https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111340
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111340
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #32 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to matoro from comment #31)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #30)
> > (In reply to matoro from comment #26)
> > > We also had somebody report on IRC that they observed this on powerpc (no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86030
--- Comment #10 from John Soo ---
I'm also not sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=180ebb8a24d24fc5b105f2257d6216f6dfde62df
fixes the collect bug because collect uses collect_execute instead of the pex_*
exec functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Lehua Ding :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d05aac047e0643d5c32b706c4c3b12e13f35e19a
commit r14-3834-gd05aac047e0643d5c32b706c4c3b12e13f35e19a
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Mon Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111324
--- Comment #3 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
A patch is posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/629534.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111346
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111346
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:190cf0ce8f4c141ac5b42d53b9ddeba367495333
commit r14-3832-g190cf0ce8f4c141ac5b42d53b9ddeba367495333
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111306
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC14.1 GCC13.3 GCC12.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111335
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111306
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82c1ff396e49b706d5baa11f4c884810f6350e95
commit r12-9852-g82c1ff396e49b706d5baa11f4c884810f6350e95
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111335
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82c1ff396e49b706d5baa11f4c884810f6350e95
commit r12-9852-g82c1ff396e49b706d5baa11f4c884810f6350e95
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111306
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:162731529e4dd10970880c369471229735dc3e9b
commit r13-7789-g162731529e4dd10970880c369471229735dc3e9b
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111335
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:162731529e4dd10970880c369471229735dc3e9b
commit r13-7789-g162731529e4dd10970880c369471229735dc3e9b
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111335
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f197392a16ffb1327f1d12ff8ff05f9295e015cb
commit r14-3831-gf197392a16ffb1327f1d12ff8ff05f9295e015cb
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111306
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f197392a16ffb1327f1d12ff8ff05f9295e015cb
commit r14-3831-gf197392a16ffb1327f1d12ff8ff05f9295e015cb
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111348
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55875
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55875&action=edit
testcase
Currentlyt test1 is able to optimize to MAX_EXPR , c> but not
test1_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111349
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55874
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55874&action=edit
testcase
Currently test1_ is only able to optimize to `return a;` during fold.
test1 is caught via phiopt (mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111346
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55873
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55873&action=edit
Patch which I will commit after testing is finished
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111346
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually here is a simplier testcase:
```
_Bool test1(int a, int b)
{
return ((a > b) ? a : b) >= a; // return 1;
}
_Bool test1_(int a, int b)
{
return a <= ((a > b) ? a : b); // return 1;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111364
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111364
Bug ID: 111364
Summary: `MAX_EXPR <= a` is not optimized to `a >= b`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111346
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86030
--- Comment #9 from John Soo ---
Would a patch for unix doing something similar to
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=180ebb8a24d24fc5b105f2257d6216f6dfde62df
be accepted? I am happy to start working on something like it but I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111363
Bug ID: 111363
Summary: internal compiler error when mistype type of
operator<=>
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102665
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
Making some more progress on this:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/compare/master...cooljeanius:gcc:me/PR102665
Some notes:
- There are a lot of these; I'm not quite sure how many to include in a single
pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111331
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30e6ee074588bacefd2dfe745b188bb20c81fe5e
commit r14-3827-g30e6ee074588bacefd2dfe745b188bb20c81fe5e
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|easyhack|
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #31 from matoro ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #30)
> (In reply to matoro from comment #26)
> > We also had somebody report on IRC that they observed this on powerpc (not
> > sure what tuple), again with -j1. It does no
b
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-3825-20230910101237-g0d50facd937-checking-yes-df-extra-riscv64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20230910 (experimental) (GCC)
isable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-3825-20230910101237-g0d50facd937-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20230910 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81114
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111360
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||belyshev at depni dot
sinp.msu.ru
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111360
Bug ID: 111360
Summary: contrib/gcc_update: bad test
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17239
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111359
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111359
Bug ID: 111359
Summary: contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh uses getent, which is
non-portable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111300
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Given the note, maybe this is an intentional error to avoid creating a compiled
module interface that might not be usable:
note: a later '-fabi-version=' (or =0) avoids this error with a change in
manglin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111300
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] |Modules error: mangling of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111358
--- Comment #1 from Jiang An ---
Related issues:
Monadic operations of expected are not ADL-proof per the uses of **this in
[expected.object.monadic]. However, currently implementations make them
ADL-proof by directly naming the union member, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111358
Bug ID: 111358
Summary: libstdc++'s optional::and_then and optional::transform
are not ADL-proof
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111356
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
BTW it works with 13.2.0 with "ulimit -s 131072" too, so it's a stack usage
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111356
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to wor
45 matches
Mail list logo
