https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117855
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Summary|Inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117806
--- Comment #6 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117806
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1539bcd19c5928d8359722c532dfcc7a26a16dda
commit r15-5816-g1539bcd19c5928d8359722c532dfcc7a26a16dda
Author: Martin Uecker
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117855
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117855
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect this will bisect to r15-2864 (r14-10655) which was done to fix the
inherited guide.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117856
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14.2.0/gcc/C-Dialect-Options.html#index-aux-info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117856
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: tree check: expected |-aux-info not expecting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101057
Bug 101057 depends on bug 117749, which changed state.
Bug 117749 Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault with gimplefe and invalid
declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117749
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117749
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1701efd5c848f56cf9a469c5bf42dd0bca675e0a
commit r15-5815-g1701efd5c848f56cf9a469c5bf42dd0bca675e0a
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117855
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||15.0
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117855
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++23
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117855
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Reduced without any headers:
> constexpr bool operator==(const i &)
> { return true;}
Note that operator== should have been:
```
constexpr bool operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117856
Bug ID: 117856
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have
‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in gen_type, at
c/c-aux-info.cc:279 with the specified options
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117855
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59749
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59749&action=edit
Started to reduce it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced without any headers:
```
template
struct a{};
template
constexpr int f(const T (&a)[N])
{
return N;
}
template
constexpr int f(const a &a)
{
return N;
}
template
struct i{
constexpr bool op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 117700, which changed state.
Bug 117700 Summary: spurious error "non-constant condition" when inside a class
member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117700
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117700
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
No compiler implements this yet ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: Segmentation fault |ICE: Segmentation fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117855
Bug ID: 117855
Summary: Internal compiler error during substitution of
template with deduction guides, and causes a crash.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117854
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
One way of fixing this for POSIX only is to make gen_copyright_sh a function
which gets included in both (via the `.` command) and then call that function
instead of doing source of the file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117854
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117854
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Ditto gen-h.sh.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117854
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> Please either change the script to have a bash shebang or fix the bashism.
shebang won't work as it's invoked with $(SHELL).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117854
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Introduced by r12-7424-gd59d13c89503ba.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117854
Bug ID: 117854
Summary: gcc/config/nvptx/gen-opt.sh contains a bashism,
causing build failure with /bin/sh as dash
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117666
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The rest I am going to handle for GCC 16.
The list:
For aarch64_general_simulate_builtin:
aarch64_init_pragma_builtins
vamax/vamin
aarch64_init_tme_builtins
aarch64_init_memtag_builtins
aarch64_init_ls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117851
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59747|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117793
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117851
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|all amdgcn offload tests|all amdgcn offload tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117723
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Yes, thanks, fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117786
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110338
Bug 110338 depends on bug 117786, which changed state.
Bug 117786 Summary: [C++26] P3176R0 - Oxford variadic comma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117786
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117360
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb9f1baf2a50f2f1ebe23c5ad62b035d5bcfc14b
commit r15-5814-geb9f1baf2a50f2f1ebe23c5ad62b035d5bcfc14b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117853
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The warning is new as of GCC 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117853
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117853
Bug ID: 117853
Summary: "warning: '?:' using integer constants in boolean
context, the expression will always evaluate to 'true'
[-Wint-in-bool-context]" but no ?: in sight
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117811
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.4
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101639
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicula.iccc at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117852
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117852
Bug ID: 117852
Summary: Missed optimization/vectorization opportunity
(bitwise-OR-ing into a bool accumulator)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117811
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> Can you convert it into a runtime one (or I'll do it in a bit when I've done
> some chores around the house) then I'll try bisect it again?
The same original testin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117811
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Can you convert it into a runtime one (or I'll do it in a bit when I've done
some chores around the house) then I'll try bisect it again?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117811
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|11.2.0, 11.4.0 |
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117811
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> Bisect says r12-897-gde56f95afaaa22 which can't be really to blame.
That definitely exposed it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116181
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e117b92386fb78a09ece9e78f66690722f0abc5
commit r14-11009-g2e117b92386fb78a09ece9e78f66690722f0abc5
Author: Gaius Mulley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: tree check: expected |ICE after error with gimple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117811
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117805
--- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #18)
> I have no idea what you're trying to demonstrate.
> By F2023, 16.9.53 if x is real in cmplx(x), then
> y is set to 0. In addition, actual arguments are
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117820
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With kind=4 we do treat the sign bit as part of the value.
program test
integer(4) :: x
x = -huge(x) - 1_4
print '("-huge -1 = <",B32.32,">")', x
print '("zero = <",B32.32,">")', 0_4
prin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117820
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Back to the Standard
>From the standard, the relevent text is: 13.7.2.4 B, O, and Z editing
---
The value of m shall not exceed the value of w, except when w is zero. If m is
zero and the internal value co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117805
--- Comment #18 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 11/29/24 11:19, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>> The '-' is an unary minus operator. In 'cmplx(-1.)', it operates
>> on only the real part. In '- cmplx(1.)', it operates on both
>> parts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 117833, which changed state.
