https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114736
Bug ID: 114736
Summary: ICE during SLP pass with gfortran-13 -O3
-mcpu=neoverse-v2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #31)
> While that does seem to fix the bug, it's at the cost of 6 additional stores
> in the problematic test that are redundant other than changing the alias set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114735
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95365
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gejoed at rediffmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114735
Bug ID: 114735
Summary: Gcov not working with gcc version 11.4.0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
--- Comment #10 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #9)
> Some warnings are then even required to be standard compliant.
I just searched through the C standard and no warnings seem to be required by
it. The only place
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114732
--- Comment #1 from HaoChen Gui ---
A straightforward test case. It passes when compiling with O0 and aborts when
compiling with O2.
//test.c
#include
#define BCD_POS0 12// 0xC
#define BCD_NEG 13// 0xD
void abort (void);
vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
--- Comment #9 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
x is - according to the C standard - always whatever it is in the controlling
expression. Some warnings are then even required to be standard compliant.
Note that this also does not have to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
--- Comment #8 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #7)
> Fundamentally, the program is that _Generic is not ideally designed for this
> use case.
Why?
> One could consider an extension
>
> _Generic(x, int i: f(i), l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
--- Comment #7 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The fix suppresses certain warnings which are guarded by a flag, but it is not
always clear whether a specific warning should be suppressed or not in dead
code.
You could also always add a cast.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114734
Bug ID: 114734
Summary: [14] RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b miscompile with -flto -O3
-mrvv-vector-bits=zvl
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112938
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c39dc5bb65c492fafc5a0fde83708b8d24e0338d
commit r14-9985-gc39dc5bb65c492fafc5a0fde83708b8d24e0338d
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114733
Bug ID: 114733
Summary: [14] Miscompile with -march=rv64gcv -O3 on riscv
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #11 from Alejandro Colomar ---
What are pedwarns? :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #9)
> The related bug claims to be fixed in trunk. I can still reproduce mine in
> gcc-14, from Debian RC-Buggy.
Pedwarn warnings were not fixed ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #9 from Alejandro Colomar ---
The related bug claims to be fixed in trunk. I can still reproduce mine in
gcc-14, from Debian RC-Buggy.
alx@debian:~/tmp/c$ gcc-14 -Wall -Wextra g.c -S
g.c: In function ‘main’:
g.c:96:21: error: pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Also note clang has the same behavior .
ICC does too.
MSVC actually gets it right (need to use /std:clatest) and change time_t into
long since time_t there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
--- Comment #6 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Oh well, in my case it is -Wincompatible-pointer-types. Maybe the fix was only
for -Wformat.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alx at kernel dot org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Because the inner _Generic gets selected first and then outter one is selected.
Also note clang has the same behavior .
Note the syntax error is just a2i should not have a comma in it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #5 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Ahhh, sorry Sam. I had a mistake while writing the reproducer, and didn't
realize. I thought it was a side effect of something else.
Here's a fixed reproducer, with the fixed diagnostics.
$ cat g.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
I think this sort of thing is somewhat common when it comes to something the
frontend can't even parse. But we'll see what others say.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #3 from Alejandro Colomar ---
The diagnostic is spurious, because of course if I call the following macro
#define a2i(TYPE, ...)\
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
--- Comment #2 from Alejandro Colomar ---
That's precisely what I meant (my bad, I used incorrect wording). I think that
diagnostic is spurious, and should be removed.
A few self-corrections:
- I should have said diagnostics, instead of warn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114724
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
For future reference, I recommend including the link to the other report, and
also CCing the author/committer of bisect results. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114724
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |MOVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114732
Bug ID: 114732
Summary: ge can't be reversed to unlt for bcd compares
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114731
Bug ID: 114731
Summary: -Wincompatible-pointer-types false positive in
combination with _Generic(3)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114730
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So it turns out before GCC 9, using enum vectors would ICE (PR 87286).
It was asked then if we should reject them but there was no answer to question
that but rather just fixing the ICE alone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114518
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92880
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114730
Bug ID: 114730
Summary: should enum types be vector types?
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
--- Comment #4 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> Vineet, do we have this isolated enough that we know what function is most
> affected and presumably the most impacted blocks? If so we can probably
> start to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66924
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the "parse error" part of the diagnostic is no longer there on the trunk
(for GCC 14).
clang produces:
```
:6:46: error: non-type template argument is not a constant expression
6 | auto f = [] (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96353
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96353
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #5 from Andr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-15
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95913
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57954
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57954&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110486
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
--- Comment #2 from Vineet Gupta ---
FWIW -fsched-pressure is already default enabled for RISC-V.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
Bug ID: 114729
Summary: RISC-V SPEC2017 507.cactu excessive spillls with
-fschedule-insns
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100172
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #4 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102680
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-lambda
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 102931, which changed state.
