https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110623
Bug ID: 110623
Summary: Segfault if type-bound procedure function provided for
an assumed rank class(*) argument
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #5)
> > Does adding -fexcess-precision=standard help? What about -ffloat-store ?
>
> highway is c++ only. Those flags are C only
No they are not. -fexcess-precis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622
--- Comment #5 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
> Does adding -fexcess-precision=standard help? What about -ffloat-store ?
highway is c++ only. Those flags are C only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622
--- Comment #4 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Here is my current state of work:
*
https://github.com/malaterre/highway/commit/771ca57d2d29b48f91beae033f6854f9b2dfb730
I am open to suggestion to further reduce the test case, as I am not familiar
wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/google/h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Created attachment 55518
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55518&action=edit
Preprocessed source
% /usr/bin/g++-13 -save-temps -DHWY_STATIC_DEFINE -DTOOLCHAIN_MISS_ASM_HWCAP_H
-I/home
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622
--- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
For reference:
* https://github.com/google/highway/issues/1488#issuecomment-1621528097
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622
Bug ID: 110622
Summary: x86: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110179
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110179
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Florian Weimer :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:104b09005229ef48a79a33511ea192bb3ec3c415
commit r14-2426-g104b09005229ef48a79a33511ea192bb3ec3c415
Author: Florian Weimer
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107013
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla at tecnocode dot
co.uk,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110613
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am shocked that optabs.h is not included for PLUGIN_HEADERS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alx at kernel dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55517
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55517&action=edit
Draft patch
This seems to work for this case, but I'm not sure how reliable it is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110288
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The apparent discrepancy between fndecl and the actual arguments in the call
may be a result from the following block in gfc_conv_procedure_call after:
7390 /* Deferred length dummies pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 104843, which changed state.
Bug 104843 Summary: signed overflow in compute_const_anchors, at cse.cc:1180
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104843
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104843
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110621
Bug ID: 110621
Summary: x86_64: Test gcc.target/i386/pr105354-2.c fails with
-fstack-protector
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110620
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From the looks of it is just not optimizing enough before the warning happens.
The final optimized code does not have the store in it.
The store for the vector to create the size of one element vector hap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110620
--- Comment #4 from Chris Uzdavinis ---
(Sorry I was getting bugzilla errors about collisions when adding comments, but
they seemed to have gone through after all.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110620
--- Comment #3 from Chris Uzdavinis ---
Starting with Gcc12.1 (at least on x86) and through all versions up to the
trunk (post 13.1)
This warning hits with optimization -O2 or higher.
https://godbolt.org/z/q3T39Wf8c
#include
void fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110620
--- Comment #2 from Chris Uzdavinis ---
Created attachment 55516
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55516&action=edit
preprocessed code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110620
--- Comment #1 from Chris Uzdavinis ---
Starting with Gcc12.1 (at least on x86) and through all versions up to the
trunk (post 13.1)
This warning hits with optimization -O2 or higher.
https://godbolt.org/z/q3T39Wf8c
#include
void fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110620
Bug ID: 110620
Summary: spurious array-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
I think according to https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.stc#general-4 the function
shall return an "invalid pointer valued". And nullptr is not considered such.
And if one modifies the function slightly (see a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>but it is not nullptr.
Or is it just undefined so it could be considered a nullptr ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
Bug ID: 110619
Summary: Dangling pointer returned from constexpr function
converts in nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110614
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This may be a dupe of PR110616 (or vice-versa).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
[1]:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Style_and_Conventions#Bugs_in_the_user_program
[2]: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-July/149893.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
Bug ID: 110618
Summary: Dependency between arguments when one is allocatable
array whose dummy is intent(out)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
Bug ID: 110617
Summary: RFE: Add a diagnostic-only variant of nonnull
attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110523
--- Comment #12 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I confirm ICE gone away for json-3.11.2. json-3.11.2 still odes not compile
same as in https://gcc.gnu.org/PR110580
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110205
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |other
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110615
--- Comment #3 from Julien Jorge ---
> This is the expected behaviour for those old releases (which are no longer
> supported or maintained, and so there's no point reporting bugs in them).
Well, it was more an attempt to raise awareness on a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 55515
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55515&action=edit
Patch that fixes this PR for me
I had to add to Steve's patch to get this PR sorted out.
Ideally of course, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Likely started with r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7, it was rejected before the
> revision anyway.
With all branches up to 13-branch, I see:
../pr105594/pr106050.f90:3:1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110616
Bug ID: 110616
Summary: [14 regression] ICE after r14-2117-gdd86a5a69cbda4
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110615
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Julien Jorge from comment #0)
> The int <-> float conversions
> do not happen with current HEAD but I believe it is due to a side effect of
> cmath transitively including stdlib.h.
No, it's d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102003
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110615
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95048
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d308b11fa94728507984b4ccc949219511273ab6
commit r11-10903-gd308b11fa94728507984b4ccc949219511273ab6
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110609
--- Comment #2 from Andres Freund ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 110546 ***
Are they really the same? This bug happens at -O0 and requires -fPIC and
-fno-semantic-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110615
Bug ID: 110615
Summary: std::abs converts integers to floats and back
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110614
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110614
Bug ID: 110614
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE in vect_supportable_dr_alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110523
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
--- Comment #12 from Matthias Klose ---
I'll apply the proposed patch for the next gcc-13 Debian upload, then reporting
back test results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110523
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c60368ab5706a870a1a3be190acc4d673672c30
commit r14-2421-g2c60368ab5706a870a1a3be190acc4d673672c30
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110613
Bug ID: 110613
Summary: optimization about combined store of adjacent
bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110354
Bug 110354 depends on bug 110355, which changed state.
