https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115023
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117426
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
And yes my current patch for scope conflicts fixes the issue. Though I have to
rewrite it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
> I'd be glad to perform other tests if needed.
We could really do with the Boost dependency being dropped if you could try
spend time on that.
Also, please attach preprocessed source for the original testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111843
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> Don't meta-bugs usually put all their other bugs in the "Depends on" field,
> rather than "Blocks"?
yes, fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #28 from Sam James ---
trunk works for me, but 14 doesn't.
(Needed -fno-stack-protector -fno-stack-clash-protection to override some
defaults.)
I don't think https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780#c23 was
committed tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117426
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117424
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117426
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Miscompile with different |[14/15 Regression]
|o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117426
Bug ID: 117426
Summary: Miscompile with different optimization flags
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
--- Comment #5 from John Hodge ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Obvbious workaround `-fno-tree-sra` .
Thanks for pointing out the flag to avoid this issue, that's allowed me to
progress with my other testing. And thanks very mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117425
--- Comment #6 from Yunbo Ni ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> A good resource for sequence points is https://c-faq.com/expr/seqpoints.html
> .
Thanks for your detailed explanation! I'll check it out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117425
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
A good resource for sequence points is https://c-faq.com/expr/seqpoints.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117425
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is:
```
e() ;
((*c = 0, 0) || 0);
```
vs:
```
((*c = 0, 0) || 0);
e() ;
```
GCC has a warning for sequence points (-Wsequence-point) but this one is hard
to figure out since e() depends on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110361
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Fixed b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117425
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117425
--- Comment #2 from Yunbo Ni ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> (In reply to Yunbo Ni from comment #0)
> > The version is gcc 4.7.3.
>
> When you say this, do you mean that is the first version you saw it on?
Sorry for the misunders
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117425
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117425
Bug ID: 117425
Summary: Miscompile with different optimization flags
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117424
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations or -fno-strict-overflow as well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117398
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Thank y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117424
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
-O3 -fno-unswitch-loops works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117424
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.5.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117424
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117424
Bug ID: 117424
Summary: Miscompile with different optimization flags
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112090
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also for `1 >> x` it should just be turned into `x == 0` instead but that is PR
102705 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117422
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to eczbek.void from comment #4)
> Wow, very strange. Thanks for the workaround.
Most likely what is happening is the 2 decls are merged early and then the
template argument from the other decl is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117422
--- Comment #4 from eczbek.void at gmail dot com ---
Wow, very strange. Thanks for the workaround.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117289
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100037
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117422
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks very similar to the issue of PR 100037 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117289
--- Comment #2 from Indu Bhagat ---
Regarding handling of duplicate types in CTF, the bulk of expectation lies on
the link-time de-duplication. On the compiler side, we simply try to not emit
duplicate CTF types to avoid bloating up the object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117422
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #2 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117422
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-03
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Obvbious workaround `-fno-tree-sra` .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59525
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59525&action=edit
Cleanuped testcase
: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tpg+gcc at mutabah dot net
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 59524
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59524&action=edit
Preprocessed output of reproduction (2-20241102-TimeCodegen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117422
Bug ID: 117422
Summary: Error: template parameter was not declared in this
scope
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117421
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note riscv is sometimes does not support unaligned accesses which might be part
of the issue here.
Reduced to just:
```
int ext_is_gzip(char * ext) {
return __builtin_memcmp(ext, "gzip", 4) == 0;
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117421
Bug ID: 117421
Summary: [RISCV] Use byte comparison instead of word comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117416
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117304
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 59523
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59523&action=edit
testcase using __builtin_ia32_cvttpd2udq512_mask()
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -mavx10.1 testcase.c
during RTL p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110361
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > Looks like this was fixed sometime after r13-2020-g16b013c9d9b but before
> > the release of GCC 13.
>
> I'll bisect whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117420
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117417
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] ICE:|[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117417
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59522
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59522&action=edit
New reduced testcase
This one fails even in GCC 14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419
--- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I sent a patch before but there is still something wrong:
PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655473.html
Discussion: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117417
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117420
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #13)
> The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f93910a8b5d606ad742a3594750f0c2b20d8bda
>
> commit r15-4835-g7f93910a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117406
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36a9e2b22596711455e702ea5a5a3f26e145321c
commit r15-4864-g36a9e2b22596711455e702ea5a5a3f26e145321c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117406
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117384
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1fb467dbcc2cdd3bb89fa860a1f86b7e334e0ce3
commit r15-4863-g1fb467dbcc2cdd3bb89fa860a1f86b7e334e0ce3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117391
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115157
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115177
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117381
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|WAITING
++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20241102 (experimental) (GCC)
[561] %
[561] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[562] %
[562] % gcctk -O3 small.c
[563] % ./a.out
Aborted
[564] %
[564] % cat small.c
int a;
int main
local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20241102 (experimental) (GCC)
[675] %
[675] % gcctk -O1 small.c
[676] % ./a.out
Aborted
[677] % cat small.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55369
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117414
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20241102150921.3319089-1-quic_apin...@quicinc.com/T/#t
Though I wonder if some of this could be done using the ranger, maybe for
another time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15736
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Carlo Wood from comment #9)
> Just curious... what caused the 20 years of delay?
Sam has been auditing the testsuite to find issues like a missnamed testcase
(like in this case). So the testcas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117350
--- Comment #24 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #23)
> See reading https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346#c4 seems like
> this has basically been a known issue with autofdo and constructors due to
> thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to dehao from comment #3)
> For AutoFDO, we actually needs symbols from the symbol table because
> indirect call promotion needs the symbol name to find the right callee.
I don't understand why the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117398
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> * With just -O1, 11 works and >=12 fails, bisected to
> r12-2591-g2e96b5f14e4025.
> * With -O2 -fno-thread-jumps, 12 works and >=13 fails. Needs bisection I
> guess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115931
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15736
--- Comment #9 from Carlo Wood ---
Just curious... what caused the 20 years of delay?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 111224, which changed state.
Bug 111224 Summary: modules: xtreme-header-1_a.H etc. ICE (in core_vals, at
cp/module.cc:6108) on AArch64 with SVE types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111224
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111224
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117415
--- Comment #3 from Jørgen Kvalsvik ---
>From a quick look it seems like the problem is fundamentally the difference in
how gcc counts executions (on the basic block) and how that is mapped to lines.
I don't know if there a complete fix if the e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117391
--- Comment #2 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/667285.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 116317, which changed state.
Bug 116317 Summary: [modules] checking ICE in type_node, at cp/module.cc:8693
on stream out with trailing return type based on decltype of argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113814
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:815e48e3d42231b675bae1dec5fa26890f048ef1
commit r15-4862-g815e48e3d42231b675bae1dec5fa26890f048ef1
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116317
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a99443c5dd9a235022652ba0fb143c6370ea99d
commit r15-4861-g4a99443c5dd9a235022652ba0fb143c6370ea99d
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419
Bug ID: 117419
Summary: test failures for enum-alias-{1,2,30 on arm-eabi
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115177
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115157
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |uecker at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111030
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117398
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106408
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99221
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55369
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56513
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
I'm not sure what to suggest for this if it's an ancient wrong-code bug which
seems to have been legitimate but was latent as of 2013. Could easily have been
fixed properly since. Needs proper analysis before tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92419
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #418 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #417)
> I haven't been able to find any regressions. Thus, my suggestion would be to
> clean the patches up now and get them merged if that's okay.
>
> This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114959
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111593
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113243
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115157
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |uecker at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115805
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116799
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] |[14/15 Regression]
|Misco
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
