https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116834
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117434
--- Comment #3 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 11/3/24 18:41, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I just finished doing the same thing.
>
> $ gfc test1.f90
> /usr/bin/ld: warning: /tmp/cc7FO4Ip.o: requires executable stack (because the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117416
--- Comment #1 from Hu Lin ---
Thank you.
We add gcc_assert (IN_RANGE (write, 0, 2)) in i386.md, but don't add exception
handling similar to that of __builtin_prefetch.
@@ -14194,6 +14194,13 @@ ix86_expand_builtin (tree exp, rtx target, rtx
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109996
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
--- Comment #29 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59531
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59531&action=edit
pr109093-comment24-reduction.c
Attempted reduction of https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093#c25
att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117113
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.4.1, 13.3.1, 14.2.1,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117438
Bug ID: 117438
Summary: pass_align_tight_loops may cause performance
regression in nested loops
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117065
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: tree check: expected |[15 regression] ICE: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117433
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka ---
This also happens for:
__attribute__((__vector_size__ (sizeof (__int128) * 4))) __int128 unsigned b;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117126
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Summary|GCC 14 generates re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116834
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||85741
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117369
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Summary|False positive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110418
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110370
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code on |[12/13/14/15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117437
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|ICE: in mem_loc_des
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117105
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 regression] ICE on |[15 regression] ICE on
|v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117437
Bug ID: 117437
Summary: ICE: in mem_loc_descriptor, at dwarf2out.cc:17079 at
-O1 with "-fno-tree-dce" and -g and sanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117434
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115931
--- Comment #2 from Hu Lin ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> Hmm... If I read the manual correctly Loongson MMI doesn't even have
> "packuswh" (vec_pack_usat_v2si). It only has packushb (vec_pack_usat_v4hi).
Thanks for pointing th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117434
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117429
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: verify_cgraph_node |[15 regression] ICE:
|fai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117436
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should mention doing `this->x` allows the lambda to work too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117435
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117436
Bug ID: 117436
Summary: [contracts] Using data member inside a lambda from a
contract fails
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: c++-contra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117435
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-04
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115521
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117105
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on valid code at -O3|[15 regression] ICE on
|w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117429
--- Comment #2 from Anonymous ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Actually I think the issue is flatten attribute rather than fsanitize=bool
> causing this. That is it is most likely a dup of bug 103819 .
Yes, Andrew, I agree with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116865
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[14/15 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117435
Bug ID: 117435
Summary: [contracts] capture of a function parm in a lambda in
a contract does not work
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115568
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
-mtune=haswell is impacted. -mtune=znver4 is OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117434
Bug ID: 117434
Summary: [F08] gfortran rejects actual argument corresponding
to procedure pointer dummy argument
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117432
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117432
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
func_checker::compare_gimple_call
Does:
/* Checking of argument. */
for (i = 0; i < gimple_call_num_args (s1); ++i)
{
t1 = gimple_call_arg (s1, i);
t2 = gimple_call_arg (s2, i);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115568
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> This is a latent bug in the sched1 pass. This change
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
> index effab299349..c532f0596c7 100644
> --- a/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115568
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
This is a latent bug in the sched1 pass. This change
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index effab299349..c532f0596c7 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117432
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Does func_checker::hash_operand need to be hashing DECL_ARG_TYPE instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103829
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
I can bisect if you can give me a nice pattern that you think is reliable. The
instruction count is too close (5) for it to be worth me doing it naively, I
think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117432
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117395
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> It is a slight regression from GCC 14 though.
>
> Which produced:
> ```
> foo:
> ldr q31, [x0, 32]
> sub sp, sp, #128
> add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-03
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117433
Bug ID: 117433
Summary: [14/15 Regression] ICE: in emit_move_insn, at
expr.cc:4633 with __builtin_assoc_barrier(__bf16)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113860
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115023
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115023
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:caa26905eaf79d4875136c8de9e881371e97fe90
commit r15-4871-gcaa26905eaf79d4875136c8de9e881371e97fe90
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:059fdb725ba8210a88a2416a1f819b9ba5453095
commit r15-4870-g059fdb725ba8210a88a2416a1f819b9ba5453095
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117432
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Summary|[11/12/13/14/15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117432
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Created attachment 59528
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59528&action=edit
executable testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117432
Bug ID: 117432
Summary: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] IPA ICF disregards types
of variadic arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117431
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-contracts
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117431
Bug ID: 117431
Summary: [contracts] contracts on lambdas are sometime ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ed02814c2191d5febe0972c3e43c80c004f4799
commit r15-4869-g4ed02814c2191d5febe0972c3e43c80c004f4799
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116388
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115568
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117430
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117430
Bug ID: 117430
Summary: gfortran allows type(C_ptr) in I/O list
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116040
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116040
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3937e01b4eba511a4a5fd2bcd0c81c62fe3ec68a
commit r13-9165-g3937e01b4eba511a4a5fd2bcd0c81c62fe3ec68a
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116040
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117429
Bug ID: 117429
Summary: ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed during IPA pass: inline
with -O2 and -fsanitize=bool
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117428
Bug ID: 117428
Summary: pr55153.c:11:3: warning: invalid thi rd argument to
'__builtin_prefetch'; using zero
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117424
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117420
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117388
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We'll use DECL_NAME, I guess for clones we don't set that - but I'm not sure
why.
Note the language used is available on the TRANSLATION_UNIT_DECL which
eventually is reached following DECL_CONTEXT. But I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117417
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|12.5
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117410
--- Comment #5 from Artyom Kolpakov ---
Here is a slightly different example:
template
void foo(int = 0) {}
template
void foo(...) requires true {}
int main() {
foo();
}
The current standard contains ambiguity regarding ellipsis. I sug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117385
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think I will do it differently than maybe_fold_comparisons_from_match_pd
though. Since most of the time phiopt will use the comparison statement, it
won't be on the stack and just a normal gimple which wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Proposed patch (and a follow-up discussion) at [1].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/667172.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
--- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Harald,
Yes indeed. This has already been flagged up by the folk at Arm. I was
going to remove that test today. The functional test is done in
associate_70.f90 in any case.
Cheer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yunboni at smail dot nju.edu.cn
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117427
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117427
Bug ID: 117427
Summary: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed with
O2/3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40960
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/ossf/wg-
83 matches
Mail list logo
