https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116254
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #10)
> A bit more info: valgrind succeeds for -O0. But with optimisation enabled
> (-O is enough), it flags:
>
> ==12989== Conditional jump or move depends on uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117892
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I actually think this might be a DSE issue.
Deleted dead store: # .MEM_5 = VDEF <.MEM_3(D)>
# USE = nonlocal
# CLB = { D.2867 }
_Z1bPiD.2862 (&fD.2867);
And that creates an empty basic block with no su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118077
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ted Rodgers from comment #1)
For this, the exact situtation here is that einline inlines b::d into e::f and
changes the virtual call into a direct call of b::c because e is final and it
knows t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||117668
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108939
Ivan Krylov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ikrylov at disroot dot org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE when building |[15 Regression] ICE when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118077
--- Comment #3 from Ted Rodgers ---
ok, I hit the same ICE building with snapshot gcc-15-20241208
(tried latest in case it had been fixed)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118077
--- Comment #1 from Ted Rodgers ---
This could be a dupe of https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117892
reduced code:
int a;
struct b {
virtual int c() { return 0; }
int d() { return a && 0 == c(); }
};
void _setjmp();
struct e f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118077
Bug ID: 118077
Summary: ICE when building openimageio-2.5.13:
oiioversion.h:127:28: internal compiler error: in
single_succ_edge, at basic-block.h:332
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118074
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Weibo He from comment #3)
> Intert a printf into final_suspend helps clang and GCC 10 ~ 14 give expected
> result. While GCC trunk not work.
> Is it a GCC 15 regression?
It does not help -O0 g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118074
--- Comment #3 from Weibo He ---
Intert a printf into final_suspend helps clang and GCC 10 ~ 14 give expected
result. While GCC trunk not work.
https://godbolt.org/z/rEhevKa8h
Output(MSVC, clang, GCC 10 ~ 14):
final_suspend
A(A&&) 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118076
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the easiest way of fixing this is exposing the stack location for the
arguments before expand and do some simple optimizations after that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118076
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-17
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113269
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118076
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||101926
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118076
Bug ID: 118076
Summary: Missed Optimization: Inefficient Stack Usage in
Creating and Passing Large Struct Argument
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117915
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118025
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118074
--- Comment #2 from Weibo He ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Is there a way to check to make sure you are not using the value after
> deconstruction for MSVC too.
Thank you for your comment @Andrew Pinski.
We can take the add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118046
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118075
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv*-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118075
Bug ID: 118075
Summary: [15 Regression] RISC-V: Miscompile at -O3 zvl 256
since r15-4746-g30435cc2610
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118074
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118074
Bug ID: 118074
Summary: [coroutine] Possible over optimization of co_return
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48818
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kstewart at efficios dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118071
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103313
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this code was not valid as there is no way to deduce the template
arguments based on the default argument.
What you can do instead is do this (for C++20 though):
```
template
struct S {
Q mq[I];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103313
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118073
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ispavlick at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118073
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|Bad diagnostic:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118056
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with pack indexing with |ICE with pack indexing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118056
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|lto |c++-lambda, c++26
Summary|IC
27; requested
6 | index_sequence<5> bar = index_sequence<1>();
| ^~~
GCC gives the expected error in gcc 4.4 through 7.x (older untested, Godbolt
coverage is spotty below 4.5); gives a slightly different error in 8.x and 9.x,
and gives this output in 10.x through 14.x and trunk-20241216.
https://godbolt.org/z/ohK3M69s7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118060
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Keywords|needs-bisec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117178
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118070
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|wrong code with _B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118070
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59884
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59884&action=edit
testcase using scalar_storage_order instead of option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |14.1.0
Summary|(n%7) sometim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118072
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So we are just left with the unstablity of the chosing based on the cache and
sometimes the cache is different when first based on divide vs mod.
I suspect if you do timing on the mod with/without using the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118072
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
COSTS_N_INSNS (6)/* si idiv. */
COSTS_N_INSNS (10) /* di idiv. */
+COSTS_N_INSNS (1)
sdiv is +1
x86_64 generic costs are much higher:
```
{COSTS_N_INSNS (16),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Summary|Bootstr
Hi there,
As parents, we all know how much our emotions can impact our children—but
have you ever considered how your anxiety might affect their well-being?
>From mood changes to behavioral shifts, our stress can influence them in
ways we might not even realize.
I’d love to write an article for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118072
Bug ID: 118072
Summary: n % 7 on ARM is bad and unstable.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118071
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure if this is a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118071
Bug ID: 118071
Summary: C++ class method visible in shared object even with
-fviisibility=hidden and -fvisibility-inlines-hidden
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118051
--- Comment #3 from charlet at adacore dot com ---
> --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
>> GNATprove is not part of GCC, please report to the vendor instead.