Bug 117833 Summary: [15 regression] Bootstrap failure in
gcc/go/gofrontend/go-encode-id.cc since r15-5735-g1046c32de4956c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117833
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117833
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117848
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
ml-request should most likely be removed just like what was done on the
sourceware side. (that will fix the FAQ link too).
And the subscription box for announcements should be changed to be a link to
https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117833
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed712cfe2e826cd846705defb1f6ae391baecb3d
commit r15-5808-ged712cfe2e826cd846705defb1f6ae391baecb3d
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117847
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-29
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117851
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 59747
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59747&action=edit
gcc15-pr117851.patch
Completely untested patch to make it working (at least for the explicit -pie or
-shared l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117665
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117665
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af974df94751195ce72e86d7b88e5d5444375b45
commit r15-5803-gaf974df94751195ce72e86d7b88e5d5444375b45
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117668
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af974df94751195ce72e86d7b88e5d5444375b45
commit r15-5803-gaf974df94751195ce72e86d7b88e5d5444375b45
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117851
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And it isn't just about --enable-default-pie, if I do with normally configured
gcc 14.2.1:
cat a.c; gcc -fopenmp -o a a.c -foffload-options=-march=gfx1103 -fpie -pie;
OMP_DEFAULT_DEVICE=1 ./a
#include
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117770
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e79583cef924f5fb5de551bd61da7b5fdee5c690
commit r15-5802-ge79583cef924f5fb5de551bd61da7b5fdee5c690
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117851
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess we need to build both crtoffloadtable.o (for non-PIE binaries) and
crtoffloadtableS.o (for PIE binaries and shared libraries) and build the latter
with
$(CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS_S) instead of $(CRTSTUFF_T_CF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117851
Bug ID: 117851
Summary: all amdgcn offload tests fail with a host compiler
configured with --enable-default-pie
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117805
--- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #16)
> > That makes the conversion from real to complex sort of "slightly
> > anti-linear":
> >
> >print *, cmplx (-1.), - cmplx (1.)
> >
> > gives:
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117805
--- Comment #16 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 11/29/24 10:35, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117805
>
> --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargls from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117805
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #14)
> > > If 'r' is of type REAL and 'z' is of type COMPLEX, the Fortran standard
> > > is clear that the interpretation is
> > >
> > > = r * z
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116557
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59f5d4ef99702619d94b475de06bb937fa6d22af
commit r14-11008-g59f5d4ef99702619d94b475de06bb937fa6d22af
Author: Gaius Mulley
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117842
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117850
--- Comment #3 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2)
> I dont See how this is easier?
It's not to simplify things :) But isn't gimple_fold_builtin restricted to the
same search/valueisation domain as match.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117681
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117681
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:75ade6106bbe010d06e5dddf719c22d4dadd9411
commit r15-5801-g75ade6106bbe010d06e5dddf719c22d4dadd9411
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117726
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117726
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d833114c5f8816dcddfd84a9c64e87c0eed46fe2
commit r15-5800-gd833114c5f8816dcddfd84a9c64e87c0eed46fe2
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117850
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 29.11.2024 um 18:27 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117850
>
>Bug ID: 117850
> Summary: GCC emits DUP, UMULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117850
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114948
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117850
Bug ID: 117850
Summary: GCC emits DUP, UMULL instead of UMULL2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117843
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
The change fixed fortran bootstrap for me. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115910
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, for 0.0 in 387 stack we use still cost 1, similarly for all ones vectors,
and for various other 387 stack standard constants cost 2, so those again will
misbehave in pattern_cost and DTRT in current SE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105771
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 29.11.2024 um 17:21 schrieb matz at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105771
>
> Michael Matz changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115910
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So perhaps that
if (CONSTANT_P (SET_SRC (x)))
/* Constant costs assume a base value of COSTS_N_INSNS (1) and add
a small value, possibly zero for cheap constants. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-29
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116181
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bead6de23ecc75965f7c74a1f05539e30bd36ee0
commit r14-11007-gbead6de23ecc75965f7c74a1f05539e30bd36ee0
Author: Gaius Mulley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105771
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
Bug ID: 117849
Summary: constraint variable in requires expression rejected,
but P2280R4 made it valid
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117814
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf75f86ed980308621ab0db0dc8adc9c72e39f5e
commit r15-5796-gcf75f86ed980308621ab0db0dc8adc9c72e39f5e
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117814
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f42fd8e9335354f986d69b92ab66be07cc31bc7a
commit r15-5798-gf42fd8e9335354f986d69b92ab66be07cc31bc7a
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116181
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb73f78634fd957d99640f79c01dd1a9eb69c783
commit r14-11006-geb73f78634fd957d99640f79c01dd1a9eb69c783
Author: Gaius Mulley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117006
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So if anything, one would need to decide this on something larger rather than
small testcases, say build the whole gcc with -Os + once again with the
revision reverted (or SPEC or firefox or something large)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117006
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But the testcases in #c1 which changed in the exact same commit show that it
isn't always a win to use the old behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117848
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
Originally reported through Fosstodon
https://fosstodon.org/@jonadem@mastodon.social/113565892100662746
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
