https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111733
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116885
--- Comment #21 from Jaroslav Fojtík ---
Anyway, all unit tests are passing now, including this one named "struct", on
all Debian duilders:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=wp2latex&suite=sid
I did not note any problem before from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
Reverting r15-3731-g16d2d177ac11b4 indeed does not work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116915
Bug ID: 116915
Summary: wrong code at -O{s,2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116913
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116915
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #16 from Jeevitha ---
Jonathan Wakely,
Unable to recreate the issue.
Tested on Power9 (RHEL 9.4) with GCC 14.1.0, GCC 13, and the trunk, using glibc
2.34, 2.35, and 2.36.
Tested on Power9 (SUSE 15) with the GCC trunk, using glibc 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #363 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I'm currently unable to continue with WebKit because GCC runs out of memory
trying to compile one of the larger source files. I am therefore going to pause
here.
Since there have been several b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116914
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
--- Comment #19 from Vineet Gupta ---
For last several weeks I've been working on various tweaks to address the model
schedule issue. It seems conceptually really simple, something along the lines
of following:
for (;;)
{
FOR_EACH_DE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
--- Comment #18 from Vineet Gupta ---
Next macro issue is in different sub-algorithm of scheduler.
module schedule is a simplistic algorithm run ahead of list schedular to get
max pressure which is subsequently used for bounding the list sched
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116914
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59244
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59244&action=edit
XgJt.cpp.ii.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116914
Bug ID: 116914
Summary: [15 regression] ICE when building plasma-nm-6.1.5
(gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.cc:3309)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
No, sorry, I was wrong. It's inconsistent. Ignore it until pinskia has a chance
to reduce it more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #17 from Vineet Gup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #22)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #19)
> > *** Bug 106939 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
> Provided that many duplicates (even nested --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #22 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #19)
> *** Bug 106939 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Provided that many duplicates (even nested -- see that bug too) -- everyone
expects this to work. W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.2.1
Summary|[15 regression] I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Will bisect after FF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Note that you need to use it preprocessed otherwise it won't ICE (for me at
least).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> Under gdb, I get:
> ```
> during IPA pass: modref
> /tmp/b.ii:81:3: internal compiler error: tree code ‘ggc_freed’ is not
> supported in LTO streams
Something is de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Under gdb, I get:
```
during IPA pass: modref
/tmp/b.ii:81:3: internal compiler error: tree code ‘ggc_freed’ is not supported
in LTO streams
81 | }};
| ^
0x56f4ef9c internal_error(char const*, ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59243
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59243&action=edit
reduced.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116913
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
This comes from an unified source that is #include all of the C++ code into one
main source file.
This is why this odd pattern shows up; I doubt it will show up in code without
this kind of unification.
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116913
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116913
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Not sure if this is a good reduction but:
```
namespace gfx {
typedef int MarginDouble;
}
using gfx::MarginDouble;
using MarginDouble = MarginDouble;
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116913
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
g++ -c ./Unified_cpp_widget3.ii -fno-exceptions is enough
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116913
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116913
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
https://dev.gentoo.org/~sam/bugs/gcc/ff-cxx-116913/Unified_cpp_widget3.ii.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116913
Bug ID: 116913
Summary: [15 regression] ICE when building firefox-130.0.1
(tree check: expected var_decl or function_decl or
field_decl or type_decl or concept_decl or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116098
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113261
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-01
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #362 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #361)
> Do you know if there's any particular reason why sfunc on SH can't be done
> via regular call insn path? I can imagine it was originally done to
> optimize the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107775
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
MEM[(v2df *)&v] = reg.0_1;
v[0] = b_5(D);
_2 = MEM[(v2df *)&v];
Maybe that could be converted into:
MEM[(v2df *)&v] = reg.0_1;
BIT_FIELD_REF = b_2(D);
_2 = MEM[(v2df *)&v];
BIT_INSERT_EXPR ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #361 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #360)
>
> I think that it's an issue for call insns not for normal insns. As reported
> in c#276, LRA handles call insns specially, and it seems to be an argument
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116895
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116903
fsb4000 at yandex dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116895
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b1696ffd46872907b324996d4cdf28a2b9df209d
commit r15-3982-gb1696ffd46872907b324996d4cdf28a2b9df209d
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116098
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
Thinking about this some more. We maybe should expand
factor_out_conditional_operation to handle phis with more than 2 entries. But
that won't fix this issue overall but mitigate the issue (again).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116911
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> comment #5 is PR 113266.
