https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111377
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As I wrote, the important difference is whether aggregate_value_p is true or
false for the called_by_test_5b call (which returns a struct but caller ignores
it).
If aggregate_value_p returns true, then there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111380
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366
--- Comment #11 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #9)
> It looks to me that the error message is expected, because the source code
> forces the function as always_inline, users would like it to be inlined
> always, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102202
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111364
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55884
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55884&action=edit
Full patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111382
Bug ID: 111382
Summary: Sanitizer says that the right address calculated in
parentheses is misaligned.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111381
Bug ID: 111381
Summary: RISC-V: missed autovec MULH for signed * unsigned
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Jan Wassenberg from comment #5)
> Thanks for reporting this. One might think this is caused by -mcpu=power9
> clashing with our #pragma target altivec,vsx,power8-vector.
>
> However, what makes th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111380
Bug ID: 111380
Summary: Inconsistent behaviors between non-LTO and LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66414
--- Comment #16 from Chih-Hsuan Yang ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> (In reply to Chih-Hsuan Yang from comment #11)
> > Could you please provide an update on the progress here?
>
>
> All progress is already recorded above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96762
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96762
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2eb8e5cba7408e2a4016a8f5c48e4980abdd1d08
commit r11-10985-g2eb8e5cba7408e2a4016a8f5c48e4980abdd1d08
Author: Haochen Gui
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96762
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac0773956cef18cd4903365fb675447ee301d725
commit r12-9854-gac0773956cef18cd4903365fb675447ee301d725
Author: Haochen Gui
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96762
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f4358054dbaf7fb361e603e3693d9410312b88e7
commit r13-7793-gf4358054dbaf7fb361e603e3693d9410312b88e7
Author: Haochen Gui
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108812
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111379
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111364
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55882
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55882&action=edit
max testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111364
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 51985c1bad4..bf49c167792 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -3902,9 +3902,9 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
(maxmin @0 (bit_not @1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111364
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55881
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55881&action=edit
mins testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111071
Thiago Jung Bauermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111372
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
I am not familiar with this stuff.
I would like to see whether kito has good suggestions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111379
Bug ID: 111379
Summary: comparison between unequal pointers to void should be
illegal during constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|pinskia at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106310
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106890
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106310
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:506d5f399bef7f2d8c48fd83d853c6ff7811a226
commit r11-10983-g506d5f399bef7f2d8c48fd83d853c6ff7811a226
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109666
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d7e5f90597167c36c7816f5bcf689472e8b1940
commit r11-10982-g0d7e5f90597167c36c7816f5bcf689472e8b1940
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106890
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d7e5f90597167c36c7816f5bcf689472e8b1940
commit r11-10982-g0d7e5f90597167c36c7816f5bcf689472e8b1940
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111340
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65331a30922887304c183be4686ddaf12e990c6b
commit r13-7791-g65331a30922887304c183be4686ddaf12e990c6b
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
For the ^/!= case here are the missing optimizations (note == can be handled
too):
```
int ltgtxor(int a, int b)
{
_Bool c = a < b;
_Bool d = a > b;
return c ^ d; // a != b
}
int lt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111330
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6facc94692fe1a6a64a68c2dec2b87fb79ac853d
commit r13-7790-g6facc94692fe1a6a64a68c2dec2b87fb79ac853d
Author: Gaius Mulley
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111330
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fbd72a2108d1c05ef7f50acd71d518e769abcced
commit r14-3856-gfbd72a2108d1c05ef7f50acd71d518e769abcced
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111348
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111348
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fdf712a38422952bbcde7e22eabcf821e6676b3
commit r14-3855-g8fdf712a38422952bbcde7e22eabcf821e6676b3
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111351
--- Comment #4 from James Y Knight ---
vector and string are different in one key way: a zero-sized vector has no
accessible storage, while a zero-sized string has 1 byte of readable storage --
the NUL terminator. Because of that, I don't think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111330
--- Comment #8 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 55880
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55880&action=edit
Proposed fix v3
Here is v2 together with the -Wcase-enum switch implemented (and related
fixes).