Bug 110355 Summary: std::format("{}", 1e-7) returns "1e-07" instead of "1e-7"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110355
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110355
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104167
Bug 104167 depends on bug 110504, which changed state.
Bug 110504 Summary: std::format("{:%S}", duration>(4))
returns "02.0" instead of "02"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110504
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110504
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
--- Comment #11 from matoro ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> (In reply to matoro from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> > > Created attachment 55504 [details]
> > > Proposed patch.
> > >
> > > Can someo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110523
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=110612
Bug ID: 110612
Summary: text-art: four clang warnings
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110205
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Nearly a month later, the current list of clang warnings for the range code is:
../../trunk.year/gcc/gimple-range-cache.h:140:17: warning: private field
'm_estimate' is not used [-Wunused-private-field]
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110268
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110268
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eca10aaa3954af3dab56eccc208c90273c2b1732
commit r14-2418-geca10aaa3954af3dab56eccc208c90273c2b1732
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #100 from Alexander Klepikov
---
Created attachment 55513
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55513&action=edit
Arithmetic right shift late expanding
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #99)
> Meanwhile, here's my i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110592
Taylor R Campbell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||campbell+gcc-bugzilla@mumbl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9)
> > and simplify_replace_rtx simplifies the above to:
> >
> > (gdb) p debug_rtx (src)
> > (const_vector:V8HI [
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> I can see cprop1 adds the REG_EQUAL note:
>
> (insn 22 21 23 4 (set (reg:V8HI 100)
> (zero_extend:V8HI (vec_select:V8QI (subreg:V16QI (reg:V4QI 98) 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110179
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
I can see cprop1 adds the REG_EQUAL note:
(insn 22 21 23 4 (set (reg:V8HI 100)
(zero_extend:V8HI (vec_select:V8QI (subreg:V16QI (reg:V4QI 98) 0)
(parallel [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #65 from Tamar Christina ---
> >
> > In which case ifcvt could move the cond to just before the first shared
> > statement?
>
> I don't think PRE "knows" where the operation was created from since it's
> transforms from a global da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #64 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #63)
> > > It looks like `-fno-tree-pre` does the trick, but then of course, messes
> > > up
> > > elsewhere. The conditional statement seem to stay in the most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #63 from Tamar Christina ---
> > It looks like `-fno-tree-pre` does the trick, but then of course, messes up
> > elsewhere. The conditional statement seem to stay in the most complicated
> > form possible in scalar code.
> >
> > I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #62 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #61)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #60)
> > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #59)
> > > after ifcvt we end up with:
> > >
> > > _162 = chr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|13.2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e6a948cd22f2f142cdc828296f78c7af9e283c8
commit r13-7553-g1e6a948cd22f2f142cdc828296f78c7af9e283c8
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:63ae6bc60c0f67fb2791991bf4b6e7e0a907d420
commit r14-2407-g63ae6bc60c0f67fb2791991bf4b6e7e0a907d420
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Thu Jul 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #61 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #60)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #59)
> > after ifcvt we end up with:
> >
> > _162 = chrg_init_70 * iftmp.8_76;
> > _164 = ABS_EXPR <_162>;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712
--- Comment #33 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #32)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #31)
> > Will propose a backport to 13 in ~2 weeks.
>
> Any news on the backport? There is aim to release GCC 13.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-10
Ever confirm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #8 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll try adding to one of the header file lists in gcc's makefile. Probably the
INTERNAL_FN_H one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #7 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I guess you mean insn-opinit.h, not internal-fn.h. internal-fn.h is in the
> GCC Git repo.
Yeah sorry! I did mean insn-opinit.h
> We are already installing insn-{addr,attr-common,attr,codes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #5)
> intenral-fn.h is generated at gcc build-time.
I guess you mean insn-opinit.h, not internal-fn.h. internal-fn.h is in the GCC
Git repo.
> I'm not sure we want to
> 'inst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
intenral-fn.h is generated at gcc build-time. I'm not sure we want to 'install'
it with a gcc install. Might make more sense to trigger a the generation of it
when building this gcc-plugin. But I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #2)
> I can't reproduce this but it seems like the modula2 build also suffers from
> the same issue, see PR110284.
>
> David, what exactly are you trying to build? Can you give
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> uint64_t is neither Pmode nor word_mode here. POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED is
> only relevant if POINTER_SIZE is narrower than Pmode.
So, just pilot-error, then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
uint64_t is neither Pmode nor word_mode here. POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED is only
relevant if POINTER_SIZE is narrower than Pmode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #2)
> I can't reproduce this but it seems like the modula2 build also suffers from
> the same issue, see PR110284.
>
> David, what exactly are you trying to build? Can yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #0)
> the x86 backend sets:
> gcc/config/i386/i386.h:#define POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED 1
> which ought, according to gccint mean that pointers get sign-extended...
erm I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
Bug ID: 110611
Summary: X86 is not honouring POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED in m32
code.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 55512
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55512&action=edit
another testcase
This one needs -mavx2 -mf16c -mfma -fPIC -O2 -std=c++17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> It seems that the C++ FE change in comment#13 causes libreoffice to fail to
> build with
>
> [ 553s]
> /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/libreoffice-7.5.4.2/work
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
