https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Djordje Baljozovic from comment #11)
> (In reply to Djordje Baljozovic from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > > A few questions, does `-fsanitize=undefined -fsani
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115024
--- Comment #6 from Haochen Jiang ---
I have got a machine to reproduce the regression.
Seem like a DSB miss from my data, but don't know why. Need more investigation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115177
--- Comment #5 from Martin Uecker ---
If we do want to constrain the type, we should make them incompatible at the
language level. Aliasing is secondary. From a safety perspective, it is always
safer to allow aliasing, because the optimizer bre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115354
Bug ID: 115354
Summary: Large -Os code size increase related to -ftree-sra
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115047
Wentao Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115353
--- Comment #1 from Angus Gratton ---
Created attachment 58352
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58352&action=edit
Larger test case that previously generated tbh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115353
Bug ID: 115353
Summary: Missed thumb2 table branch instruction optimisations
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
--- Comment #5 from Zhaohaifeng ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #4)
> I'm not personally particularly interested in performance on x86 systems -
> my work is in embedded microcontroller programming. But I did push for
> "-fno-common"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
--- Comment #26 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b05288d1f1e4b632eddf8830b4369d4659f6c2ff
commit r15-1022-gb05288d1f1e4b632eddf8830b4369d4659f6c2ff
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115115
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b05288d1f1e4b632eddf8830b4369d4659f6c2ff
commit r15-1022-gb05288d1f1e4b632eddf8830b4369d4659f6c2ff
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100927
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b05288d1f1e4b632eddf8830b4369d4659f6c2ff
commit r15-1022-gb05288d1f1e4b632eddf8830b4369d4659f6c2ff
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue May
usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --enable-libsanitizer
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r15-1014-20240604161649-g591d30c5c97-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20240604 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115351
Bug ID: 115351
Summary: [14 regression] pointless movs when passing by value
on x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115350
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115350
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58661
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just for reference this was defect #347 which was closed as not a defect due to
other changes (defect report #284)
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#347
https://www.open-std.org/jt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115350
Bug ID: 115350
Summary: Missing optimzation: fold `n = std::min(f ? 0 : 3,
-a)` to `n = -a`
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115338
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC and GCC accepts it.
EDG and clang rejects it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115282
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I originally saw this on a BE run but indeed it fails on LE too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115349
Bug ID: 115349
Summary: compiler infers the wrong Accum_Type for a Reducer
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59104
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115177
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
One could argue either way. As a hardened type, discouraging aliasing that
would bypass the hardening could also make sense. It was modeled after Ada,
whose aliasing is much stricter, but I guess in C it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115348
Bug ID: 115348
Summary: -fcheck=recursion issue with intent(out) derived type
argument without components with default value
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111592
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |simartin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115260
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> Created attachment 58346 [details]
> Reduced testcase
>
> Reduced for subsequent analysis.
Further datapoint: replacing the dummy argument
type(field_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115347
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115347
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|wrong cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107575
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |simartin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115336
--- Comment #2 from Robin Dapp ---
It looks to me as if we're expecting the result of a gather_load to be zero
when it's masked out (semantics of mask_gather_load) but for
mask_len_gather_load we actually describe it as undefined. Here the mask
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115260
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 58346
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58346&action=edit
Reduced testcase
Reduced for subsequent analysis.
-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20240604 (experimental) (GCC)
[511] %
[511] % gcctk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
[512] % gcctk -O3 small.c
[513] % ./a.out
Aborted
[514] % cat small.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #11 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
(In reply to Djordje Baljozovic from comment #9)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > A few questions, does `-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize=address` report
> > anything? Does it work at -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103388
--- Comment #10 from Simon Martin ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #9)
> The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:126ccf8ffc46865accec22a2789f09abd98c1d85
>
> commit r15-1019-g126ccf8ffc46865accec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103338
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.5|14.2
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115343
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the original example is invalid code to begin.
```
:5:11: warning: declaration of 'using foo::tag = struct tag' changes
meaning of 'tag' [-Wchanges-meaning]
5 | using tag = tag;
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103388
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:126ccf8ffc46865accec22a2789f09abd98c1d85
commit r15-1019-g126ccf8ffc46865accec22a2789f09abd98c1d85
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115344
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115346
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note this is not even emitted at -O0, the gimplifier removes it for some
> reason ...
Oh see PR 99258 for analysis of the gimplifier (I think). with `#pragma
pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115346
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is not even emitted at -O0, the gimplifier removes it for some reason
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115346
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>GCC 4.0.4 does not eliminate the loads: https://godbolt.org/z/frsP8o7YT
But 3.4.6 did not emit them either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83865
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f21aee0d4ef95eee7d9f7f42e9a056715836648
commit r15-1018-g7f21aee0d4ef95eee7d9f7f42e9a056715836648
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115346
Bug ID: 115346
Summary: [15] Volatile load elimination with packed struct
bitfields at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #10 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Also, if building with GCC 11 works and with GCC 12 doesn't, can you build
> two trees, one with either compiler and then bisect first among the shared
> l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #9 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> A few questions, does `-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize=address` report
> anything? Does it work at -O0 and not just -O3? Does adding
> -fno-strict-aliasing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Also, if building with GCC 11 works and with GCC 12 doesn't, can you build two
trees, one with either compiler and then bisect first among the shared
libraries or binaries (find out which shared library or b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #7 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> It does work for me on x86_64 GNU/Linux. The big stack allocation is handled
> by the split-stack support.
