https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376
--- Comment #1 from YunQiang Su ---
RISC-V has this problem, too.
Maybe we can try to combine it in `combine` pass, while it may be not easy.
It may break some code like:
```
int f1();
int f2();
int f(int a) {
int p = (a & 0x8);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like the code in `cfn_clz::fold_range` in gimple-range-op.cc assume that
the return value for defining of 0 should only be positive.
`cfn_ctz::fold_range` has a similar issue too.
As a seperate note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
Bug ID: 115337
Summary: wrong code with _BitInt()
__builtin_stdc_first_leading_one() at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115334
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr112325.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr112325.c
index dea6cca3b86..143903beab2 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr112325.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr11232
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115299
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d207044195b97ecb27c72a7dc987eb8b86644a0
commit r15-1003-g4d207044195b97ecb27c72a7dc987eb8b86644a0
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org
See A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
Zhaohaifeng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhaohaifeng4 at huawei dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115334
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115336
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115336
Bug ID: 115336
Summary: [15] rv64gcv_zvl256b miscompile at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109452
Rajesh Shashi Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reachrajesh747 at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115335
Bug ID: 115335
Summary: std::span at method is missing feature test macro
__cpp_lib_span >= 202311L
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4cf2de9b5268224816a3d53fdd2c3d799ebfd9c8
commit r15-1001-g4cf2de9b5268224816a3d53fdd2c3d799ebfd9c8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115012
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48c3e5a4f935d6b8cd9ef7c51995e3b29ceb8be7
commit r15-1000-g48c3e5a4f935d6b8cd9ef7c51995e3b29ceb8be7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115319
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100667
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105258
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b0efdcbf58a76af3b8fff75f1d53d334fb5b46ee
commit r15-997-gb0efdcbf58a76af3b8fff75f1d53d334fb5b46ee
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83865
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109849
--- Comment #37 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Francois Dumont
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:955202eb2cdbe2bc74c626bce90ee1eac410ad4f
commit r14-10272-g955202eb2cdbe2bc74c626bce90ee1eac410ad4f
Author: François Du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109849
--- Comment #36 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Francois Dumont :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0426be454448f8cfb9db21f4f669426afb7b57c8
commit r15-996-g0426be454448f8cfb9db21f4f669426afb7b57c8
Author: François Dumont
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88545
--- Comment #7 from AK ---
Is there a plan to push a patch for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107986
teodor_spaeren at riseup dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||teodor_spaeren at rise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104165
--- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao ---
For anyone attempting to claim this not fixed for 13 or later please see
PR107986 first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104165
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114493
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58337&action=edit
gcc15-pr114493.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114493
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That was added for C++ in PR70512.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115333
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Maybe we should make it the L3 size like Intel but I'm not sure. See the
reasoning in PR87444 comments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114493
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115334
Bug ID: 115334
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/vect/pr112325.c from
r15-919-gef27b91b62c3aa fails
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104165
teodor_spaeren at riseup dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||teodor_spaeren at rise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115333
--- Comment #2 from Kostadin Shishmanov ---
I suppose we can close this then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115307
--- Comment #7 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Note the difference between __builtin_isinf (C standard semantics, returns
unspecified nonzero value for an infinity) and __builtin_isinf_sign (stricter
semantics returning 1 for +Inf and -1 for -Inf).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115333
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44298
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mr.bossman075 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115332
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 44298 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115332
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mr.bossman075 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115332
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115333
Bug ID: 115333
Summary: -march=native sets --param "l2-cache-size=1024" on
Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115332
Bug ID: 115332
Summary: Using label-as-value in asm statement removes label
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #52 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christopher Nerz from comment #45)
> This is a critical bug which renders gcc unusable for safety relevant
> systems using expected/variant or simple ipc.
I don't think your example demonstra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #51 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #48)
> (In reply to Christopher Nerz from comment #47)
> > But shouldn't both give the same value?
