https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106910
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0c73b6c85677e6755b60fa02d79a5c5e1a8eacd
commit r13-2730-gd0c73b6c85677e6755b60fa02d79a5c5e1a8eacd
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106972
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thomas Petazzoni from comment #2)
> Thanks for the quick feedback! I am not super familiar with iwmmxt, but as I
> understand it is used in Marvell PXA270 and above. While these are fairly
> old
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106972
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
Thanks for the quick feedback! I am not super familiar with iwmmxt, but as I
understand it is used in Marvell PXA270 and above. While these are fairly old
indeed, their support is still maintained in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105735
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kong Lingling :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a035f1932eeb26f997cf28a5c752617dd09cb91
commit r13-2729-g3a035f1932eeb26f997cf28a5c752617dd09cb91
Author: konglin1
Date: Tue Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106972
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106972
Bug ID: 106972
Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2770 on ARMeb when building gcc itself
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Rodgers ---
Since this latter point has come up before, I want to additionally note that
the optimization to use an atomic count of waiters per-waiter pool bucket means
that a call to notify_one/notify_all is roughly 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106963
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106971
Bug ID: 106971
Summary: ICE in aarch64_init_ls64_builtins_types, at
config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.cc:1856
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
Bug ID: 106970
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at
value-range.cc:702
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
JFTH, a similar ICE in lower_bound is also possible. I currently have an F77
testcase, will try to get a C one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106887
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kong Lingling :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78260b9a9c0bf5a4495320466e2cd1c259504905
commit r13-2725-g78260b9a9c0bf5a4495320466e2cd1c259504905
Author: konglin1
Date: Fri Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82868
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100132
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Pinged here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-September/058212.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
Aidan MacDonald changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amachronic at protonmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106812
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
The difference between #3 and not-#3 is that without the NSDMI, S isn't
TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING, which makes a difference in initialize_handler_parm:
339 /* If the constructor for the catch parm exits vi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106812
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106903
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106947
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106947
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97803ee561c7a2692a6d7863a5d86797d79a18b1
commit r12-8774-g97803ee561c7a2692a6d7863a5d86797d79a18b1
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106947
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d9429d5c0f86f588bdfd85bb9e236d2be367d3f
commit r13-2723-g2d9429d5c0f86f588bdfd85bb9e236d2be367d3f
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #21 from Jeff Rahr ---
Roger - I was getting that same error when building out of the box for
langueages=c,c++,fortran,lto,jit,go,d (ie didn't edit Makefile.def). Based on
https://forum.dlang.org/post/qgrchukzyceflenrr...@forum.dlang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|roger at nextmovesoftware dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106969
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|member function co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106969
Bug ID: 106969
Summary: member function constness incorrectly propagates to
local class member function return type deduction
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106922
--- Comment #12 from Jan Žižka ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> So there's a similar missed optimization but it's not caused by the bisected
> revision.
Ah I see. I didn't try to bisect this again. I can do that if that wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106922
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
So there's a similar missed optimization but it's not caused by the bisected
revision. The situation is like
float bar, baz;
void foo (int *p, int n)
{
*p = 0;
do
{
bar = 1.;
if (*p)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
--- Comment #3 from Christian Ehrhardt ---
> Just drop -mbuild-constants.
Thanks for the hint Uroš, but I'm not sure if one can do that, this option is
from [1]. I do not have the background on this, but it reads as there was a
reason "Use -mbu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106943
--- Comment #5 from Immolo ---
How would I go about creating a reduce for this as I'd assume it's to with
running something llvm-reduce with
`/var/tmp/portage/sys-libs/compiler-rt-sanitizers-15.0.0/work/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/..
-DNDE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Christian Ehrhardt from comment #0)
> alpha-linux-gnu-gcc -O2 -g1 -Wall -fvisibility=hidden -fno-strict-aliasing
> -msmall-text -msmall-data -mno-fp-regs -mbuild-constants -mcpu=ev67
Just drop -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106965
--- Comment #2 from Boaz ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think it's undefined to invoke a DTOR twice which is what you do here.
> After the DTOR the m_ptr member becomes undefined so re-evaluating that in
> the second invoc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106968
Bug ID: 106968
Summary: ignored noexcept(false) in explicitly-defaulted
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
Bug ID: 106967
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in upper_bound, at
value-range.h:348
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #19 from Jeff Rahr ---
I added D language to my build and was able to get 12.2 to build "out of the
box" without editing Makefile.def on x86-64-pc-linux-gnu. Make is using 4
processors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
--- Comment #1 from Christian Ehrhardt ---
I compared a few more cross-gcc's I could get hold of.
Thereby I can state this was already broken with 12.1.0 on Ubuntu 22.04 and
Fedora 36.
Note: I'm only listing where the instructions for these dif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
Bug ID: 106966
Summary: alpha cross build crashes gcc-12 "internal compiler
error: in emit_move_insn"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106965
Bug ID: 106965
Summary: g++ optimization removes assigning 0 to deleted
pointer- causes double free.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677
David Manuelda changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stormbyte at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 106902, which changed state.
Bug 106902 Summary: [11/12/13 Regression] Program compiled with -O3 -mfma
produces different result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> > Isn't it easy now to implement -ffp-contract=on by a GENERIC-only match.pd
> > rule?
>
> You mean in the frontend only for -ffp-contract=on?
Yes.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99184
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99184
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:848ddecfe14446947fe7697cdfafe0031c3c54c5
commit r10-10993-g848ddecfe14446947fe7697cdfafe0031c3c54c5
Author: Georg-Johann L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99184
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:175d6ba5f025c886f7f81bc8f9b24717da978933
commit r11-10263-g175d6ba5f025c886f7f81bc8f9b24717da978933
Author: Georg-Johann L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99184
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57896e8cddd2eb952145fa32ca25635fd63246b4
commit r12-8773-g57896e8cddd2eb952145fa32ca25635fd63246b4
Author: Georg-Johann La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99184
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b5b8ac5cb7fe92dd17ae8bd7de84640daa59e84
commit r13-2719-g0b5b8ac5cb7fe92dd17ae8bd7de84640daa59e84
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Yes, I think fixed in that we can now record info on FP SSA names. There
> are other bugs for specific things.
>
> What's not fixed is that we still recurse t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
Can we move -ffp-contract=fast under the -ffast-math umbrella and default to
-ffp-contract=on/off?
Isn't it easy now to implement -ffp-contract=on by a GENERIC-only match.pd
rule?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 106902, which changed state.
Bug 106902 Summary: [11/12/13 Regression] Program compiled with -O3 -mfma
produces different result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Keywords|wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
--- Comment #7 from Ri
54 matches
Mail list logo