I think I see what's happening
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
It does work for me on x86_64 GNU/Linux. The big stack allocation is handled
by the split-stack support.
This of course leaves the question of why it is making such a large stack
allocation to begin with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #6 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for what we need, we need a
> self-contained preprocessed testcase, which you haven't provided.
> You should start by c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105274
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115339
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97385
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Last re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=06
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=06
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Simon Martin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cfbd8735359d84a2d716549415eac70e885167bf
commit r15-1016-gcfbd8735359d84a2d716549415eac70e885167bf
Author: Simon Martin
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #4 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
(In reply to Djordje Baljozovic from comment #3)
> (In reply to Djordje Baljozovic from comment #1)
> > I am attaching an example of the differences in gcc_crash_report.txt for the
> > input file sid_45
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #3 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
(In reply to Djordje Baljozovic from comment #1)
> I am attaching an example of the differences in gcc_crash_report.txt for the
> input file sid_453841144.sdf in a separate attachment.
See attachment b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
--- Comment #2 from Djordje Baljozovic ---
Created attachment 58345
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58345&action=edit
Example of differences in output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
Djordje Baljozovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://github.com/IUPAC-In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115335
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115335
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6e6258ea43299399074f8d5f48697b5bc26064e
commit r14-10281-gc6e6258ea43299399074f8d5f48697b5bc26064e
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115345
Bug ID: 115345
Summary: [12/13/14 REGRESSION] / Different outputs compared to
GCC 11- and MSVC/Clang
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed now.
I think we want to backport the fold-const.cc first patch to older branches
too, but it will be different there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13 Regression] PCH of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115335
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2197814011eec75022aa8550f10621409b69d4a1
commit r15-1015-g2197814011eec75022aa8550f10621409b69d4a1
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
Bug 115092 depends on bug 114902, which changed state.
Bug 114902 Summary: [14 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp
-fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a88e13bd7e0f50011e7f7f6e05c6f5e2a031143c
commit r14-10280-ga88e13bd7e0f50011e7f7f6e05c6f5e2a031143c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108789
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9af4a05e027a8b797628f1a2c39ef0b28dc36d9
commit r14-10279-gf9af4a05e027a8b797628f1a2c39ef0b28dc36d9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115324
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7dd44c02ec1047166b4bacc3faa6255c816da2a
commit r14-10277-ga7dd44c02ec1047166b4bacc3faa6255c816da2a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14a7296d04474055bfe1d7f130dceac6dabf390d
commit r14-10276-g14a7296d04474055bfe1d7f130dceac6dabf390d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14a7296d04474055bfe1d7f130dceac6dabf390d
commit r14-10276-g14a7296d04474055bfe1d7f130dceac6dabf390d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:591d30c5c97e757f63ce0d99ae9a3dbe8c75a50a
commit r15-1014-g591d30c5c97e757f63ce0d99ae9a3dbe8c75a50a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:181861b072ff1ef650c1a9d0290a4a672b9e747c
commit r15-1013-g181861b072ff1ef650c1a9d0290a4a672b9e747c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115337
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b82a816000791e7a286c7836b3a473ec0e2a577b
commit r15-1011-gb82a816000791e7a286c7836b3a473ec0e2a577b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
--- Comment #12 from Thorsten Otto ---
Can you try to compile the date_is_valid() snippet in comment#7?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100303
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.4.1
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90068
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108155
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108086
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110838
Bug 110838 depends on bug 113281, which changed state.
Bug 113281 Summary: [11 Regression] Latent wrong code due to vectorization of
shift reduction and missing promotions since r9-1590
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109939
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 113281, which changed state.
Bug 113281 Summary: [11 Regression] Latent wrong code due to vectorization of
shift reduction and missing promotions since r9-1590
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112593
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #1)
>> The test also FAILs on Solaris 11.4, both sparc and x86, 32 and 64-bit.
>> However,
>> the fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115192
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.4.1
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113281
--- Comment #32 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95e4252f53bc0e5b66a200c611fd2c9f6f7f2a62
commit r11-11466-g95e4252f53bc0e5b66a200c611fd2c9f6f7f2a62
Author: Richard S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100303
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1fb76e041740e7dd8cdf71dff3ae7aa31b3ea9b
commit r11-11468-ga1fb76e041740e7dd8cdf71dff3ae7aa31b3ea9b
Author: Richard Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108086
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66d01cc3f4a248ccc471a978f0bfe3615c3f3a30
commit r11-11467-g66d01cc3f4a248ccc471a978f0bfe3615c3f3a30
Author: Richard S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115192
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:741ea10418987ac02eb8e680f2946a6e5928eb23
commit r11-11465-g741ea10418987ac02eb8e680f2946a6e5928eb23
Author: Richard S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115344
Bug ID: 115344
Summary: Missing loop counter reversal
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
That's not the way we do things. And my bootstraps on m68k are working fine.
Last one was 6 days ago.
This needs to be debugged by someone with the time/interest on the m68k.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115325
--- Comment #2 from Jan Wassenberg ---
Thanks, we are equipped to use pragma GCC target as soon as it is ready. Is
there any bug/tracker to which I could subscribe for updates on that?
> Is the option supposed to be only about the standard global scope operator
> new/delete (_Znam etc.) or also user operator new/delete class methods? If
> the
> former, then I agree it is a global property (or at least a per shared
> library/binary property, one can arrange stuff with symbol vis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Is the option supposed to be only about the standard global scope operator
> new/delete (_Znam etc.) or also user operator new/delete class methods? If
> the
> former, then I agree it is a global property
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
