https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> This might be a dupe of PR108783 or PR109410 but I had to try reduce it to
> be relatively sure, so may as well file it here for completeness.
I thought it was interest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
This might be a dupe of PR108783 or PR109410 but I had to try reduce it to be
relatively sure, so may as well file it here for completeness.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54828&action=edit
util2.i (reduced further, but check)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54827&action=edit
util.i (reduced)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54826
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54826&action=edit
util.i.orig (unreduced)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
Bug ID: 109469
Summary: [13 regression] ICE: internal compiler error:
verify_flow_info failed (error: returns_twice call is
not first in basic block 2)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109464
--- Comment #5 from LIU Hao ---
Additional information:
I tried splitting the two class templates into two separate .cpp files, so the
explicit instantiation of `basic_shallow_string` should not be subject to
the instantiation of `basic_cow_str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54816
Wilhelm M changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||klaus.doldinger64@googlemai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109464
LIU Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.4.0, 9.5.0
--- Comment #4 from LIU Hao --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109464
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #2)
> shouldn't this be classified as wrong code?
It is at least a link-failure. Wrong code might be a strech here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109464
--- Comment #2 from LIU Hao ---
shouldn't this be classified as wrong code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109067
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Michael Meissner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:908d9c7e6ed4be95d39b7b01056dda365f379947
commit r12-9394-g908d9c7e6ed4be95d39b7b01056dda365f379947
Author: Michael Meis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104339
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note after r13-6834-g41ade3399bd1ec, the testcase in comment #0 works as the
cast in the first bb is unused otherwise,
Here is a better testcase:
```
int f(unsigned short y)
{
unsigned short t =y;
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101404
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #6 from Huaqi ---
I think it might be introduced by this commit
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/304c7d44a2212e6fd618587331cea2c266dc10bf,
since I tested this commit
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/4872e46e080c6695df
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96689
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stevenxia990430 at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108812
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a213e2c965382c24fe391ee5798effeba8da0fdf
commit r13-7134-ga213e2c965382c24fe391ee5798effeba8da0fdf
Author: Haochen Gui
Date: Tue A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109468
Bug ID: 109468
Summary: assign to default with three way comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #5 from Costas Argyris ---
>> Yes, because -o is missing.
I don't understand why -o missing is a problem some times but not others
(because this has been succesfully built before with -o missing).
Adding a "-o" flag seems OK to me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68894
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have a patch which fixes the phiopt issue I saw.
The problem is when do_hoist_loads is true (which is !early and
-fhoist-adjacent-loads ), we would not do the diamond case for phiopt in later
passes.
In the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcaz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #3 from Costas Argyris ---
"The missing -o looks genuine, does not it?"
Not to me because this has been built successfully before.If this was the
problem then it would never build, right?
What happened in this case was that sym
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109464
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 54825
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54825&action=edit
failed attempt at reducing
This was my trial on reducing the testcase but it failed. In that the symbol is
def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108767
Steven Sun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot
com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109190
Steven Sun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot
com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #1 from Costas Argyris ---
Can you give some more info on how exactly you are cross-building gcc for
windows host?
Did you add the -fno-PIE flag manually or was it part of the build process you
are following?
Seems like you are try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3343
--- Comment #3 from trodgers at redhat dot com ---
I had this in my TODO list to review, I've done that now. Any sense of when
LWG will approve it?
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 9:17 AM redi at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109467
Bug ID: 109467
Summary: inconsistent formatting/case of keywords in error
messages in Fortran front end
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109466
Bug ID: 109466
Summary: [13 regression] gfortran.dg/gomp/affinity-clause-1.f90
fails after r13-7120-g46fe32cb4d887d
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109459
--- Comment #3 from Steven Xia ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Indeed.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 105300 ***
Thanks for the pointers and sorry for the confusion, will check against trunk
next time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109465
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-10
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109465
Bug ID: 109465
Summary: LoongArch: The expansion of memcpy is slow and bloated
for some sizes
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109464
Bug ID: 109464
Summary: gcc does not instantiate constructor for explicitly
instantiated template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85667
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jistone at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82028
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109456
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
When stepping through the function in the debugger, the difference appears in
the
Token I;
Token Result;
int p_count = 0;
while (!TheLexer.LexFromRawLexer(I)) {
if (I.getKind() == tok::l_paren)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109463
--- Comment #3 from elronnd at elronnd dot net ---
Yes, I think the gcc approach of branching is definitely better. But it's
still a good idea to optimise for size in the cold path.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109463
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
It might be the case that having the top bit set for an 64bit unsigned integer
is not often enough to optimize for ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109463
Bug ID: 109463
Summary: suboptimal sequence for converting 64-bit unsigned int
to float
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
Bug ID: 109462
Summary: [13 Regression] Possible miscompilation of clang
LocalizationChecker since r13-1938
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109458
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54822
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54822&action=edit
gcc13-pr109458.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290
--- Comment #29 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #28)
> Created attachment 54821 [details]
> New set of patches including some other improvements
Note this series does not bootstrap, the last patch found that I had
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105300
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stevenxia990430 at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
50 matches
Mail list logo