Bug 102931 Summary: ICE explicit lambda call operator without template keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102931
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106024
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99902
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 105106, which changed state.
Bug 105106 Summary: Non-dependent call with defaulted NTTP lambda fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105106
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105106
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 102693, which changed state.
Bug 102693 Summary: ICE in tsubst related to lambdas as template default
parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102693
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109978
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98500
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-12-22 00:00:00 |2024-4-15
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114632
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Looks like static op() lambdas are affected too:
struct S {};
auto lambda = [](auto, const int x) static /* -> void */ {};
int main()
{
void (*func)(int, int) = lambda;
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114632
waffl3x changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||waffl3x at protonmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||101027
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114728
Bug ID: 114728
Summary: Coroutine called in short-circuit fold expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114665
--- Comment #6 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Binutils: #binutils-2_42 (c7f28aad0c99d1d2fec4e52ebfa3735d90ceb8e9)
QEMU_CPU=rv64,vlen=128,v=true,vext_spec=v1.0,zve32f=true,zve64f=true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114727
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114727
Bug ID: 114727
Summary: ICE with c23 with aligned attribute and .-g
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95682
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.2.1, 14.0
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114725
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114725
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114625
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|requires { T{}; } wrongly |requires { T{}; } wrongly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willisahershey at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114726
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is { does not gets balanced in the preprocessor only ().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114726
--- Comment #3 from Willis Hershey ---
Created attachment 57951
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57951&action=edit
Output of gcc -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114726
--- Comment #2 from Willis Hershey ---
Created attachment 57950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57950&action=edit
Compiler error output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114726
--- Comment #1 from Willis Hershey ---
Created attachment 57949
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57949&action=edit
Preprocessed source file from GCC 10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114726
Bug ID: 114726
Summary: Function-like-macro expansion containing compound
literal won't compile
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114665
--- Comment #5 from Robin Dapp ---
Weird, I tried your exact qemu version and still can't reproduce the problem.
My results are always FFB5.
Binutils difference? Very unlikely. Could you post your QEMU_CPU settings
just to be sure?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109596
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
I looked into the remaining exit/nonexit rename discussed here earlier before
the PR was closed. The following patch would restore the code to do the same
calls as before my patch
PR tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106749
Bug 106749 depends on bug 113386, which changed state.
Bug 113386 Summary: [C++23] std::pair comparison operators should be
transparent, but are not in libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113386
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113386
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93672
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93672
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d694414ada8e3b58f504c1b175d31088529632e
commit r14-9978-g2d694414ada8e3b58f504c1b175d31088529632e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113386
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2a0c083558b4ac6609692294df7a388cf4468711
commit r14-9979-g2a0c083558b4ac6609692294df7a388cf4468711
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114625
--- Comment #5 from Ted Lyngmo ---
@Andrew, the title change seems wrong. It wrongly returns true when T{} is
ill-formed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114724
Carlos Eduardo Seo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114724
--- Comment #2 from Carlos Eduardo Seo ---
OK, I'll reopen it there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114724
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114725
Bug ID: 114725
Summary: Missed optimization: more precise range for and
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114665
--- Comment #4 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Reran as requested in pr114668. Still present with that fix.
I'll triage some other testcases and file those as well. Hopefully one of them
is a duplicate to this one that is easily reproducible.
GCC: r1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78322
--- Comment #5 from David Blaikie ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to David Blaikie from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > > We produce an abstract copy for use by repeated inline copies.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114724
Bug ID: 114724
Summary: [Regression]
libstdc++prettyprinters/debug.[cc|cxx11.cc] failing to
build
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113208
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka ---
So the main problem is that in t2 we have
_ZN6vectorI12QualityValueEC1ERKS1_/7 (vector<_Tp>::vector(const vector<_Tp>&)
[with _Tp = QualityValue])
Type: function definition analyzed alias cpp_implicit_alia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114722
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113208
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, but the problem is same. Having comdats with same key defining different
set of public symbols is IMO not a good situation for both non-LTO and LTO
builds.
Unless the additional alias is never used by val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|gcov-profile|testsuite
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113208
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #25)
>
> If constexpr changes how the constructor is generated, isn't this violation
> of ODR?
Note the original code didn't have the constexpr change. And IIRC const
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