Which I think is the underyling issue here, just exposed by
r15-3910-gaf4471cb422a86 change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||113266
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116911
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note we should accept this for C++11 too:
```
template struct a {};
static int guard;
a b;
```
But that has always been rejected.
clang warns about the original reduced testcase for c++98 but that is valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |rejects-valid
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116911
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
edg accepts it with 11 too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116911
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
```
tem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116912
--- Comment #4 from Sean Christopherson ---
Gah, sorry, I skimmed right past that sentence. Thanks for the fast response,
much appreciated!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #360 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #354)
> Kaz, I just spotted one LRA related thing on the ML
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2024-August/080509.html
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85186
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116912
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note you should also read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ which has this:
Similarly, if compiling with -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations makes a difference, or if compiling with
-fsan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-30
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116912
Bug ID: 116912
Summary: Cross-compiling aarch64 on x86_64 incorrectly
ignores/discards function output parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64117
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111733
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/664160.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|pr110625_4.c fails on |[15 Regression]
|aarc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116899
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 59238 [details]
> gcc15-pr116899.patch
>
> Untested fix in patch form.
Also pre-approved.
thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116868
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116866
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116865
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.1.0, 13.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #3 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116911
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59241
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59241&action=edit
qlogging.ii.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116911
Bug ID: 116911
Summary: [15 regression] Building qtcore-5.15.14 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108915
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cooper.qu at linux dot
alibaba.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116910
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116910
Bug ID: 116910
Summary: How to iterate a "section array" maybe should be
documented
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stian.skjelstad at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||federico at kircheis dot it
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114597
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116909
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||141242068 at smail dot
nju.edu.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hiraditya at msn dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116909
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
auto get_tests() noexcept {
extern const test_signature *const tests_begin[];
extern const test_signature *const tests_end[];
const test_signature *const * b = tests_begin;
asm("":"+r"(b));
const t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116909
Bug ID: 116909
Summary: Does g++ define the behavior for an "array" manually
created with a linker script?
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109859
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109859
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4bcfaaed25b1b8ecc81f6a28d9ca76f00870dedf
commit r15-3980-g4bcfaaed25b1b8ecc81f6a28d9ca76f00870dedf
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116908
Bug ID: 116908
Summary: ICE (invalid calls_comdat_local flag) with -O1
compiling webkit
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #359 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #358)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #357)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #356)
> > > Can you file a seperate bug for this since I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #358 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #357)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #356)
> > Can you file a seperate bug for this since I think it is a generic IPA issue
> > ratehr than spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113996
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|15.0
Summary|[12/13/14/15 re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113996
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65073a5b90c00a1c47efae8a67b9c754e2287ee0
commit r15-3979-g65073a5b90c00a1c47efae8a67b9c754e2287ee0
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #357 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #356)
> Can you file a seperate bug for this since I think it is a generic IPA issue
> ratehr than specific to sh?
I will file it seperately since I can reproduce it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Will try reduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116908
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116908
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59240
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59240&action=edit
testcase
compile with `-O1 -std=c++20` (for x86_64, you need -m32).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59239
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59239&action=edit
option_types.ii.xz
That does it, thanks!
g++ -std=c++2a -O3 -flto -c option_types.ii --param ggc-min-expand=1 --p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Works with -save-temps :(
Try with `--param ggc-min-expand=1 --param ggc-min-heapsize=1` Maybe it is
trying to output something which has been freed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Works with -save-temps :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
==1811379==
==1811379== Invalid read of size 2
==1811379==at 0x1EA3004: tree_is_indexable(tree_node*) [clone .lto_priv.0]
(lto-streamer-out.cc:153)
==1811379==by 0x1EB9491: DFS::DFS_write_tree(output_blo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116907
Bug ID: 116907
Summary: [15 regression] ICE when building kakoune-2024.05.18
(modref)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