>
> Though it is documented to be us
> --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
>> GNATprove is not part of GCC, please report to the vendor instead.
>
> Though it is documented to be used:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_rm/SPARK_005f05.html
Other tools are mentioned such as gprbu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118061
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-16
Ever confirmed|0
version 15.0.0 20241216 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118069
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118051
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> GNATprove is not part of GCC, please report to the vendor instead.
Though it is documented to be used:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_rm/SPARK_005f05.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118069
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118069
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59881
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59881&action=edit
Preprocessed source from the trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118068
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not 100% sure if this is a bug.
The IR looks like:
(void) (a = __builtin_ia32_blendps256 (_mm256_set1_ps (3.0e+0),
_mm256_set1_ps (4.0e+0), (int) 128)) >;
Notice the cast there.
Once we chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118069
Bug ID: 118069
Summary: g++ freezes
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118068
--- Comment #1 from Brandon Enochs ---
In GCC 13, this program would compile when building in debug mode. It
currently builds correct with any higher level of optimization enabled. For
reference, my compiler arguments are "-march=haswell -mavx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118068
Bug ID: 118068
Summary: [14 Regression] consteval function not evaulated at
compile time in debug mode
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118025
--- Comment #2 from Dimitar Dimitrov ---
The failures for AVR and PRU are probably related to their unusual
BITS_PER_WORD=8 and BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT=8 configuration.
For AVR:
NA->FAIL: gcc.dg/field-merge-11.c execution test
NA->FAIL: gcc.dg/field-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118060
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118067
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118060
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> 13.2 rejects it, 13.3 ICEs, right?
yes. See comment #3 for case where the code is valid in the end and still ICEs.
And yes GCC 13.2.0 accepted that code while GCC 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118060
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.3.0, 14.1.0
Summary|ICE (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118060
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #3 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118060
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Ever confirmed|
hms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20241216 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118052
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26154
--- Comment #39 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, the gfortran manual already has substantial sections under "Extensions"
about OpenMP and OpenACC. So I guess I will do the same for the GCC manual,
and make that the place where we document w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118055
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5c84fd3c195eb5e553fde84e79dd83712edf732
commit r15-6287-ge5c84fd3c195eb5e553fde84e79dd83712edf732
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118064
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118066
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually a better example:
```
template
constexpr int constexpr_value = sizeof(T);
template
concept VariadicConcept = ((constexpr_value > 1) && ...);
static_assert(VariadicConcept);
```
because the fold e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118066
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
A better example is:
```
template
concept FalsyConcept = requires { requires sizeof(T) > 1; };
template
concept VariadicConcept = (!FalsyConcept && ...);
static_assert(VariadicConcept);
```
>From clang ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118066
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118066
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||67491
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118066
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Murzin ---
A better CE link https://compiler-explorer.com/z/3dG8zKPfb
Where we can also see that Clang is actually quite good at displaying this sort
of failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118066
Bug ID: 118066
Summary: Diagnostic for variadic concept with fold expression
on other concepts is unhelpful
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118053
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118065
Bug ID: 118065
Summary: Debug Mode does not check non-overlapping
preconditions for std::copy et al
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117725
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
even with the changes from comment 3, it still fails with:
In file included from
../../../../../src/libsanitizer/interception/interception.h:18,
from
../../../../../src/libsanitizer/interc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58203
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 118063 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118035
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> It only started to lose data with my r5-9770-g397c5bf9204cc8
Which was the backport of r6-3240-g5caff414f153f5 from trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118035
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118063
Benedikt Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Benedikt S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118064
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed, this is another one which misses the truncation:
From:
b.0_1 = b;
_2 = b.0_1 ^ 1;
b = _2;
...
_5 = (char) _2;
if (_5 != 1)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118064
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118063
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
See specifically https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58203#c2 .
Basically memset/memcpy should either be marked as used or should never be in
LTO because references to them come in late in compiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58203
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||benediktibk at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118064
Bug ID: 118064
Summary: Miscompilation at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116613
--- Comment #37 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea7da640cf234ebde8d73d996dd14e6563c1ffcf
commit r15-6283-gea7da640cf234ebde8d73d996dd14e6563c1ffcf
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117943
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:778336e0e4f25745f76a127801dc3bab5e9c1334
commit r15-6284-g778336e0e4f25745f76a127801dc3bab5e9c1334
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117943
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea7da640cf234ebde8d73d996dd14e6563c1ffcf
commit r15-6283-gea7da640cf234ebde8d73d996dd14e6563c1ffcf
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
