https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99217
--- Comment #5 from huangpei at loongson dot cn
---
Hi, with this fix and bug 93242 fixed, a.c with mips16 is OK,
ambrosehua@3A1000-800M:~$ gcc -fpatchable-function-entry=3 -mips16 -mabi=32
-c a.c -S -o a.1.s
ambrosehua@3A1000-800M:~$ cat a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liavonlida at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100742
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kip at thevertigo dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul.groke at dynatrace dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82270
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60402
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > Looks like it is a register allocation/scheduling issue. The extra
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > Looks like it is a register allocation/scheduling issue. The extra
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Looks like it is a register allocation/scheduling issue. The extra
> > instructions are mov.
>
> Are there good algos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #4 from Andr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Looks like it is a register allocation/scheduling issue. The extra
> instructions are mov.
Are there good algos that can allocate registers optimal?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Looks like it is a register allocation/scheduling issue. The extra
> instructions are mov.
yeah. I feel gcc generally has issues with register allocations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
#include
#include
inline constexpr std::uint_least64_t s0(std::uint_least64_t x) noexcept
{
return std::rotr(x,1)^std::rotr(x,8)^(x>>7);
}
inline constexpr std::uint_least64_t s1(auto x) noexcept
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59704
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #2)
> Here is another example:
> https://wandbox.org/permlink/UYsLyMaLcBb6sjJa
That is PR 52145.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
Bug ID: 103550
Summary: 2 more instructions generated by gcc than clang
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52145
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|88655 |94404
Alias|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52145
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77712
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52145
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominique.pelle at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88655
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60223
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103028
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103028
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-06-12 00:00:00 |2021-12-3
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86473
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90412
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70438
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The documentation says:
The result of the comparison is a vector of the same width and number of
elements as the comparison operands with a signed integral element type.
But it is obviously not true.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103028
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:daca416fc2816a5e481b26c8d2010127101d77ce
commit r12-5787-gdaca416fc2816a5e481b26c8d2010127101d77ce
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65994
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
CWG2038 :
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#2038
Looks like it is explicit that there should be a difference between C++11/14
and C++17
But I can't find a compiler which accep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85589
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect r9-3836-g4be5c72cf3ea3 fixed this (maybe on accident).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77950
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Just a note that my Go demangler does demangle this symbol now, producing
ossia::vec_merger_impl<2>::operator() > >, ossia::strong_value > >, ossia::strong_value
> >, ossia::strong_value > >,
ossia::stron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83258
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Testcase from Bug 85589:
>
> template struct foo {};
>
> int main() {
> static auto v = "str";
> (void) foo {};
> }
Note comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103549
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57570
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||5.1.0, 6.1.0, 7.1.0, 7.5.0
Ever conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103549
Bug ID: 103549
Summary: [12 regression] Uninitialized member warning from
regex header
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103271
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito.cheng at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|10.1.0, 11.1.0, 12.0|
Keywords|needs-bisection,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70932
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.1.0, 9.1.0, 9.4.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92300
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 51924
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51924&action=edit
Patch to avoid creating a node if inserting something key-like into a map
This avoids the allocate/deallocate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92300
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> This inserts the correct value type, and doesn't perform an addition
> allocation:
>
> assert(a.insert(std::pair(1, 1)).second);
> assert(a.insert(std::p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #23 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #22)
> So this is also broken in GCC11, so I'm testing the simple backport.
Regression testing of the backport was clean. Just need approval for the
backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-03
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70692
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
"A type trait to detect reference binding to temporary"
https://wg21.link/p2255r2 is the current direction to resolve this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103540
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||myriachan at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84415
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103547
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
r12-5778 builds now. It has happened once before. I will leave it open
until we find out exactly what is going on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Target Milestone|12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10)
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 09:51:23PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > Submitted as:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-Dece
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103283
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #4 fr
e
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211203 (experimental) (GCC)
with a base gcc of 7.5.0, what bootstrap gcc are you using?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #21 from Peter Bergner ---
Fixed on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Note I think this paper applies to C++20 too or at least part of it.
>
> From CWG1291:
> [Accepted at the November, 2020 meeting as part of paper P1787R6 and mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103541
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> PR 5739 is related (though I have not looked fully).
comment #10 which points out IRA was doing worse.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103541
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103541
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought I had seen this before ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cff7879a381d3f5ed6556206896e6a6229800167
commit r12-5781-gcff7879a381d3f5ed6556206896e6a6229800167
Author: Martin Liska
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103537
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 09:51:23PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Submitted as: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-December/057102.html
>
Just saw the commit fly by. Thanks for pursui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103537
--- Comment #2 from Hedayat Vatankhah ---
With these options, the code runs a bit more but still crashes. The output of
each option is given below:
Output with -fsanitize=undefined:
/home/hedayat/Projects/powerfake/powerfake.h:257:40: runtime e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103544
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Testcase:
#include
#include
int crash_me(char* ptr, size_t size){
std::array result = {0};
size_t no_iters = 0;
for(size_t i = 0; i < size - 12; i+= 13){
for(size_t j = 0; j < 12; j++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, wrong-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f46d32dd29b7623915e31b0508e2e925526fa7d8
commit r12-5779-gf46d32dd29b7623915e31b0508e2e925526fa7d8
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103542
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103547
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103548
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at hazlewoods dot net
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|Potential
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103521
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The message changed recently:
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/pr93032-mztools.c leak of fpOut at line 329 (test for
warnings, line 328)
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/pr93032-mztools.c leak of fpOutCD at line 330 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54366
Bug 54366 depends on bug 81176, which changed state.
Bug 81176 Summary: decltype(auto) yields reference type for structured binding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81176
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81176
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103403
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] auto |[11 Regression] auto return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103403
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abd7712f91c99690f8b0046ea168b2782afbac69
commit r12-5778-gabd7712f91c99690f8b0046ea168b2782afbac69
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103548
Bug ID: 103548
Summary: Identical MMA assemble quads are incorrectly combined
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103547
Bug ID: 103547
Summary: [12 Regression] Bootstrap failure
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103546
Bug ID: 103546
Summary: Analyzer reports null dereference in flex scanners
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103269
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:654cd743c88a28fb292f7c2cf5f4b10e4047e7d9
commit r12-5777-g654cd743c88a28fb292f7c2cf5f4b10e4047e7d9
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Nov 15 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103545
Bug ID: 103545
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/undef-bool-2.c
fails after r12-5580
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103544
Bug ID: 103544
Summary: compiler crashes when trying to vectorize loop
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83782
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:37fbf9175b22dea2e5eca4393edd0c47e3008994
commit r12-5775-g37fbf9175b22dea2e5eca4393edd0c47e3008994
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Dec 3 09:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95962
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #3)
> This is now fixed on trunk, at least for ld1/st1.
Nice!
> Was this ticket about the general problem for loads or just the ld1/st1
> examples?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102808
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102758
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Richard? How does the new fwprop behave wrt hardregs?
It doesn't sound like this is new vs. old fwprop, since new fwprop
was in GCC 11. General
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 95307, which changed state.
Bug 95307 Summary: Compiler accepts reinterpret_cast in constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95307
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95307
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103543
Bug ID: 103543
Summary: Potential compiler warning for return of temporary?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103542
Bug ID: 103542
Summary: bogus -Warray-bounds while index is limited by
switch/case
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103541
Bug ID: 103541
Summary: unnecessary spills around const functions calls
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103383
--- Comment #9 from Rich ---
of course, that should be -mxl-barrel-shift...
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