I'll git commi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106310
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Summary|[12/13 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111377
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/629887.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66414
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Chih-Hsuan Yang from comment #11)
> Could you please provide an update on the progress here?
All progress is already recorded above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111378
Bug ID: 111378
Summary: Missed optimization for comparing with exact_log2
constants
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111340
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:048927ed8561ca994ad853fe85ccf8c2ca07a8fe
commit r14-3854-g048927ed8561ca994ad853fe85ccf8c2ca07a8fe
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Mon S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111377
Bug ID: 111377
Summary: [14 regression]
c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c fails
after XXX on big endian
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111341
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376
Bug ID: 111376
Summary: missed optimization of one bit test on MIPS32r1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111375
Bug ID: 111375
Summary: RISC-V vector Fortran: SEGV ICE during
get_avl_or_vl_reg (vsetvl pass)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111374
Bug ID: 111374
Summary: Spurious -Warray-bounds warning when building
std::vector (or libstdc++ bug?)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66414
--- Comment #14 from Chih-Hsuan Yang ---
(In reply to Chih-Hsuan Yang from comment #11)
> Hi all,
>
> I hope this message finds you well.
>
> I wanted to inquire about the current status of our project. It has come to
> my attention that our p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66414
--- Comment #13 from Chih-Hsuan Yang ---
Hi all,
I hope this message finds you well.
I wanted to inquire about the current status of our project. It has come to my
attention that our program is facing performance issues when using gcc 13.2.
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66414
--- Comment #12 from Chih-Hsuan Yang ---
Hi all,
I hope this message finds you well.
I wanted to inquire about the current status of our project. It has come to my
attention that our program is facing performance issues when using gcc 13.2.
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66414
Chih-Hsuan Yang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scc at teamt5 dot org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111373
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually this is what we have before expand:
```
if (_2 > _5)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
...
if (v$2_7 < v$1_28)
goto ; [33.33%]
else
goto ; [66.67%]
[local count: 53687
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
--- Comment #9 from frs.dumont at gmail dot com ---
To be honest before that report I thought that preserving abi was just a
matter of preserving memory layout of types. I had no idea that member
methods mattered !
Lesson learned.
On 11/09/20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111373
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this has nothing to do with returns in this case really, as there are no
return value for this function (returns register allocation has been improved
in recent years though).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-09-11 00:00:00 |
Summary|conditional "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|Register moves rig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111373
Bug ID: 111373
Summary: Register moves right before stores and return
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111372
--- Comment #3 from Alexey ---
Ok, but it's better to have configure option or something else just for
toolchains that definitely do not use vector extension
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111372
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexey from comment #0)
> It seems better to define macros (FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER, FIXED_REGISTERS...)
> depending on "vector" extension is set or not. This would also prevent
> future bugs.
Al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111372
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexey from comment #0)
> It seems better to define macros (FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER, FIXED_REGISTERS...)
> depending on "vector" extension is set or not. This would also prevent
> future bugs.
E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111372
Bug ID: 111372
Summary: libgcc: RISCV C++ exception handling stack usage grew
in 13.1
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91910
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a2766ed00a47904dc8b85bf0538aa116d8e658b
commit r14-3846-g4a2766ed00a47904dc8b85bf0538aa116d8e658b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111312
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86030
--- Comment #13 from Costas Argyris ---
(In reply to John Soo from comment #12)
> I think the general problem in that issue is that ARG_MAX is not respected
> when the driver (or any subprocess) execs things on linux. I think that it
> is not the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86030
--- Comment #12 from John Soo ---
I think the general problem in that issue is that ARG_MAX is not respected when
the driver (or any subprocess) execs things on linux. I think that it is not
the same as the original issue here, though.
