https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118180
Bug ID: 118180
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
tree_vec, have identifier_node in tsubst_decl, at
cp/pt.cc:15617
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118179
Bug ID: 118179
Summary: [15.0 regression] ICE in gimplify
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118178
Bug ID: 118178
Summary: No overload resolution feedback for
copy-initialization which fails to call a converting
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118177
Bug ID: 118177
Summary: C++ Standard Module: ‘mbrtoc8’ has not been declared
in ‘std’
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114801
--- Comment #44 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #43)
> Fixed on trunk and gcc-14.
Except now 14 branch does NOT build. See PR 118176.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118176
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672201.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118176
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Needs r15-1398-g5f40d1c0cc6ce9.
I susepct the commit to the GCC 14 should be reverted until the patch is
actually tested because it was not tested to make sure it b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118176
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118176
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Needs r15-1398-g5f40d1c0cc6ce9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118176
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59953
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59953&action=edit
build.log.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118176
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Version|15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118176
Bug ID: 118176
Summary: [14 regression] GCC fails to build on arm
(arm-mve-builtins.cc:2139:13: error:
‘force_lowpart_subreg’ was not declared in this scope;
did y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118123
--- Comment #6 from Mark Harmstone ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> (In reply to Mark Harmstone from comment #3)
> > Fixed by commit 0b63840e0713.
>
> Mark, if you change your bugzilla email to maharmst...@gcc.gnu.org, you'll
> hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118175
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118175
Bug ID: 118175
Summary: Unable to do auto vectorization for
rv32imafc_zve32f_zvl128b for matrix like c code
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #8 from Andi Kleen ---
Oh actually it's not the beginning, but some point file size / 100 (the scaled
down line cache)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118174
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118174
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|AArch64: Miscompilation at |[15 Regression] AArch64:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #7 from Andi Kleen ---
Actually in my case where i interrupted and the difference was 60k i think the
problem was that the lexer offset was beyond the 100 lines where the position
is cached, and when that happens the file_cache just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen ---
So the file cache has a window of 100 lines:
static const size_t line_record_size = 100;
The indentation code rereads the line of the guard, body, next statement and
that is all cached if it's all within 100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118095
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alx at kernel dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117178
--- Comment #23 from Alejandro Colomar ---
If the attribute could be applied to a type, then you could apply it this way:
alx@debian:~/tmp/gcc$ cat nonstring.c
typeof(__attribute__((nonstring)) char [4]) tags[10];
alx@debian:~/tmp/gcc$ gcc -Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118174
Bug ID: 118174
Summary: AArch64: Miscompilation at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
It is already a bit slow here with (all numbers w/ checking) 11/12 (15s), but
far worse with 13+ (39s). I don't know if we should call it a regression or not
then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118173
Bug ID: 118173
Summary: reinterpret_cast from const void* casts
away constness, but is accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118089
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118172
Bug ID: 118172
Summary: memchr with a small constant size could be inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Yeah, it was preprocessed against gcc-15 with c23 default. At least for gcc-13
you can add a few extra trivial defines to reproduce the slowdown. `-Dtrue=1
-Dfalse=0 -Dbool=int -Dnullptr=0 -D__builtin_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118107
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note there is the following in the documentation about false positive warnings
when enabling -fsanitize=undefined explictly:
```
Note that sanitizers tend to increase the rate of false positive warnings, mos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118109
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118163
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] Diagnostic |Diagnostic not fully
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118123
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117457
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> That being said there is a missing optimization with respect to constprop
> and cloning. Why didn't it prop the last over to clone instead of passing it
> via a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen ---
never mind, i had an old compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #1)
What trunk commit are you building at? That builtin got added in
r15-5939-gfca04028d7075a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118168
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen ---
Did you attach the correct file? I get
mypy.c:9524:5: error: implicit declaration of function
‘__builtin_c23_va_start’; did you mean ‘__builtin_ms_va_start’?
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
9524 | __bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118167
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118167
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100973
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This also works:
```
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/avxintrin.h b/gcc/config/i386/avxintrin.h
index ec9b9905b5f..9e03bf408c2 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/avxintrin.h
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/avxintrin.h
@@ -1145,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117618
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-22
Assignee|unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101713
Jens Gustedt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens.gustedt at inria dot fr
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103298
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Torbjorn Svensson
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e79105ad8c07e7622dd0c9203f31f0718c7c7bcf
commit r14-0-ge79105ad8c07e7622dd0c9203f31f0718c7c7bcf
Author: Torbjörn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103298
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Torbjorn Svensson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e1063ca1c854b13950597fd4a14aff4f15ed822
commit r15-6416-g9e1063ca1c854b13950597fd4a14aff4f15ed822
Author: Torbjörn SVENSSON
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #27 from Andreas Schwab ---
Seems likely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107635
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91d52f87c5bc48eacaf305d515e7cce192c2cf9c
commit r15-6414-g91d52f87c5bc48eacaf305d515e7cce192c2cf9c
Author: Andre Vehreschild
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107635
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:586477d67bf2e320e8ec41f82b194259c1dcc43a
commit r15-6415-g586477d67bf2e320e8ec41f82b194259c1dcc43a
Author: Andre Vehreschild
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #26 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #25)
> 20241220: 2d 06:58:23
That seems like a nice speedup. Do you know what caused that?
Is the because r15-6223-g6dcfe8743134936db17ffdfd0a5102a87338f494 ("genre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #25 from Andreas Schwab ---
20241220: 2d 06:58:23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118102
--- Comment #14 from ganime ---
and forget to mention here is latest mariadb source:
git clone https://github.com/MariaDB/server.git mariadb
Am 19.12.24 um 10:36 schrieb rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118102
--- Comment #13 from ganime ---
here again profile path same and xz file extension
Am 19.12.24 um 10:36 schrieb rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118102
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
> What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118102
--- Comment #12 from ganime ---
here i have profiles tar.gz file with direcotry struchture /mariadb/profs/
Am 19.12.24 um 10:36 schrieb rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118102
>
> Richard Biener change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59949|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59950&action=edit
As reduced as I can get it tonight
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59948|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59948
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59948&action=edit
Reduced but uninclude
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
--- Comment #40 from Antony Polukhin ---
> That doesn't mean it has to be fast though.
Indeed. Alas, people write sub-optimal code, especially when pressed for time
or when compatibility with old versions of the C++ standard is required. It
wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117797
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117797
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61bc5767dbb223506883093fb6ba6be1048e4657
commit r13-9264-g61bc5767dbb223506883093fb6ba6be1048e4657
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117797
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1710c420a0fcea40c983eff2427fe72072099da
commit r14-11109-gd1710c420a0fcea40c983eff2427fe72072099da
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105010
--- Comment #26 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
For the sake of completeness, there are a few differences in test
results - alas for two codebases 24 hours apart, so it's not just
your patch vs my hack that is different.
< FAIL: g++.dg/pch/line-map-2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115008
--- Comment #8 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
Thank you, Nathaniel!
Comparing a build from yesterday including my hack from comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-December/833400.html
with one from today with your proper patc
65 matches
Mail list logo