>
> I'm not sure what the standard says to this. Does std::laun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108789
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-03
Summary|ICE-on-in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 regression] |ICE-on-invalid passing a
lease include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
Compiler returned: 1
Online reproducer: https://godbolt.org/z/K1hjEsaf5
The ICE does not reproduce on 14.1, it's trunk only (tested on
Compiler-Explorer-Build-gcc-cbf2ed4b309d54039d74be5d730299012e7681b3-binutils-2.42,
15.0.0 20240603).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Manolis Tsamis from comment #8)
> Created attachment 58335 [details]
> Do not modify live_out registers
>
> After looking again at the dumps from PR112415, which I believe is closely
> rela
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115330
Bug ID: 115330
Summary: Incorrect definition module name used in the error
message when reporting on an opaque type
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115297
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115297
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:835b913aff1b1a813df3b9d2bbef170ae7d8856d
commit r11-11463-g835b913aff1b1a813df3b9d2bbef170ae7d8856d
Author: Uros Bizjak
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2024-05-29 8:17 a.m., ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
>>
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115297
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6c2a6cebabc5f78cef3d81cedb4b3b578478b9f
commit r12-10486-gc6c2a6cebabc5f78cef3d81cedb4b3b578478b9f
Author: Uros Bizjak
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Stubbs ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10)
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2024, ams at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
> >
> > --- Comment #9 from Andrew Stubbs --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115329
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115329
Bug ID: 115329
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2812
since r15-930-ge715204f203d31
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115326
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, fold_builtin_arith_overflow just does
tree call = build_call_expr_internal_loc (loc, ifn, ctype, 2,
arg0, arg1);
tree tgt = save_expr (call);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108789
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the missing SAVE_EXPR issue is similar to PR 52339 (which has a patch
attached to it that would fix the issue here too I think).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108789
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cody at tapscott dot me
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115297
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed06ca80bae174f1179222ff8e6b93464006e86a
commit r13-8820-ged06ca80bae174f1179222ff8e6b93464006e86a
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115321
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024, ams at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
>
> --- Comment #9 from Andrew Stubbs ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13)
> I've completed the sparc64-linux comparison now: no regressions with a
> non-bootstrap build and your patches either, thus the same situat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115326
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this is just invalid testcase.
The compiler is told that *a is const, but it is changed through a different
lvalue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115321
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ab5145825ca7e96fcbe3aa505d42e4ae8f81009
commit r15-993-g6ab5145825ca7e96fcbe3aa505d42e4ae8f81009
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Mon Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115328
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115327
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115328
Bug ID: 115328
Summary: The FORWARD keyword is not implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: modula2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Stubbs ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> The best strathegy for GCN would be to gather V4QImode aka SImode into the
> V64QImode (or V16SImode) vector. For pix2 we have a gap of 28 elements,
> doing co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115327
Bug ID: 115327
Summary: [ld] [lto] using ld and lto, crash while dynamic
compile executable
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751
--- Comment #9 from Gejoe ---
Hi team,
I'm here to say that the issue is sorted out now for me.
The gcda stamp mismatch would be seen when there is a recompilation of the
source file for any reason. In my project, there was a particular compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc*-sun-solaris2.11 GCN |GCN
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed8ba88074f3663f810ef2f07d79c3fcde5d9697
commit r15-991-ged8ba88074f3663f810ef2f07d79c3fcde5d9697
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
--- Comment #8 from Manolis Tsamis ---
Created attachment 58335
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58335&action=edit
Do not modify live_out registers
After looking again at the dumps from PR112415, which I believe is closely
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
For GCN the issue is that with vector(64) unsigned short we fail the permute
(but we have { target vect64 } for this reason), but we then re-try with
the same mode but with SLP disabled and that succeeds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115326
Bug ID: 115326
Summary: __builtin_sub_overflow reports incorrect overflow
value
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110572
--- Comment #12 from Martin Storsjö ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> CC Martin Storsjo to see if changing Clang would be possible, or if he has a
> better idea for the preprocessor check suggested in comment 9.
>
> It might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
[...]
>> * sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu (again, c and c++ only): there are tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #50 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024, Christopher.Nerz at de dot bosch.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
>
> --- Comment #49 from Christopher Nerz
> ---
> Ah, misunderstood and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115157
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The tests in the last patch fail on arm-eabi. The tests assume that
sizeof(enum) == sizeof(int), which is not true if -fshort-enum is the default.
+ Chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #49 from Christopher Nerz ---
Ah, misunderstood and therefore forgot optimization to a constant.
In the current code example, we have the problem that the (second)
initialization does not initialize with a value (ergo undefined behav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Created attachment 58333
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58333&action=edit
'c2' GCN target ('-march=gfx908') 'slp-gap-1.c.179t.vect'
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Created attachment 58332
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58332&action=edit
GCN target ('-march=gfx908') 'slp-gap-1.c.179t.vect'
Similar (I suppose?) for GCN target (tested '-march=gfx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc*-sun-solaris2.11 |sparc*-sun-solaris2.11 GCN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115325
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The correct way of doing this is to use `pragma GCC target` but that is not
supported on riscv yet ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115325
Bug ID: 115325
Summary: RVV vmulh and vmulhu unknown without -march, but vmul
is known
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #48 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Christopher Nerz from comment #47)
> But shouldn't both give the same value?
I'm not sure what the standard says to this. Does std::launder(...)
sanitize earlier "undefined behavior"? For ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> It should only need vect32 - basically I assumed the target can compose the
> 64bit vector from two 32bit elements. But it might be that for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 58331
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58331&action=edit
gcc15-pr115324.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #47 from Christopher Nerz ---
But shouldn't both give the same value?
The return of the new and the std::launder(...) point to the same object and
are both equal read-operations! It is imho not predictable that they behave
differently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108256
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 115323 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
Bug ID: 115324
Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] PCH (and maybe GC) of rs6000
builtins broken
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115303
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gc
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