> I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111371
Bug ID: 111371
Summary: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.cc:4290
on pp64le with -mcpu=power5+ -mpower10-fusion -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111349
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111349
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b59e9de990a17bfd5fa7252b76339c35bff7f2e8
commit r14-3842-gb59e9de990a17bfd5fa7252b76339c35bff7f2e8
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111330
--- Comment #7 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 55876
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55876&action=edit
Proposed fix v2
Here is the second version of the patch which contains the missing case clauses
(rather than th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106547
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Valentine Anderson from comment #2)
> From what I understand, the key feature of trivially copyable types is that
> memcpy‘ing an object of such a type onto another object is equivalent to a
> copy a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111370
Bug ID: 111370
Summary: On Aarch64 4% 511.povray_r regression between
g:6cd85273071b5f13 (2023-08-23 00:17) and
g:e1f096a3cc96c719 (2023-08-25 22:34)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111341
--- Comment #2 from Brad Richardson ---
You'll need to use fpm. I.e.
$ tree
.
├── app
│ └── main.f90
└── fpm.toml
$ fpm run
+ mkdir -p build/dependencies
Initialized empty Git repository in
/home/brad/examples/empty_elemental/build/dependenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111357
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems when expand_integer_pack is called first time, ohi is
TEMPLATE_PARAMETER_INDEX
with the right type (_Tp TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM), but when it calls
tree hi = tsubst_copy_and_build (ohi, args, complain, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111357
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106547
--- Comment #2 from Valentine Anderson
---
>From what I understand, the key feature of trivially copyable types is that
memcpy‘ing an object of such a type onto another object is equivalent to a copy
assignment. So it is possible to trivially c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111351
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Does using __builtin_is_constant_p on the union member not work?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88a0a883960910530bfefa750461168f539f4a00
commit r14-3840-g88a0a883960910530bfefa750461168f539f4a00
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Thu Sep 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111369
Bug ID: 111369
Summary: ICE in handle_cast, gimple-lower-bitint.cc:1486 with
-Os
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366
--- Comment #8 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Further reduced:
#include
#define HWY_PRAGMA(tokens) _Pragma(#tokens)
#define HWY_PUSH_ATTRIBUTES(targets_str) HWY_PRAGMA(GCC target targets_str)
__attribute__((always_inline)) void PreventElision() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366
--- Comment #7 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
In case this helps resolve this, here is the cvise-reduced code:
% cat skeleton_test.cc
#include
#define HWY_PRAGMA(tokens) _Pragma(#tokens)
namespace hwy {
#define HWY_PUSH_ATTRIBUTES(targets_str) HWY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106547
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111351
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #2 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111284
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps we should drop the
if (TREE_ADDRESSABLE (type))
/* Undo convert_for_arg_passing work here. */
x = convert_from_reference (x);
in cxx_bind_parameters_in_call and somewhere at th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366
--- Comment #6 from Jan Wassenberg ---
Thinking about this more, the LTO means more opportunity for inlining and thus
for the compiler to hit the legit "don't want to inline POWER9 into POWER8"
error.
Interestingly this does not happen on x86 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111368
Bug ID: 111368
Summary: contrib/test_summary should check to ensure the git
branch being put in the email matches the branch
actually tested
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to François Dumont from comment #1)
> It seems to be a limited issue as you need a non-optimized build.
That's not a safe assumption. Inlining decisions can change across builds and
across archi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111359
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111359
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c3c04960d773f47ba5b1da592b6f1e013efe3ea
commit r14-3838-g5c3c04960d773f47ba5b1da592b6f1e013efe3ea
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111284
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, the binding of parms seems to work fine.
But am out of ideas where this should be fixed. When evaluating the
comparison, we have lhs
(const struct S *) (struct S *) ((const struct S *) this)->s
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111347
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's a reason it's marked as unique: it needs to be globally visible and
globally unique.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111363
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111359
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111366
Jan Wassenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.wassenberg at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111359
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111367
--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Reduced test case:
% cat bench_sort.cc
#define HWY_PRAGMA(tokens) _Pragma(#tokens)
#define HWY_PUSH_ATTRIBUTES(targets_str) HWY_PRAGMA(GCC target targets_str)
#define HWY_BEFORE_NAMESPACE() HWY_PUSH_ATT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17239
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't know whether the underlying problem still exists with git. Does a 'git
pull' write to the files it updates, or does it rename them, create a new file,
and delete the old one? Would the latter have t
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
