything) though..
>
> This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is
glib_autoptr_cleanup_GdkPaintable(struct _GdkPaintable **_ptr) {
glib_autoptr_clear_GdkPaintable(*_ptr);
}
glib_autoptr_clear_GdkRGBA(struct _GdkRGBA *_ptr) {
if (_ptr)
gdk_rgba_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #50 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Yes, from 2.36.1 to 2.37, but I've already tried reverting that and it
> didn't help. I'm going to try older versions (of everything) though..
This could as well be a miscompilation of the linker. Can y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102797
Bug ID: 102797
Summary: ice in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:87
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102796
Bug ID: 102796
Summary: [12 Regresson] ICE in useless_type_conversion_p at
gcc/gimple-expr.c:87 since
r12-4443-g93ac832f1846e4867aa6537f76f510fab8e3e87d
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102679
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102795
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #49 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Fore completeness: The "exceptions not working" problem now also crept into
> our v10.3 build with the last rebuild. Maybe some dependency change in the
> last two months, but no idea :/
>
> https://gith
C++17 (GCC) version 12.0.0 20211016 (experimental) (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 11.2.1 20210816 [revision
056e324ce46a7924b5cf10f61010cf9dd2ca10e9], GMP version 6.2.1, MPFR version
4.1.0-p7, MPC version 1.2.1, isl version none
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|large performance changes |[12 Regression] large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #48 from Christoph Reiter ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #47)
> > Yes, everything is checksummed in our build script. We apply various patches
> > and backports, they are also checksummed:
> > https://github.com/msys2/MI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #47 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Yes, everything is checksummed in our build script. We apply various patches
> and backports, they are also checksummed:
> https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/master/mingw-w64-gcc/PKGBUILD
Did y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #46 from Christoph Reiter ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #45)
> > Fore completeness: The "exceptions not working" problem now also crept into
> > our v10.3 build with the last rebuild. Maybe some dependency change in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #45 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Fore completeness: The "exceptions not working" problem now also crept into
> our v10.3 build with the last rebuild. Maybe some dependency change in the
> last two months, but no idea :/
>
> https://gith
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102794
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #2)
> I haven't looked at this, but there's a pending patch with more
> restrictions for loop threading in the presence of loops. Does this help?
>
> https://gcc.gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46116
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102794
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
I haven't looked at this, but there's a pending patch with more
restrictions for loop threading in the presence of loops. Does this help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/581637.html
52 matches
Mail list logo
